Does Linux play well on AMD chips

O

Openspaces

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2023
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Credits
61
Hi everyone.
Do AMD chips perform as well as intel on linux.
I am looking at a new laptop model>HP 15-eh2000na< , its a touch screen
laptop which I won't really take advantage of, so not worried as long as the
graphics on the Ryzen 5 - 5625U processor is fully functional for video rendering
and music editing in Reaper.

Is there anything with the Ryzen 5 - 5625U processor and Linux that don't play well together.
Or should I go with an Intel based laptop.

Thanks for looking, let me know what you all think
 


IMO. AMD have always been better supported than Intel.
 
Brickwizard said:
IMO. AMD have always been better supported than Intel.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting. I had kept to intel since I found it worked
without any issues for me, my one and only AMD Athlon based
computer was built in 1999, nothing went right with it using red hat
linux, which came as a set of 5 cd 's.

When last I looked into AMD, people were having trouble with
fans blaring, laptops not sleeping or waking up, bad battery life
and lots of heat. I read this has improved though.
 
KGIII said:
That CPU is used in the following device - a device that's certified to work with Ubuntu (so should work fine in all the Linux systems, really):

Dell Vostro 3525 (Ryzen 5 5625U) certified with Ubuntu | Ubuntu

Hardware that have been certified for use with Ubuntu.
ubuntu.com ubuntu.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, I had a look. Dell might be shipping these laptops with
modified drivers, that will work as long as I do not change distros, that is
why I was looking at more generic laptops, I have HP pavilion now, and it has
been the best laptop I have had with Linux on it, Lubuntu.

I found out the HP am currently looking into has the Realtek RTL8822CE
card, at least there is a linux driver for that one.
 
Openspaces said:
Dell might be shipping these laptops with
modified drivers, that will work as long as I do not change distros,
Click to expand...

This is the CPU and onboard graphics and audio, so you can be pretty confident that that CPU will do just fine with any popular distro. Heck, it'd likely work fine even with the more obscure distros.

But, in any case... I have this URL for you:

linux-tips.us

How To: (More or Less) Learn if Your Hardware Will Work With Linux • Linux Tips

New users often wonder if their hardware will work with Linux. This article will help you find out if your hardware will work with Linux.
linux-tips.us linux-tips.us
 
G'day @Openspaces and welcome to linux.org :)

I have a Dell Inspiron 5770 laptop (AMD) hooked to a WD 4TB My Book, and on the rig I run 84 Linux distros with no issues.

So you should be good.

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
 
I've got a 5600G chip installed and it works great with Ubuntu, the moterboard is a slightly different story though...i've had problems with it. Nonetheless, my desktop PC is very high performance and i have only experienced compatibility issues with gaming (that's a software problem).
 
I have a AMD Ryzen 7 3750H with Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx (8) @ 2.300GHz running linux Mint no problem. It seems on recent versions of Linux WIFI is more of an issue than processor model.

Bob
 
bwingbob said:
I have a AMD Ryzen 7 3750H with Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx (8) @ 2.300GHz running linux Mint no problem. It seems on recent versions of Linux WIFI is more of an issue than processor model.

Bob
Click to expand...
You've got that nail on the head...which sucks because for most people the wifi adapter is just as important as the CPU...
 
CrazedNerd said:
You've got that nail on the head...which sucks because for most people the wifi adapter is just as important as the CPU...
Click to expand...
I went through much PAIN trying to get any version of Linux to play nice with the WIFI adapter in my Wife's laptop and ended up buying a tiny USB adapter that just worked for her machine. Now I look really close at the WIFI specs on anything new. Pretty much staying away from Realtek adapters for now.
 
bwingbob said:
I went through much PAIN trying to get any version of Linux to play nice with the WIFI adapter in my Wife's laptop and ended up buying a tiny USB adapter that just worked for her machine. Now I look really close at the WIFI specs on anything new. Pretty much staying away from Realtek adapters for now.
Click to expand...
What brand finally worked?
 
Bob, no need to answer, but it may be worthwhile authoring a Thread in Networking, eg

"Wifi Adapters Supporting Linux - Add Yours Too"

and put in that link of yours? If it gets support I could pin it there.

Thanks for sharing.

Apologies to the OP here, @Openspaces for briefly hijacking your Thread, and back On Topic from here, please.

