Which one contributes more to open source? AMD or Intel?

[EarthMind]

Which one of both companies contribute the most to Linux open source projects, excluding their own driver support?

Browsing the net I've noticed that Intel is a big time supporter of Linux and open source and I've found nothing special about AMD except for their the development of their own drivers for Linux.

I'm planning to buy a new PC and was initially going for AMD + Nvidia (I've always been an AMD supported in the past as a Windows user) but since AMD doesn't seem to be very active (correct me if I'm wrong) in Linux desktop development, I may consider paying a bit more for Intel + Nvidia hardware.

I noticed that only Intel of the two actively develops the X project which is like the second important part of the Linux desktop so I may go choose for Intel instead depending on the feedback.

Thanks in advance

[deanjo]

Well I guess that depends on what you consider contributions. Amd contributes more back to GCC then intel (which is one of the reasons why GCC does a good job on AMD processors where intel favors it's own compilers) , intel seems to contribute back to X (almost to ruling it with an iron fist), AMD sponsors some distro's with build servers, mirror servers and such. AMD and Nvidia have contributed back to openCL, intel hasn't done alot in that area. I don't think you can draw a clear cut, who gives more as contributions come in many shapes and forms.

Lets not forget that by supporting the 10,000 ton gorilla instead of the smaller guy that needs that financial aid isn't going to help out their ability to contribute back either.

[EarthMind]

I knew the part about the GCC contributions but ignored it as it's yet another part where AMD just contributes to add support for their own hardware while Intel has their own compiler.

Thanks for the reply

[Zhick]

Lets not forget that by supporting the 10,000 ton gorilla instead of the smaller guy that needs that financial aid isn't going to help out their ability to contribute back either.
/signed
Currently I'd definitly go with an AMD-system, as AMD tries it's best to support FOSS, really needs the money and is finaly offering a competive platform again (at least on the desktop...).
It annoys me that the last time I got a new system (3 years or so ago) there was just no way to justify an AMD-system (the C2D raped the x2 5000+). I still wanted to get a x2 5000+ because my previous AMD-system had served me well and I really liked the company, but it wasn't available for 1-2 months. So I ended up with an E6600.
Now I a) lack the money and b) just don't have the need to get a new system. Maybe a notebook, but there AMD still lags behind Intel... well, maybe if there appear some cheap AMD-Yukon based subnotebooks.
I noticed that only Intel of the two actively develops the X project which is like the second important part of the Linux desktop so I may go choose for Intel instead depending on the feedback.
I think AMD employees two (or atleast one) radeon developer(s) and funds together with Novell a bunch of radeonhd-developers.

[deanjo]

I knew the part about the GCC contributions but ignored it as it's yet another part where AMD just contributes to add support for their own hardware while Intel has their own compiler.

Thanks for the reply

Sure, one could also say a vast majority of intels contributions have been focused on their hardware as well, (sometimes being left abandoned and unmaintained resulting in items like the recent kernel kills nic fiasco). They both are after all hardware companies. You also can see example's where software was going to be ported to linux but intel bought the tech and killed the dream. *cough*project offset *cough*.

[Sarvatt]

I pretty much only use amd based systems, but I've gotta say intel is the winner here in my eyes. They do an ENORMOUS amount of kernel development, even the ACPI system is managed by entirely by intel employees. Just about every major project I look up has intel employee contributions in the recent history. I have yet to see an amd contribution to the kernel but I haven't been following it more than 6 months and I don't use linux on my machine with an ATI card so I'm probably missing the development done there. Or maybe they don't sign everything with AMD/ATI when they submit stuff like every intel employee does :D

[monraaf]

I have yet to see an amd contribution to the kernel but I haven't been following it more than 6 months

Try grepping the kernel source for amd.com. I see contributions going back to 2001.

[Hephasteus]

AMD/ATI are all over OpenCL.

[Sarvatt]

Try grepping the kernel source for amd.com. I see contributions going back to 2001.

Good call, doing the same for intel.com shows just how huge the disparity is :D all of the amd ones are just to support their devices, but the intel ones touch alot of the core components to the kernel.

[monraaf]

Good call, doing the same for intel.com shows just how huge the disparity is :D all of the amd ones are just to support their devices, but the intel ones touch alot of the core components to the kernel.

You are right, it won't have any effect on my hardware purchase decisions though :D

[deanjo]

Good call, doing the same for intel.com shows just how huge the disparity is :D all of the amd ones are just to support their devices, but the intel ones touch alot of the core components to the kernel.


Keep in mind as well again the sheer amount of resources intel has to spare vs AMD. Keeping that in mind the field starts to level out. (Just dropping IA-64 specific code drops that down by a bunch too)

[energyman]

Well, remember when AMD introduced amd64 (aka x86_64). Linux was the first OS to support it. And do you know why?
Because AMD did not only help the devs - it also included suggestions from the linux devs into the architecture. Has Intel ever done something like this?

