AMD recommends Intel's Linux distribution for its Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

WYP · #1 12-02-20, 01:27 PM

Talk about beating Intel at its own game...

Read more about AMD's Ryzen 3990X getting its best Linux performance on an Intel-optimised distribution.

hmmblah · #2 12-02-20, 03:38 PM

/waits for Intel to intentionally cripple AMD performance...

NeverBackDown · #3 12-02-20, 04:50 PM

It's open source so anyone can make a contribution for AMD or just a general performance boost. While Intel is leading the way the point behind this OS was pure speed. It only a few months ago was basically just a terminal OS. Meaning like the old DOS days. So yeah it's not nearly as heavy as other Linux distros(which are already light). That's the reason for a performance boost.

Still it's impressive but really Intel has nothing to compete with the 3990x so it of course will win. If Intel had a 64 core CPU it'd be more interesting imo

hmmblah · #4 12-02-20, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeverBackDown

It's open source so anyone can make a contribution for AMD or just a general performance boost. While Intel is leading the way the point behind this OS was pure speed. It only a few months ago was basically just a terminal OS. Meaning like the old DOS days. So yeah it's not nearly as heavy as other Linux distros(which are already light). That's the reason for a performance boost.

Still it's impressive but really Intel has nothing to compete with the 3990x so it of course will win. If Intel had a 64 core CPU it'd be more interesting imo

It was a joke.

Open source doesn't quite work that way. Yes, that's the spirit of things, but it doesn't mean someone's contribution will be committed. That person could fork and make their own branch, but it wouldn't be distributed by the "Official" page for these types of projects.

None of the linux servers I manage have a GUI, it's all cli. I did try using linux as my desktop OS years ago, managed to do it on my laptop for a year or two. My distro of choice back then was SUSE with KDE. Now everything I run is CentOS except on some Pi's I'm running Raspbian.

NeverBackDown · #5 13-02-20, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmmblah

It was a joke.

Open source doesn't quite work that way. Yes, that's the spirit of things, but it doesn't mean someone's contribution will be committed. That person could fork and make their own branch, but it wouldn't be distributed by the "Official" page for these types of projects.

None of the linux servers I manage have a GUI, it's all cli. I did try using linux as my desktop OS years ago, managed to do it on my laptop for a year or two. My distro of choice back then was SUSE with KDE. Now everything I run is CentOS except on some Pi's I'm running Raspbian.

I know it doesn't work that way but it's still possible.

I'm not surprised you only deal with the CLI but for an OS that is supposed to be for the average user, a GUI is fundamental. So the fact it's been only CLI until a few months ago and therefore light on features hence it's speed was the point I was making

Avet · #6 14-02-20, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeverBackDown

I know it doesn't work that way but it's still possible.

I'm not surprised you only deal with the CLI but for an OS that is supposed to be for the average user, a GUI is fundamental. So the fact it's been only CLI until a few months ago and therefore light on features hence it's speed was the point I was making

It really depends on the use case, skill level, and preference. GUI is not needed for Linux functions. When I am on Linux I use Terminal for 80% of the commands. Mostly because I find standard "windows" navigation ineffective. Whenever I can I use Total Commander or alternatives. I am in love since the days of Norton Commander. Terminal and NC layout are far superior to a bunch of open windows.

And also Intel's Clear Linux was not meant for average users like Ubuntu, or Linux Mint. So for the people that Clear Linux was built for GUI or CLI, it really doesn't make a difference.

AlienALX · #7 14-02-20, 04:24 PM

If you watch adoreds latest video you'll see how Intel have spent billions of dollars enabling AMD.

When ryzen launched Intel stupidly thought they could "out core" AMD so spent billions getting companies to make stuff more highly threaded. AMD must be laughing so hard right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmmblah

/waits for Intel to intentionally cripple AMD performance...

They tried but AMD have thrown so much muscle at the problem that brute force is overcoming that issue.

Jayz has a video up where his editor switched to a 32 core TR and if just demolishes Intel.

NeverBackDown · #8 14-02-20, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avet

It really depends on the use case, skill level, and preference. GUI is not needed for Linux functions. When I am on Linux I use Terminal for 80% of the commands. Mostly because I find standard "windows" navigation ineffective. Whenever I can I use Total Commander or alternatives. I am in love since the days of Norton Commander. Terminal and NC layout are far superior to a bunch of open windows.

And also Intel's Clear Linux was not meant for average users like Ubuntu, or Linux Mint. So for the people that Clear Linux was built for GUI or CLI, it really doesn't make a difference.

It does make a difference. As I said twice now it's lighter on features compared to most other popular distro's that *use* a GUI. I'd argue most people that use linux distros are way above the average user. So when people compare Clear Linux to other distro's that have a GUI, it's only fair to point it out.

I'm not arguing it's *not* fast. Just in context people seem to forget. It's easily one of the fastest Distro's. As evidenced in the article written by Phoronix(the source).