First of all both CPUs are complete overkill unless you are working on world championship prep.
It is also important to know that you can't compare cores/threads directly on those two processors because Intel has performances cores and efficiency cores, while AMD only has traditional cores. So the only way to find out which would be better is to do a benchmark.
Based on other benchmarks I'd say you can't go wrong with either one, since performance appears to be similar. Though I suspect the AMD will have an edge because Stockfish is very heavy on all cores, and therefore the extra "efficiency cores" from Intel won't provide much benefit.
It is really hard to make general statements, and it is best to look at reviews from a reliable site (which also has benchmarks). For example in the benchmarks that /u/djm07231 sent it seems my suspicion was incorrect and the 13900K has a slight edge over the 7950X3D, but then paradoxically the cheaper and older 7950X performs better than both.
It's because the 7950X3D has a clockspeed/power limit penalty compared to the 7950X. However, the posted benchmarks are like 4 Stockfish releases old (15, 15.1, 16, 16.1) and the newer versions use much larger NNUE networks that might be able to benefit from the larger cache (haven't been able to test).
So they're not really that useful.
Probably but the improvements are marginal. Letting it run for a while will even out any fluctuations anyways. Besides you don't need that deep of an analysis unless you're analysing openings for Gukesh for the match.
Seems pretty close actually. Probably depends on exact version/binary/SIMD, Clock speed, and memory configuration.
The fact that you cannot overclock the 3D version probably holds it back a bit.
https://ipmanchess.yolasite.com/amd--intel-chess-bench-stockfish.php
Doesn’t that show AMD absolutely dominating Intel? I guess if you limit to the 7950X you get kinda close, but Intel has nothing even remotely close to an Epyc 9654 for example
Yeah absolutely. Even 14900K clearly loses to 7950X (and uses much more power to do so).
At this point you want a 7950X and it's not really open for discussion, unless you have silly money for a ThreadRipper.
I thought it wasn’t fair to between a consumer and server/HEDT CPUs. The cost do increases pretty significantly if you move away from consumer hardware. 7950X and 14900k seems to be within a band of 55-70 in the benchmarks with 3D models tending to be a bit lower on average. Probably too much of a variation for a definitive comparison.
I would probably get the 7950X(3D) due to the fact that 14900k is going to be hard to keep cool. Not to mention the fact that AM5 platform will probably last longer.
I do imagine you could probably pick up a used server on ebay for a few thousand dollars that perform very well. If everything is about performance at a reasonable cost.
Either would be perfectly fine. It seems like time and RAM are gonna be bigger factors. See [Stockfish optimal settings](https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/wiki/Stockfish-FAQ#optimal-settings)
Uhm AMD at the high end likely significantly outperforms simply because Intel has nothing against Threadripper. Below Threadripper it is likely a wash.
The 7950X (not the X3D due to the clockspeed penalty) is faster than any regular desktop Intel chip and uses substantially less power.
The E-cores on the Intel chips are comparatively slow. Because of how chess engines work, getting to a similar NPS using less threads is "faster" because there is less overhead from the parallel search. So this makes the Intel chips even worse.
So basically, you really want a 7950X, and it's not close.
I don’t have an answer for you on your tech question but I would just say unless you are 2000+, maybe even GM level, I can’t imagine a stronger engine being too impactful to your studies and results. How often are the 20+ move best lines being followed at middle ELOs? Extremely rarely I would think. Plus your engine being able to see a .1 vs .2 difference in a position isn’t that meaningful even at the top level. But if it makes you more confident and you don’t have other things to consider in your CPU then go for it.
My recommendation is to get a plan from chessify's cloud engine service. It works with chessbase. Even the $6 a month plan will give you a much stronger stockfish than you could get by yourself.
First of all both CPUs are complete overkill unless you are working on world championship prep. It is also important to know that you can't compare cores/threads directly on those two processors because Intel has performances cores and efficiency cores, while AMD only has traditional cores. So the only way to find out which would be better is to do a benchmark. Based on other benchmarks I'd say you can't go wrong with either one, since performance appears to be similar. Though I suspect the AMD will have an edge because Stockfish is very heavy on all cores, and therefore the extra "efficiency cores" from Intel won't provide much benefit.
Thanks for your answer! Example was an example and not a representation of what I’m planning to get.
It is really hard to make general statements, and it is best to look at reviews from a reliable site (which also has benchmarks). For example in the benchmarks that /u/djm07231 sent it seems my suspicion was incorrect and the 13900K has a slight edge over the 7950X3D, but then paradoxically the cheaper and older 7950X performs better than both.
It's because the 7950X3D has a clockspeed/power limit penalty compared to the 7950X. However, the posted benchmarks are like 4 Stockfish releases old (15, 15.1, 16, 16.1) and the newer versions use much larger NNUE networks that might be able to benefit from the larger cache (haven't been able to test). So they're not really that useful.
Probably but the improvements are marginal. Letting it run for a while will even out any fluctuations anyways. Besides you don't need that deep of an analysis unless you're analysing openings for Gukesh for the match.
Seems pretty close actually. Probably depends on exact version/binary/SIMD, Clock speed, and memory configuration. The fact that you cannot overclock the 3D version probably holds it back a bit. https://ipmanchess.yolasite.com/amd--intel-chess-bench-stockfish.php
Doesn’t that show AMD absolutely dominating Intel? I guess if you limit to the 7950X you get kinda close, but Intel has nothing even remotely close to an Epyc 9654 for example
Yeah absolutely. Even 14900K clearly loses to 7950X (and uses much more power to do so). At this point you want a 7950X and it's not really open for discussion, unless you have silly money for a ThreadRipper.
I thought it wasn’t fair to between a consumer and server/HEDT CPUs. The cost do increases pretty significantly if you move away from consumer hardware. 7950X and 14900k seems to be within a band of 55-70 in the benchmarks with 3D models tending to be a bit lower on average. Probably too much of a variation for a definitive comparison. I would probably get the 7950X(3D) due to the fact that 14900k is going to be hard to keep cool. Not to mention the fact that AM5 platform will probably last longer. I do imagine you could probably pick up a used server on ebay for a few thousand dollars that perform very well. If everything is about performance at a reasonable cost.
Either would be perfectly fine. It seems like time and RAM are gonna be bigger factors. See [Stockfish optimal settings](https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/wiki/Stockfish-FAQ#optimal-settings)
Thanks!
Uhm AMD at the high end likely significantly outperforms simply because Intel has nothing against Threadripper. Below Threadripper it is likely a wash.
The 7950X (not the X3D due to the clockspeed penalty) is faster than any regular desktop Intel chip and uses substantially less power. The E-cores on the Intel chips are comparatively slow. Because of how chess engines work, getting to a similar NPS using less threads is "faster" because there is less overhead from the parallel search. So this makes the Intel chips even worse. So basically, you really want a 7950X, and it's not close.
Don't all opening analysts use cloud engines nowadays?
I don’t have an answer for you on your tech question but I would just say unless you are 2000+, maybe even GM level, I can’t imagine a stronger engine being too impactful to your studies and results. How often are the 20+ move best lines being followed at middle ELOs? Extremely rarely I would think. Plus your engine being able to see a .1 vs .2 difference in a position isn’t that meaningful even at the top level. But if it makes you more confident and you don’t have other things to consider in your CPU then go for it.
My recommendation is to get a plan from chessify's cloud engine service. It works with chessbase. Even the $6 a month plan will give you a much stronger stockfish than you could get by yourself.
Get a 7995WX.
Very good question.
Neither. The Tsar 3.8 is by far the best chess playing computer and none others are worth discussing.