Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: AMD AM2 processor Motherboard that works with Linux?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordmozilla View Post
    I would stay away from nvidia chipsets, would probably pick a 780g board, they seem good value for money, something from Gigabyte/Asus
    Exact opposite. I wouldn't touch another ATI chipset board until they have their southbridge issues resolved.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I'm running a DFI LANParty DK 790GX-M2RS and haven't had any major issues. I initially had a problem with my fresh Lenny installation improperly naming the boot HD, but a) that was easily fixed in Grub, and b) I don't have the technical knowledge to say for sure that it was a hardware incompatibility issue.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    ATI chipsets work fine. The some SB600 boards had some issues with the older 2.6.24 kernels, but they got fixed now. Only real downsides to them are rather lackluster SATA performance (USB speeds aren't that great either).

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melcar View Post
    Only real downsides to them are rather lackluster SATA performance (USB speeds aren't that great either).
    Those are the exact issues I'm referring to. They have yet to be fixed.

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/13628/10

  5. #15

    Default

    The South Bridge 600 has lots of problems, but the SB 750 is ok from what I understand.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    817

    Default

    Well I have a SB600 a.t.m. and it's working fine. But I'm not exactly sure which Kernel (gentoo) I started, it was probably .26 series.
    The .28 is running fine and I didn't find any issues.
    Can't judge about speed but since I came from an USB 1.1 system everything USB 2 is striking fast.
    SATA doesn't seem to be slow, too. But all my older stuff was PATA (UDMA 100) so...

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    There are a few benchies on PTS Global comparing SB600 SATA performance to a competing nvidia chip (or I can run one right now if anyone bothers to compare). It's not good; not a slaughter, but definately not good. SB750 is no better either. This is under both Linux and Windows, so it's a hardware fault rather than an OS compatibility issue.
    As for the kernels, I think it was the .24s that had problems with some boards and the disk controllers. The guys in the kernel bug tracker were cool enough to provide me with a fix which they then build into latter kernel revisions. Kernels .25 and newer should work with no issues.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    817

    Default

    Does anybody know then how good nvidia is giving support/specs to the kernel developers? I mean we all know about that nvidia graphic card situation and in compariosn AMD-ATI giving full specs (though the nv-binaries aren't really bad).
    So what about the chipsets then? I never had an nvidia chipset (all mine were either amd, intel and most of them probably via) so I don't know. I see the options in Kernel config but no practical experience.
    And can [i]one{/i] single review/comparison be the high wisdom? I'd consider using more sources for building an opinion, even when it is Phoronix.

    And I'll have the joy to work with a SB750 probably next week. I'll see what happens. As long as all of it runs and performance ain't sub level 0 it's fine for me. Moreover these new chipsets are to suck up just about 10 W which is a nice thing for me. Don't know about nvidia's chipsets though.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adarion View Post
    Does anybody know then how good nvidia is giving support/specs to the kernel developers? I mean we all know about that nvidia graphic card situation and in compariosn AMD-ATI giving full specs (though the nv-binaries aren't really bad).
    So what about the chipsets then? I never had an nvidia chipset (all mine were either amd, intel and most of them probably via) so I don't know. I see the options in Kernel config but no practical experience.
    And can [i]one{/i] single review/comparison be the high wisdom? I'd consider using more sources for building an opinion, even when it is Phoronix.

    And I'll have the joy to work with a SB750 probably next week. I'll see what happens. As long as all of it runs and performance ain't sub level 0 it's fine for me. Moreover these new chipsets are to suck up just about 10 W which is a nice thing for me. Don't know about nvidia's chipsets though.
    Nvidia chipsets are very well supported in linux. Everything from their bios raid to their usb/firewire/nics have been supported for a very long time. Unlike videocards chipsets, motherboard logic has to adhere to a tighter set of standards for compatibility purposes. Not much deviation can be done without severely running into device incompatibility issues. Nvidia chipsets for the most part kept AMD in the servermarket. AMD had no solution of their own for the opterons.

    That being all said, perhaps the SB800 southbridge should improve things. On paper at least it looks like a winner and should finally fix some long outstanding issues with the ati chipsets.
    Last edited by deanjo; 03-12-2009 at 08:55 PM.

  10. #20

    Default SATA perf

    Quote Originally Posted by Melcar View Post
    There are a few benchies on PTS Global comparing SB600 SATA performance to a competing nvidia chip (or I can run one right now if anyone bothers to compare). It's not good; not a slaughter, but definately not good. SB750 is no better either. This is under both Linux and Windows, so it's a hardware fault rather than an OS compatibility issue.
    Are these problems relevant for typical end-user systems, or just servers that need massive disk throughput?

    My current system is I think SB700 based (Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H), and it seems to have better SATA disk I/O performance than any other desktop system I've ever used (hdparm -t says around 120 MB/s, and disk-intensive operations also "feel" very fast)... in my case at least I suspect it's the disk that's the limiting factor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •