Hello Comrades,

Thanks for all your advice about setting up Linux. It was a success. The problem is that I’m now I’m intrigued and I’d like to play around a bit more.

I’m thinking of building a cheap-ish computer but I have a few questions. I’ll split them into separate posts to make things easier. Note: I won’t be installing anything that I can’t get to work on Linux.

Should I prioritise RAM or the processor? My budget is limited so I will have to make a choice between RAM and the processor. Would it be better to go for e.g. 32GB RAM and a slower processor, or 8GB RAM and a faster processor? Or is balance better? Say, 16GB RAM and a ‘medium’ processor (that’s ‘medium’ between the ‘slower’ and the ‘faster’ option within my budget, not ‘medium’ for the market).

Intel or AMD?

  • pyska@lemmygrad.ml
    8·
    1 year ago

    This is just my 2 cents, but I’d go for the CPU. Reason being you can upgrade RAM later with more sticks. However, it all depends on your use case, as this is the old memory-cpu tradeoff dilemma.

    Want speed? Go for CPU. Want to have many tabs open, or guarantee a program does not crash due to low memory even if it doesn’t run at full steam? Go for memory.

    Many virtual machines open? Definitely memory. Gaming? CPU… most of the times.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.mlOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      Mainly typing and reading PDFs and ebooks. Browsing the internet. If it’s useful information, my work laptop has an i3 processor and 8gb RAM and I regularly have to limit the number of documents I have open, which is annoying.

      If it doesn’t make the price skyrocket, I wouldn’t mind playing some games. Nothing AAA, though, I don’t think. If it was legal I would consider using an emulator to play some Pokemon. I might use GIMP occasionally but just for fun, not for work.

      Ideally, as cheap as possible because I’m tight frugal. At the same time, I want it to work.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.mlOP
          1·
          1 year ago

          This is helpful. I think I can opt for an SSD because I don’t need loads of storage, which means I can save by getting a smaller drive. Are there performance losses by filling up an SSD in the same way as with filling up an HDD more than half full?

  • 书行 [he / comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
    3·
    1 year ago

    I think if you go with a slower processor it will limit you on options to upgrade RAM later, if needed to. If you don’t actually do some hardcore stuff on your computer, I would go with medium option and 16GB of RAM. 32GB sounds excessive to me (well, considering you don’t do the suff that needs too much RAM).

    Intel and AMD both work really well under Linux, but I would go for Intel.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.mlOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the advice. Do Intel processors play nicely with AMD GPUs if I decide to add one? And/or are Intel GPUs any good?

    • Prologue7642@lemmygrad.ml
      1·
      1 year ago

      It depends on what is meant by slower CPU. If you can, I would go with current gen staff anyway, and then it doesn’t matter. You can upgrade no matter which CPU you choose. The only factor is a number of channels your CPU have (which will almost always be 2), what generation of DDR it supports (current gen is DDR5 but if you go for older it will be cheaper DDR4) and how many DIMM slots your motherboard have.

      Also, AMD is almost always better value with lower power consumption, with some exception in some rare use cases.

  • Al-Andalusian@lemmygrad.ml
    3·
    1 year ago

    I think nowadays 8GB of RAM doesn’t really make the cut anymore depending on the workload, but you should keep in mind that upgrading a CPU will most likely force you to upgrade your motherboard as well, since by that time there will be newer CPUs that your motherboard won’t support. Upgrading RAM in the future will be less expensive as you can just use new RAM sticks alongside the ones you already have though it will probably affect performance if they are mismatched.

    I think that having a fast CPU now will definitely be better on the long run, but that’s just my opinion. There are probably other comrades more knowledgeable than me.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.mlOP
      2·
      1 year ago

      That makes sense. So I’d go for a motherboard that works with a decent processor and get the best processor I can afford? Then add 16GB RAM if it’s still within the budget, knowing that I can add another stick in a year?

      When looking for a CPU, should I be overly concerned with the number of cores/threads and clock speed? Or is there a more important consideration? I see that manufacturers mention the overclock speed, too, nowadays; I’d have thought it’s better to stick to its standard max speed – is that an outdated view?

  • Soviet Pigeon@lemmygrad.ml
    2·
    1 year ago

    What is your usecase? Can you tell something about what you are doing with your computer. Are you planning to tinker with AI, virtual machines or other things? Are you a video editor, graphic editor or do you work with music? Please tell more about which kind of software you will use.

    Intel or AMD?

    Doesnt really matter. More important is what your expectations about power consumption and performance are

    • redtea@lemmygrad.mlOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      Mainly typing (mainly essays), reading (and annotating) PDFs and ebooks, and browsing the internet and streaming (YouTube, Netflix). Occasionally, I use Excel/Google Sheets. I won’t be using AI. I might use wine if it’s needed to play some games. Otherwise, I won’t be using any virtual machines as I’ll be avoiding Microsoft programs. I don’t edit videos or graphics or make music. I might download videos or music. I might use GIMP occasionally but just for fun, not for work.

      I wouldn’t describe myself as a power user but I do like a snappy computer as I tend to need lots of documents/websites open for reference.

      If it doesn’t make the price skyrocket, I wouldn’t mind playing some games. Nothing AAA, though, I don’t think. I’d like to try HOI4 and Victoria 3. If it was legal I would consider using an emulator to play some Pokemon.

      Lower power consumption would be preferred but I want/need a snappy computer, really. I can’t be dealing with lag. I think processor-wise, it’d need to be at least as fast as OSX runs on an Intel i5 processor and 8GB ram. Windows running on an i3 with 8GB ram is a little too slow for me as it holds me up when I need to work fast. I’m imagining that some Linux distros on an i3 would run as quickly as OSX on an i5 because of how much lighter the OS is. (Feel free to tell me that’s a misguided assumption!)

  • Prologue7642@lemmygrad.ml
    2·
    1 year ago

    Ir really depends on what you do. If you do normal web browsing/gaming etc. I would prioritize CPU, I would still but at least 16 GB, but with that you should be totally fine. If you do something unusual, programming, virtualization, self-hosting, etc. it depends on your workload.