M1 Apple Silicon for Chess?

[Ras]

I have a Ryzen 7 3700U laptop - Lenovo Ideapad, Zen 2.

That will be Zen+, not Zen 2, the 3000U laptops typically have only a single RAM channel, and the tech is from early 2019. Of course, a computer from late 2020 like the M1 will be faster, but so will AMD's successor CPU from early 2020, namely the 4700U which is Zen 2 and is nearly twice as fast in multi-thread, plus that you can get 4000U laptops with proper dual channel RAM configuration.

[towforce]

You do know that "SoC" means just "System on Chip"?
The "inexpensive", "small", "low power consumption", "high computer power" aren't part of the definition.
You're just spewing buzzwords with less than zero knowledge.


Also all modern Ryzen ARE a SoC.

Not quite - in the catalogue (link), some of the Ryzen processors are not defined as type "SOC" (column 2 in the table).

And even if you have a narrower definition:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/embedded

Thank you! For me, getting people to give me deep knowledge has always trumped trying to look clever, and you have just given me some good information there.

One thing missing from that catalogue is prices - but I am confident that they'll be MUCH more expensive than, say, Dialog SOCs, which go as low as $0.50 if you buy in quantity - but the Ryzens will undoubtedly deliver much more computing power than devices at that price level. However, while nobody is actually going to write a chess program for a bottom-of-the-range Dialog SOC, by my calculations it would actually beat the 6502 based computers from the heyday of the dedicated chess computer! It would also have something the 6502 chess computers didn't - built in networking (just Bluetooth in the cheap models)! To be fair, the 6502 was a world beater when it was launched in 1975 - but, especially allowing for inflation, it was massively more expensive, and was only a small part of the overall cost of the complete computer.

If you have any more to teach me about SOCs, I am eager to learn: for me, they're the biggest thing that's happening right under our noses that most of us are missing right now. However, I concede that the Apple M1, while very impressive as a phone SOC, is probably not the kind of thing I'm talking about: for me, it's about very cheap, very low power consumption but surprisingly powerful SOCs which will, IMO, change things more than most people are expecting (but not top-level chess of course).

[Modern Times]

I have a Ryzen 7 3700U laptop - Lenovo Ideapad, Zen 2.

That will be Zen+, not Zen 2, the 3000U laptops typically have only a single RAM channel, and the tech is from early 2019. Of course, a computer from late 2020 like the M1 will be faster, but so will AMD's successor CPU from early 2020, namely the 4700U which is Zen 2 and is nearly twice as fast in multi-thread, plus that you can get 4000U laptops with proper dual channel RAM configuration.

Ah yes, single channel RAM is correct and Zen+. Yet I find it a very fast laptop, a bargain at the price with 15" screen and a full numeric keypad, and the 512GB SSD and 16GB RAM. It was a great purchase. I don't use it for chess of course, but I have some engines on there to benchmark for curiosity.

[AlexChess]

Yes,
I like much more this kind of configuration than a laptop or a big tower. But I want also the ability to run Mac, Linux and Windows applications. I was about to buy a NUC8 Core i7 compatible with macOS Big Sur Intel hardware, when Apple suddenly announced proprietary M1, instantly followed by Windows 10 and Linux ARM64. So the only way to have all latest OSs on a affordable computer was to buy a Mac mini M1. Apple devices based on Intel will become obsoletes in 2-3 years, so they aren't an option for me.

Regards, AlexChess

Running Multiple OS as a reason to buy a Mac - Yeah right As if the M1 even support multiboot of different OS: es - Running MacOS on a modern Ryzen 7/9 box will most likely even give a faster performance for most use-cases, even though you have to go through a virtualization layer, than you get natively on an M1),

Hmm.. the "only" reason you have to hack stuff to run Apple's OS on other Mini-PCs is their draconic stance on un-openness. You decided to "vote" with your money for a vendor taking advantage of other systems' openness while at the same time trying to lock users into "their" proprietary platform, and other users out.

I look at it completely differently. The way Apple tries to Frock openness is a reason for me NOT to buy it, rather than opposite, simply because they take advantage of a less locked-in system, to run more software on their system at the same time they stop other systems from accessing theirs... Not a behavior from a technology partner I want to promote with my money.

And if the price is high and the performance is less than half of the competition (for chess), the value proposition is poor from Apple..

Yes it is
If like me, you want to write/compile/use also apps for macOS Mx, iOS 14.x & iPadOS 14.x you have no choice.