[deanjo]

Well, remember when AMD introduced amd64 (aka x86_64). Linux was the first OS to support it. And do you know why?
Because AMD did not only help the devs - it also included suggestions from the linux devs into the architecture. Has Intel ever done something like this?
Ya, AMD had an emulator ready for devs way before the Athlon 64 ever came out. I was going to stay away from that one because it could be seen as product oriented even though intel eventually adopted it as well begrudingly because MS was backing it.

[Hephasteus]

Ya deanjo. That and itanium was a huge bust cause it caused so many problems with 32 bit compatability when mixing 64-bit and 32-bit.

[tball]

Which one of both companies contribute the most to Linux open source projects, excluding their own driver support?

Browsing the net I've noticed that Intel is a big time supporter of Linux and open source and I've found nothing special about AMD except for their the development of their own drivers for Linux.

I'm planning to buy a new PC and was initially going for AMD + Nvidia (I've always been an AMD supported in the past as a Windows user) but since AMD doesn't seem to be very active (correct me if I'm wrong) in Linux desktop development, I may consider paying a bit more for Intel + Nvidia hardware.

I noticed that only Intel of the two actively develops the X project which is like the second important part of the Linux desktop so I may go choose for Intel instead depending on the feedback.

Thanks in advance

Uhm why not support both intel + amd, buying intel with an Amd gfx card. Given fglrx is getting better (maybe not as good as nvidia yet, but its getting there) and you will also get an opensource driver later. I would say that is a win / win situation :-D

[bugmenot]

I make you a list how many points each company gets: :D

Intel *and* AMD contribute much (1 point each), so either way you do not something wrong. nVidia for example does not help linux at all (-1 point) , so simply buy not nVidia if you like linux and open source. They do not even help the nouveau developers and ignore petitons with more than 10.000 signers.

AMD has AFAIK open source support (not everywhere 3d, yet, but the future sound promising) for every graphics card AMD provides (+1 point) and also they sell cards for gaming with open and officially supported 3d support (very important in my opinion (+1 point), intel cards for example are not for gaming and intel does not support the poulsbo driver (-1 point), which is a bad thing. Actually intel has a really good image, but the poulsbo driver is really crap. Even if it is actually not really by intel, but as long as intel's name is under it, intel should support it.

There are other opensource projects, like coreboot (a free BIOS implementation), and there AMD helps really a lot and intel does in practice not help at all. (+1 point)

AMD helps more in GCC, because intel has it's own compiler, but intel helps a lot with linux in general (kernel, powertop etc...) (both 1 point)

VIA has hired a man who can be asked for open source questions and it seems they make good progress so VIAa is not such a bad choice i think (1 point). I don't know how much they contributed to linux, yet.

And now look at how the companies look financially: intel is really rich and so it is not a big deal to hire a few developers, but for AMD it is a bigger step, because they do not make so much profit at the moment (+1 point). I can't speek for VIA, because i know not enough about this company.

So if you ask me, buy VIA, intel or AMD, and if you can, buy AMD, because they have the most points. :)

And don't take the points so serious, of couse intel has helped the linux ecosystem much more than via yet, of course. This list is just for helping you to get an overview over the situation.



AMD:6
intel:1
VIA: 1
nVidia: -1


Apart from that i'd buy AMD anyway, because they need the money and the processors are fast enough in every case for me and they also produce in germany.

[monraaf]

I make you a list how many points each company gets: :D

[...]

AMD:6
intel:1
VIA: 1
nVidia: -1



Good analysis. However I would like to deduct 1 point from AMD for not having opened up the UVD block on their hardware.

[EarthMind]

Uhm why not support both intel + amd, buying intel with an Amd gfx card. Given fglrx is getting better (maybe not as good as nvidia yet, but its getting there) and you will also get an opensource driver later. I would say that is a win / win situation :-D

That's something I really want to avoid seeing how superior Nvidia's Linux driver is compared to ATI's. As long as there's no VDPAU alternative in ATI's Linux driver ATI is a no go for me.

[mirv]

How about we all try to avoid another "nvidia is better, no ati is better" thread here. There's plenty available on discussing the closed source linux drivers from both companies, the pros and cons of each, but last I checked, this thread wasn't about that.

[kraftman]

Uhm why not support both intel + amd, buying intel with an Amd gfx card. Given fglrx is getting better (maybe not as good as nvidia yet, but its getting there) and you will also get an opensource driver later. I would say that is a win / win situation :-D

That's right and when someone wants to support OS friendly companies just avoid nvidia.

[mithu]

"The idea is that there is more utility with them in open source and to
encourage a wider ... If there is, AMD and anyone else is welcome to contribute.
Reinders noted that Intel's decision to open source TBB was the right one.