Ask Your Question

Developer machine-hardware compatible with F20

asked 2014-09-11 10:06:12 -0500

piprog gravatar image


I am going to order a new machine for developer purposes. I assume that processor (i5 or i7) and RAM (16GB) is not a issue, because it will work without any problems with F20. The most problematic thing is graphic card. What would be the best, compatible with F20 option for me (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti "Maxwell" is too expensive)?

Is there anything else regarding hardware that I should take into consideration?


edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

2 Answers

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted

answered 2014-09-11 10:43:28 -0500

cobra gravatar image

I went down the AMD route when I upgraded mine. I went for an A8 which is video and cpu on one die, the main advantage being the power cost, it runs at 65W I think. I also found the video drivers worked with 3D acceleration out-of-the-box with Fedora, no proprietary drivers are needed. This means I can play Steam games without any additional hardware.

There are more beefy versions of my CPU - and for development you might want to get as many cores as you can, but quad core A10 is reasonably priced and runs at about 95W.

If you're happier going down the Intel route, then any video card is fine - steer clear of the very bleeding edge of nVidia if you want to go that way, and you should be fine. If you're into AMD/ATI then just double check that the high power video card you're about to buy is supported. Even now their Linux chipset support can be a little bit patchy.

The same 'dont-buy-the-very-newest' advice applies to pretty much all the hardware you can get these days. But having updated systems with similar hardware spec. to my Linux box with commercial operating systems over the last year, my experience of hardware support is that it's exceptionally good and usually better than in the commercial operating system world. My only caveat here is that we never buy the latest high performance kit - it costs three times the price of the 'normal' kit, and the 10% boost you get in performance generally isn't worth it.

edit flag offensive delete link more



Agreed. There are many pros and cons to whether you decide to go Intel or AMD but I also recommend not getting the absolute latest. I tend to give something a few months if I'm going to buy new hardware because I figure in that much time, kernel developers and whatnot have enough time to hash out support and any potential problems.

And as stated above, it's generally not worth the problems for a 10% boost in potential performance.

jmcknight gravatar imagejmcknight ( 2014-09-13 12:29:26 -0500 )edit

answered 2014-09-11 13:28:14 -0500

jmcknight gravatar image

If you're going the Intel route, I've personally found that the on-chip Intel HD graphics are more than adequate. I work as a web designer and developer and for my uses, this solution works well plus the Intel graphics code is completely Open Source so you don't have to deal with binary drivers and the like.

edit flag offensive delete link more



I'd overlooked the Intel video, so thanks for picking that up. You're right - f there are no games going on this platform then Intel graphics is also an excellent choice, and Linux support is pretty much guaranteed.

cobra gravatar imagecobra ( 2014-09-12 08:09:52 -0500 )edit

When I first built this workstation I had an Nvidia card in here not expecting much from the Intel HD graphics so on a whim decided to see what they were like. A few days later I ended up pulling the Nvidia card and have used on-chip graphics ever since and that was 2 builds ago.

I'm now onto a Haswell based i5 4670 and almost feel spoiled under Linux by not having to use binary blob drivers to get the performance I do out of this graphics solution.

jmcknight gravatar imagejmcknight ( 2014-09-12 15:23:09 -0500 )edit

Question Tools

1 follower


Asked: 2014-09-11 10:06:12 -0500

Seen: 273 times

Last updated: Sep 11 '14