Hardware Recommendations

[Mathboy]

Can someone point me to useful discussions on the best current desktop/workstation hardware for running engines in the $3,000 to $5,000 range? Plain old recommendations are also obviously welcome. My work life kept me away from my hobbies for the last six years. On returning, I find the hardware situation to be vastly more complicated. Among other things, GPUs are much more important (if you can find good ones) and AMD rivals (or perhaps beats) Intel.

Thank you very much.

[smatovic]

"CPU Vector Unit, the new jam for NNs..."
https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic. ... 2&p=873768

"Using LC0 with one or two GPUs - a guide"
https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70362

"GPU rumors 2021"
https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=77097

AMD will probably release Zen4 with new features (new socket) this year, IMO Zen3 is a good architecture for chess. With chess and neural networks you want to consider RTX GPUs (Lc0) and CPUs with AVX2 (SF NNUE).

--
Srdja

[Vinvin]

AMD will probably release Zen4 with new features (new socket) this year, IMO Zen3 is a good architecture for chess. With chess and neural networks you want to consider RTX GPUs (Lc0) and CPUs with AVX2 (SF NNUE).
--
Srdja

I second that !
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (12 cores) or AMD Ryzen 9 5950x (16 cores) as CPU.
64 GB or 128 GB of memory.
And, if you want NN support, add a "GeForce RTX 3080" or "GeForce RTX 3070". Can be added later in the computer.

Vincent

[Modern Times]

64 GB or 128 GB of memory.

I'm not sure how you would need that much memory, 32GB is ample for me. I can understand 64GB to provide more than you could possibly ever need with a substantial buffer, but not 128GB. Seems wasted money to me.

[Vinvin]

64 GB or 128 GB of memory.

I'm not sure how you would need that much memory, 32GB is ample for me. I can understand 64GB to provide more than you could possibly ever need with a substantial buffer, but not 128GB. Seems wasted money to me.

With an AMD 5950x, 64 MB of HT is filled in about 10 minutes + you need memory to store Syzygy readings.
If you want to analyze an endgame position for a couple of hours, 128GB is not wasted at all.

[dangi12012]

64 GB or 128 GB of memory.

I'm not sure how you would need that much memory, 32GB is ample for me. I can understand 64GB to provide more than you could possibly ever need with a substantial buffer, but not 128GB. Seems wasted money to me.

Nope for chessprogramming 64GB is sometimes limiting - at least for me (but its enough)
Especially when you run cutechess-cli - every instance of the engine takes cores and a few GB of TT size.

Also 1v1 engine plays is very limited with 12gb per engine (system needs some gb too)
So I recommend Zen3 and an RTX 30xx gpu + 2TB NVME SSD
If you can wait go for Zen4 and RTX 40xx

[Mathboy]

Thanks, everyone. I will look at all this more closely. Two quick, 50,000-foot questions for now.

First, is it also worth looking at Intel for CPU? My computer from long ago has dual Xenon processors for a total of 24 cores. It was nice at the time. But is it clear that AMD is the right way to go now?

Second, similar question for GPUs. Is Nvidia the way to go? Or is AMD worth looking at for this as well?

Much appreciated.

[Ras]

But is it clear that AMD is the right way to go now?

AMD has the better tech for now. Not least because the large Intel CPUs have their power split into performance and efficiency cores, but for chess, you'll want to split up the total available computing capacity into as few cores as possible. Also, Intel's top CPU 12900 maxes out at 241W while a 5950X draws 100W (!) less - which means it's easier and less noisy to cool with a large (dual tower) air cooler so that you don't need to resort to water cooling for long-running chess analysis.

That said, AMD is about to introduce a new AM5 socket. The currently available AM4 socket is at the end of its lifetime. Means, you will not be able to upgrade. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy anything AM5 later this year when AMD presents the new Ryzen 7000 lineup because I'd expect quite some teething issues and also a price hike. If you buy right now, a good AM4 board is the way to go, just be clear that you won't be able to upgrade - as would be pretty normal with Intel anyway.

With the AM4 boards, you can choose between B450 and B550 chipsets (or the higher end X series chipsets, but I don't see that much use in them, and their mobo fan, often present, can be annoying plus it's an additional point of failure). The main thing B550 brings to the table is PCIe 4.0. With a PC in that price range, the maybe 60 bucks won't matter, and I'd recommend e.g. the Asus B550-F Gaming.

Second, similar question for GPUs. Is Nvidia the way to go?

In gaming, AMD is nearly as good as Nvidia, but for anything else, such as GPU computing, Nvidia is the way to go because AMD has missed the future. It's not the graphics cards themselves, it's the whole software ecosystem around GPU computing. That's not an issue with Stockfish because it runs purely on CPU, but Lc0 with an AMD graphics card is a complete non-starter.

[CornfedForever]

But is it clear that AMD is the right way to go now?

AMD has the better tech for now. Not least because the large Intel CPUs have their power split into performance and efficiency cores, but for chess, you'll want to split up the total available computing capacity into as few cores as possible. Also, Intel's top CPU 12900 maxes out at 241W while a 5950X draws 100W (!) less - which means it's easier and less noisy to cool with a large (dual tower) air cooler so that you don't need to resort to water cooling for long-running chess analysis.

I...am having some trouble with this statement. Just what 'better tech' are you referring to in comparison to the Alder Lake chips? You mention the 12900 specifically...that seems to be the 'bees knees' from everything I have read.

Also, you mention the wattage. Isn't that just going to result in a very small dollar savings over the course of a year?

Another thing I am fuzzy on is when you say "for chess, you'll want to split up the total available computing capacity into as few cores as possible". Why?

[Ras]

I...am having some trouble with this statement. Just what 'better tech' are you referring to in comparison to the Alder Lake chips?

Ryzen 5000 of course.

You mention the 12900 specifically...that seems to be the 'bees knees' from everything I have read.

It's Intel's deperate try to keep up although they are technologically clearly behind AMD. That's the result of Intel not doing anything useful from around 2012-2018, and that was because Intel didn't have to, given that AMD didn't really compete at the time (Bulldozer was quite a flop). The problem is that AMD woke up, and Intel took way too long to notice.

Also, you mention the wattage. Isn't that just going to result in a very small dollar savings over the course of a year?

100W more heat need to be cooled away. This makes the cooling system either more challenging if you go with a large water cooler and all its hassle, or you will face louder air cooling because the fans will ramp up more. In any way, your room will also heat up more, and that's not nice during summer. That's not even mentioning that a CPU that wastes 100W for nothing looks like a remnant from a bygone era, given the general trends with regard to resources, energy consumption and all that.

Another thing I am fuzzy on is when you say "for chess, you'll want to split up the total available computing capacity into as few cores as possible". Why?

Because the raw NPS scale linearly with the cores, but not the playing strength. There's always losses because with more threads, you'll do redundant calculations that you wouldn't have done with only a single thread in the first place. If you could have all the power of a Ryzen 5950X in one single core, that would be ideal, but that tech doesn't exist. Hence, you'll at least want to minimise that effect by splitting the total computing power into as few cores as possible. The 12900's efficiency cores are particularly useless for chess.