Cheers

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
 
@Openspaces :-

TBH, I've never noticed any difference between the two. AMD, Intel.....who cares?

Older chips of any make weren't as well supported under Linux, or if they were, it usually involved arcane kernel-line 'fixes' in the bootloader. Intel always used to have issues with Linux display stuff back in the 2000s, because their on-board GPUs were, to put it succinctly, CRAP. In recent years they've really got their act together in this regard; I suspect it took them a while to comprehend that GPU architecture is completely alien to that of CPUs. Either that or Chipzilla were concentrating on their enterprise sales to such an extent that they really didn't have time for such things.....

Whatever.

As for AMD overheating issues, I never understood where that came from. Back in the day, I ran a Compaq Presario desktop.......this was built shortly before the HP buy out, when it all went downhill & Compaq became simply a name in HP's product range (a sad end to a highly innovative company that were often years ahead of their time). This thing used an Athlon64 X2 dual-core, with a massive hunk of aluminium for a heat-sink. Wintertime, it would read under 20C at boot, rising to maybe low-30s under heavy load. Even in a boiling hot summer it never got above mid-40s....except for one memorable occasion when I was rendering a 20-minute video in Openshot at 30 fps and 1080p. I believe that was the only time it ever hit 53C.....

----------------------------------------------------

Mine ran as cool as a cucumber. Perhaps others had issues with AMDs; I wouldn't know. All I will say is that in all the years I used it with Linux, mine never gave me an ounce of trouble.


Mike. ;)
 
Last edited:
My first computer was an 8088, my first build was a 386, being a cheapskate, I've used AMD in every one as they've been less expensive than Intel. I've not had many problems with AMD. The only 1 or 2 that did, were more then likely due to old age and/or abuse rather then any manufacturer's defects. For those Orwellian's out there, I got my first computer in 1984.
 
Last edited:
AMD made the first 64-bit x86 compatible mainstream ( opteron ) chips for PCs. I notice many packages are named something like...
xxxxx-amd64.rpm or xxxx-amd64.deb. I also notice that the large PC (server) vendors ( Dell, HP, Lenovo ) all make
servers with your choice of both Intel and AMD. At the current time, AMD servers are out-selling Intel based servers.
(Probably because of slightly lower cost).

I run both here at home, and don't have any problems with either.

64-bit computing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
dos2unix said:
AMD made the first 64-bit x86 compatible mainstream ( opteron ) chips for PCs
Click to expand...
Intel and their associates were about a year ahead in development of the X86 processor, but were beaten to the post by AMD and thanks to machine builders going for it, it all but killed off the intel project and became the industry standard, if it had gone the other way, then x86 processors would not have been 32 bit backwards compatible
 
Brickwizard said:
Intel and their associates were about a year ahead in development of the X86 processor, but were beaten to the post by AMD and thanks to machine builders going for it, it all but killed off the intel project and became the industry standard, if it had gone the other way, then x86 processors would not have been 32 bit backwards compatible
Click to expand...
All that faffing-about in the courts, with Intel being basically forced to license x86 to AMD and anybody else who wanted it - a situation Chipzilla were NOT happy about - merely served to muddy the waters and cloud the issue further at a time when there was a lot of exciting development going on in CPUs. Hardly surprising the general public didn't know which way to jump for at least a couple of years, with everything being suspended in legalese.....

At least Intel's subsequent stagnant stranglehold on the market DID eventually get broken.

@dos2unix :-

More to the point, I would re-phrase that observation such that it read "the world's first commercially-viable 64-bit CPU, yet retaining 32-bit backward compatibilty". As Brickwizard says, Itanium DID beat the Athlon64/Opteron64 chips to market; the whole concept of CPU instructions being literally compiled "on-the-fly", cycle-by-cycle AS they were called-for was inescapably a bold vision.....but it was a commercial flop. The market simply wasn't ready for it, and Intel wanted to break 32-bit backward compatibility completely. The Athlon64 was what the market wanted, just at the right time......so the "amd64" moniker on 64-bit packages is, to this day, a kind of industry tribute.


Mike. :)
 
Last edited:
I've never had any problems with anything AMD or Intel using Linux always worked OOTB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 542 (members: 3, guests: 539)

Latest posts

Top