4 ms·
Chess Engines I've got to say are an argument against Apple Silicon, at the same power draw any AMD or Intel solution is going to beat the pants off of it.
by faeriechangling 4y ago
Chess Engines I've got to say are an argument against Apple Silicon, at the same power draw any AMD or Intel solution is going to beat the pants off of it.
- TylerE 4y agoSeems super fast to me? Benchmarking now... bench 1024 8 26 in latest stockfish (well, whatever brew installed two days ago) Total time (ms) : 128108 Nodes searched : 1605433485 Nodes/second : 12531875 12,531,875 NPS is competitive with a 2950x threadripper, which is an $1100 cpu with a TDP of 180w. The M1 Max has a power draw under load of about 90w max (and that's the full SoC), but under typical high loads it's more like 50-60w.
- faeriechangling 4y ago2950x is a weird comparison when it was two generations older than what AMD had available at the time. Also the 2950x still did 37422972 NPS which is still roughly 3x higher. I think it goes without saying that if you look back enough generations you will eventually find an AMD/Intel product that gives less performance/watt. The 5950x was also available for sale at the time, a system based on it was cheaper, and it does 54029460 NPS in stockfish which is over 4x faster. It's not like the Mac Studio is too slow for chess engines to be usable for purposes like analysis, but the thing is if you make that argument than why not get a much cheaper Ryzen 5 or Intel i5 based system which is still faster than the Mac Studio? Say a Ryzen 5600g which is also pretty power efficient and can fit in a nice little box and push a few displays? https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/stockfish&eval=75962521a5522d346c312795f8d75908371d71bc#metrics https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/stockfish&eval=7596252...
- TylerE 4y agoBecause running chess engines is like 0.5% of what I use a computer for.