My old 4790k finally died, and I need to replace both the CPU & MB. I was wondering if there would be any conflict in having an AMD CPU and an Nvidia GPU.

I want to use Bazzite on it. I’m running the same distro on my main rig and I’m very happy with it.

Any suggestions?

  • gray@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    16 days ago

    CPU is pretty much irrelevant to GPU choice.

    Personally I wouldn’t buy any recent intel CPU with the dishonesty and major flaws in their products as of late, but that’s up to you to decide - AMD’s most recent CPUs haven’t been amazing either, but don’t have hardware flaws at least.

    • kusivittula@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      correct me if I’m wrong, but the performance issues in the new AMD chips were microsofts fault and they work fine on linux.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      The number of flawed products was very small (only high end 13 and 14 gen) and it is now fixed as Intel has pinned down the root cause.

      Don’t base your purchasing choices on that. The media loves to report major screw ups and rarely reports there fixes.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        The number was not small. It was 10+ SKUs… which also happened to be most of the most popular ones.

        Intel claimed multiple times to have fixed the issue, only for it to have not been fixed. Maybe it really is fixed this time, but who knows?

        Also, stuff is often in warehouses for months. You could very easily still get an affected CPU. And intel has been very clear that they will not replace faulty CPUs. If you get a faulty CPU, you’re on your own.

        It’s not worth the risk.

        This is all on top of Intel having worse CPUs on a worse platform with zero upgrade path even if you ignore a lot of them being faulty, which you obviously shouldn’t.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          The problem was caused by a bug in the CPU firmware. the issue is that the CPU requests higher voltages and tries to boost when it really can’t safely boost. The additional power doesn’t get used up and then decades the chip if you are unlucky. It was purely a software bug that caused hardware damage in some cases. New on the shelf units are not affected assuming they have up to date firmware. (Update your firmware always)

          Also it only impacts high end 13 and 14 gen CPUs. If you are buying a high end chip that is 13th or 14th gen then just update the microcode. Also there are plenty of CPUs that are totally unaffected like the 12th gen and probably the 15th gen. Even if you have one of the affected CPUs there is only a relatively small chance of having and issue depending on the sillion and workload.

          Don’t all flock to a single company. That drives up prices and limits completion. Intel has really done themselves a disservice by not being more transparent.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwHVGoY-Z68

          • terraborra@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 days ago

            There were chips that suffered from oxidative flaws during the manufacturing process which Intel didn’t tell anybody about until July of this year. You are correct that they aren’t on sale now but it’s not correct to say this was only a voltage issue.

          • enkers@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 days ago

            If anything, Intel’s lack of transparency should speak volumes. They’re hoping to just mostly ignore the problem until it blows over. I still think it’s more severe than they’re letting on, but only time will tell. They’re in full damage control mode right now.

            Anyone who gets scared off of buying Intel CPU’s until they see how this plays out is making a sound decision IMO. Consumers shouldn’t accept this kind of behaviour.

            On the flip side, this could also make for some potentially good deals on unaffected SKUs.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              16 days ago

              Hopefully they will recover. I want options and only looking at AMD is very limiting.

              I’m sure AMD is not taking any risks these days as they want to keep Intel in the sun.

              • enkers@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                16 days ago

                Agreed. In the long term it’s better for consumers if there is competition, but that also means being an informed consumer, making good buying decisions and not being blindly loyal to any particular brand.

                • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  16 days ago

                  I also think used is a pretty good option. Sure some people might need pots of performance but most people would be fine on a 10 year old CPU.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 days ago

            There was a two-generation long lithography issue that they had not been able to solve. You are grossly understating the technical scope of the problem, as well as the trust issues Intel themselves created with the way they handled the whole debacle.

            I’m not ever going to buy a 13/14 gen Intel core unless it’s at absolute bargain basement prices. In a professional IT context, nobody in purchasing departments should be buying the impacted SKUs in the affected date range (and practically, that means “they won’t buy those SKUs, full stop”).

      • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        I mean, the issues were present and widely reported for several months before Intel even acknowledged the problems. And it wasn’t just media reporting this, it was also game server hosts who were seeing massive deployments failing at unprecedented rates. Even those customers, who get way better support than the average home user, were largely dismissed by intel for a long time. It then took several more months to ship a fix. The widespread nature of the issues points to a major failure on the companies part to properly QA and ensure their partners were given accurate guidance for motherboard specs. Even so, the patches only prevent further harm to the processor, it doesnt fix any damage that has already been incurred that could amount to years off of its lifespan. Sure they are doing an extended warranty, but thats still a band-aid.

        I agree it doesnt mean one should completely dismiss the possibility of buying an Intel chip, but it certinally doesn’t inspire confidence.

        Even if this was all an oversight or process failure, it still looks a lot like Intel as a whole deciding to ship chips that had a nice looking set of numbers despite those numbers being achieved through a degraded lifespan.

  • MXX53@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 days ago

    You could go either way. But with the shit going on with the 13th and 14th gen Intel chips, I personally would rather go the AMD route. I would actually probably go with 5000 series chips with ddr4 ram for the savings. It would probably still be a huge upgrade for me, and it would be overall a much cheaper upgrade. If you are gaming primarily, the 5800x3d is still an amazing chip for gaming when it comes price to performance.

    • kyoji@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      It looks like the 5800x3D (and other AM4 cups) have been discontinued. They are going out of stock everywhere. Might be better to go with AM5 (7000 and 9000 series) at this point.

  • nyan@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    The GPU doesn’t care about the CPU, or vice-versa. AMD is probably better value for money right now if you’re intending to replace both CPU and mobo, but Intel will work.

    The reason you don’t see AMD CPU + nVidia GPU in premade machines these days has to do with corporate contracts, not interoperability. Before AMD bought out ATI, it wasn’t an uncommon combination.

  • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    I’ve been an intel boy since I first started building computers in 2014.

    Buy an AMD.

  • NIB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    Either is fine but i strongly recommend going for amd, especially an x3d one, like 7800x3d(if you care about gaming).

  • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    There is basically 1 reason to go Intel cpu: quicksync video encoding. Amd’s is fine but intel’s is the gold standard.

    Otherwise definitely go amd, it rocks Nvidia perfectly.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      I don’t have a good comparison for this since my Intel CPUs are from 2014 or earlier, but I was thoroughly impressed with how well my new AMD laptop did video encoding (compared to the only-as-expected bumps in performance otherwise). Do you have examples of how much better QuickSync is than VCN?

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        So VCN has caught up some, but QS is still faster, generally has better support and better codecs before VCN. Also has combinations, vainfo gives me something like 20 encoders on intel, 8 on amd, mostly stuff like 444 for each variant of hevc, etc. Also my 7600xt was more picky with which settings it would take, the intel block seems fairly comfortable with more.

        My Xe has AV1 encode (at ludicrous speeds, I get 30x sometimes, it changed my flow entirely, I stream av1 only now), it’s had hevc well earlier than amd, and overall it’s usually a good bit faster (an intel igpu will usually encode faster than an amd dgpu).

        Also quality has been reviewed to be better, feel free to google that, it’s apparently pretty marginal to human observers.

        But like I said, the difference is nowhere like it was, AMD is catching up, software is coming together so vaapi covers most cases without complaint.

        There’s no reason to consider the difference between them unless encoding is your primary focus, and you’re trying to use very modern codecs.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      With AMD supporting their sockets for long periods of time, there’s -1 reasons to buy Intel.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Basically.

        I like the E and p cores, mostly because I used to do a lot of core architecture for supercomputer chips and this was one of my ideas I wanted to implement, fully heterogenous cores with Linux support for scheduling.

        But no, there’s no reason to pick Intel, I only got it because it was cheap, and I don’t use it for gaming.