ARM is becoming the new computer standard also for Qualcomm and probably for Intel and AMD and I don't want to buy a computer already obsolete by design. New ARM SOCs from all producers will be much faster.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/23/intel-to ... -strategy/

Regards, AlexChess

[Ras]

The way Apple tries to Frock openness is a reason for me NOT to buy it

Another reason is that vendor lock-in is always the vendor admitting that he doesn't think his products are good enough by themselves and hence wouldn't retain the customers, but instead of improving the products and/or pricing, the vendor decided to take the customers hostage.

[wickedpotus]

If like me, you want to write/compile/use also apps for macOS Mx, iOS 14.x & iPadOS 14.x you have no choice.

ARM is becoming the new computer standard also for Qualcomm and probably for Intel and AMD and I don't want to buy a computer already obsolete by design. New ARM SOCs from all producers will be much faster.

Regards, AlexChess

2 points

1. If you think you have no choice, to begin with, based on vendor-lock-in then all comparison is meaningless . I am pro-choice...

2. If I have to buy an ARM-based computer that is half as fast as cheaper alternatives already available, Then I would argue it is more obsolete by design, rather than the reverse. A computer with an SSD soldered to the motherboard. Nonupgradable RAM and lots of limitations in connectivity and expandability and serviceability are by definition on of the most "obsolete by design" comps you can buy today

[AlexChess]

I like macOS (despite the fact that I deprecate Apple's walled garden) I use also Linux and Windows 10 because I'm a 360° technology fan.

[Milos]

ARM is becoming the new computer standard also for Qualcomm and probably for Intel and AMD and I don't want to buy a computer already obsolete by design. New ARM SOCs from all producers will be much faster.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/23/intel-to ... -strategy/

Sorry, but this is absolute bollocks (claiming ARM architecture has some inherent advantage over x86). This just reflects that you don't understand modern computer architectures. There were multiple posts in this thread explaining this.
The only advantage M1 particular ARM implementation might have over x86 atm is technology node. And in terms of optimizations modern x86 architecture implementation such as Zen 3 is better optimized than M1 ARM implementation.

And the link you put just means Intel is becoming another fab vendor (in addition to TSMC and Samsung), i.e. that a third parties would be able to fabricate their own chips in Intel fab. It has absolutely nothing to do with Intel supporting ARM as standard or whatnot.

[towforce]

Sorry, but this is absolute bollocks (claiming ARM architecture has some inherent advantage over x86). This just reflects that you don't understand modern computer architectures. There were multiple posts in this thread explaining this.
The only advantage M1 particular ARM implementation might have over x86 atm is technology node. And in terms of optimizations modern x86 architecture implementation such as Zen 3 is better optimized than M1 ARM implementation.

And the link you put just means Intel is becoming another fab vendor (in addition to TSMC and Samsung), i.e. that a third parties would be able to fabricate their own chips in Intel fab. It has absolutely nothing to do with Intel supporting ARM as standard or whatnot.

I would guess that ARM style SOCs consume less electricity than x86, making them better for portable devices. Here's a very brief history of the "big 3" CPUs of the 1970s (I acknowledge that there were many other CPUs as well):

1. 6502

Relatively simple instruction set, low price. Most instructions completed in one clock cycle. Popular choice for dedicated chess computers.

2. 8088

Medium instruction set (future generations would go on to become highly complex - but originally this was in the middle of the big 3)

3. Z80

Complex instruction set. The good news was that programs for it could be much smaller than programs for, say, the 6502 - a good attribute at a time when any kind of memory was expensive! The bad news was that it could take up to 4 clock cycles to complete its most complex instructions. The Z80 could also do more of the control needed in the rest of the computer, which is probably why Sinclair chose them for their super-simple (from a hardware perspective) Z computer series.

We now know that the big winner was the 8088 - but that's not because consumers particularly demanded it - it's because IBM chose it, and IBM was the big standard setter at the time (amazing how much the world has changed in little over 40 years - but we still use the x86 architecture in PCs and we still use the keyboard layout that IBM mandated in the 1980s (if you're using a PC, that's why your keyboard has an Alt-Gr key - I can explain that if anybody is interested)).

We should remember, though, that before PC "clones" became successful, PCs were a lot more expensive than computers based on the 6502 (maybe with the exception of early Apple computers - they always were high priced for what you got).

To summarise what I'm saying: where price and power consumption are the key factors, choose a simple architecture (Arm): where computing power is the key factor, choose a complex architecture.

[AlexChess]

I know all CPUs you are talking about since '80, including Z80 of my ZX Spectrum and first ARM already here on Acorn Archimedes. But obvioulsly you cannot compare them to modern ARM processors. You can argue what you want, but the fact is that manifactures are globally moving to ARM because x86 architecture has become too hot and too big. Next Mx and generally ARM SOCs will include an improved GPU that will compete with dedicated graphic boards, I must only wait to buy my next Mac Mini Mx.

Regards, AlexChess