Why not get a modern (Haswell or later) Intel CPU and a motherboard with DisplayPort output? You don't need a discrete GPU unless you're MLing or gaming, and you can splurge a bit and get something with DDR4 and/or NVMe. Having faster IO is the best way to make "productivity" software like spreadsheets and editors faster.

== gratuitous shilling below ==

For Christmas I got a new CPU/motherboard combo with a Samsung 960 EVO SSD, and it's ludicrously fast, decently cheap, and a noticeable improvement over my old (heh) SATA SSD.

http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/co...

Thanks for the suggestion. It is something I had considered; to replace the motherboard and the CPU with the new AMD Ryzen. But if I remember correctly, it is difficult to find motherboards that include video output (especially through Display Port). So I would have, as you mention, go with Intel, which seems a missed opportunity given the new AMD processors?

Intel still has a good edge on single-core performance. And productivity software is about pushing lots of instructions through a single core.

Pretty sure even a 1050 could do that. You could look at previous generations too, people have been gaming at 1440p for years at this point.

Yea, most cards from the last generation should really be able to just push it for work related tasks. They could even go to the last generation if they wanted cheaper than a 1050.

I have a used GTX 645 for a similar purpose. £20 second-hand, pushes 4k@60Hz with extreme ease.

Of course, I also have a GTX 1060 and an RX 480 for... other purposes.

Even Intel HD Graphics integrated into modern Intel CPUs can drive that.

True, but boards/laptops very rarely have the required Displayport or HDMI 2.0 outputs to drive such resolutions at native refresh rates.

With HDMI, the problem is the chip itself, as until Kaby Lake Intel hasn't supported HDMI 2.0 in their CPUs. Sufficiently new DisplayPort has been supported a while, though, but you'd need a motherboard supporting it, as you say.

Necessary reaction here.

Does it have to be NVIDIA?

I use Mint, where I have always been using the proprietary NVIDIA drivers. I remember Radeon drivers used be pretty bad. But that was a few years ago. Has the situation changed? I am open to suggestions. Thanks.

AMD doesn't have a closed kernel component anymore. They do still have a userspace component, but most people use the free 3d acceleration instead, written with NDA-free documentation provided by AMD, with the help of AMD employees. This covers hardware up to their current generation, providing OpenGL 4.5 and Vulkan. Its performance is not as good as the Windows drivers, but good enough enough for most games out there.

Thanks to this, their hardware just works out of the box on any distribution that's not years behind.

As you don't even need to play games, I believe AMD is the better option here.

I appreciate the advice.

What would be the AMD equivalent to say a GeForce GTX950? Because this is the NVIDIA model that seems more than enough for my needs.

Thanks.

Maybe RX460.

I just switched from AMD to NVidia because of driver issue. I run Arch Linux, and my experience is that installing NVidia drivers is miles ahead of AMD.

I run Arch and amdgpu was installed as a kernel driver out of the box. If you have an RX GPU, or any other one supported by the new drivers, you're going to have a great time.

I couldn't get hardware acceleration without recompiling the kernel.

I have experience with NVIDIA and AMD GPUs on Linux-systems and my experience with AMD was vastly superior. The difference was so significant that I rule out buying a NVIDIA card.

On Linux, your best bet is Intel which will drive that just fine[1] (for non-gaming use)

[1] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/308602-onboard-gpu-enou... (note this is a HD4600. Newer Intel graphics is more powerful).