Can't comment on hardware but will say something about Leela's strengths and weaknesses -
If you look through the games from the TCEC superfinal, sometimes Leela is brilliant. For example in this position from game 61:
[fen "r1bbnr2/pp1n1q1k/3p4/2pPp1pP/2P1PpP1/2NQ1N2/PP2BB2/2KR2R1 w - - 10 26"]
Stockfish (White) evaluated this as +0.63, while Leela was at -2.01. From the human point of view, I suspect most will prefer Black. That's because White has nothing on the kingside while Black is more capable of playing on the queenside. The game proved Leela right - it took a lot more moves for Stockfish to realize it was inferior, and even more moves after that for Stockfish to resign (it is a fantastic defender), but the fact that Leela saw it was superior so much earlier than Stockfish is very impressive. There are many similar games from the superfinal - Leela seems very capable of outplaying Stockfish positionally, often converting a Stockfish advantage into one of its own, even if the game eventually ends in a draw.
Another advantage of Leela is multi-PV. MCTS engines get this for free, while Stockfish (which runs on AB) needs to invest computational power. If this matters for you then that's an additional advantage for Leela.
However the infamous "Leela blunder" is still a thing. Take this position from game 81:
[fen "4rr2/2pb2bk/1p1p4/2nP3P/p1P1p3/P1N1Bq2/1P3N2/1K2Q1RR w - - 2 26"]
Leela just played 25...Rae8 and showed a +0.67 eval. It thinks its position is inferior, but not by that much. Its principal variation went 25. .. Rae8 26. h6 Be5 27. Rg7+ Kh8 28. Ka2 Rf7 29. Nfd1 Nd3 30. Qh4. Stockfish had the same moves, but saw that 28. Qg1! wins, and its eval shot up to +7.68 one move later. Leela remained blissfully unaware until Stockfish played Qg1, and resigned shortly afterwards. Stockfish virtually never makes this kind of one-move blunder.
Another problem with Leela is that it doesn't seem to defend very well. When Stockfish loses, it defends grimly and it takes a long time for Leela to grind a win. On the other hand when Leela loses, it often implodes. In the ongoing TCEC Champions bonus, its loss to Houdini 3 (!!) is illustrative. Houdini 3 is an engine many years old, rated hundreds of elo below Stockfish (and ostensibly Leela). But Leela hated the starting position so much it managed to lose. Comparatively you would need to play hundreds if not thousands of games before Stockfish loses to Houdini 3.
Finally a noticeable weakness of Leela's is that it isn't very good at beating inferior opponents. For example in the ongoing TCEC Champions bonus, which includes engines from many years ago, Leela is performing worse than 1-year old versions of Stockfish. In this, Leela is kind of similar to Petrosian - it doesn't win many games, but it's good in match play.
In the end, I think Leela is inconsistent. In some positions it's much stronger than Stockfish, and in others it's just worse. As a practical player, I'd say use both. Their relative strengths and weaknesses should be pretty apparent. As a heuristic, trust Stockfish if the position is highly tactical, or if it's an endgame. Otherwise trust Leela (but run Leela's principal variation through Stockfish to eliminate the "Leela blunder").
EDIT: Will probably expand on this later, but GM Matthew Sadler wrote a piece on the relative differences between Stockfish and Leela based on the 15th TCEC superfinal which you might find interesting (especially games 43/44) In a nutshell, Stockfish is comfortable going to a slightly inferior endgame and defending endlessly, while Leela hates that playstyle and prefers to seek active play.