AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 29
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It doesn't disperse very well. :-)
We haven't started the price*sec race yet)
P.S. Oh man, I didn't notice that BLACK_BOX is from AMD camp. But, okay. I'll leave my rating. I did it for nothing... :-)
Molotog, Artur, have a crab! :)
In short, the conclusion is this. Old AMD stones are very, very good in performance (just kidding - they outrun even modern Intel ones). But new AMD stones are not so good... :-)
Give me the crab...
Give back the crab...
:-))))
I should have clarified on what performance though. So far it seems to me that joo is right: AMD-derived stones behave better in those places where the calculations, so to say, are "not straightforward". I don't know how else to put it better.
What are we waiting for?
;)))
Yes, in principle an answer is received, and in fact I did not expect such a lively interest in the topic.
I just got tired of waiting for the results of optimization of the next "grail".
A very average and inexpensive system is quite sufficient for normal operation. I would rather appreciate stability than performance.
In general...I'm not sure that optimising on history is the right thing to do. The way
it's done in MT4, it's a history fit. And all the "backward" and "forward" tests are self-defeating
using a primitive methodology. That's why most strategies that are successful on history,
don't work for long periods of time. But of course, this is my subjective private opinion. And I don't in any way
I don't want to impose it on others, nor can I.
:-))))
You should have been more specific in terms of what performance. So far it seems to me, that joo is right: AMD stones behave better there, where the calculations, so to say, are "not straightforward". I don't know how else to put it better.
That's what I'm saying. But you can't say Intel stones are bad either. To each his own...
In short, the conclusion is this. Old AMD stones are very, very good in their performance (you can't be serious - they outperform even the latest ones made by Intel). But new AMD stones are not so good... :-)
And they will not succeed for at least another year or two, we will have to catch up. They just recently went to 45nm process, not to mention 32nm to which Intel is about to go.
But four2one config, bastard, spoils the whole picture of Intel triumph (Belford can also yield a couple percents, with its overwhelming advantage in cache). Maybe it's just the memory, which isn't spoiled there? But somehow this explanation doesn't fit, because 4 gigs is quite enough for such a test...
I'm going to upgrade the config, like it's done in MT4 - it's the adjustment for the history. And all the "backward" and "forward" tests are self-defeating.
Why are "forward" tests self-defeating?
I can't even think of any other worthwhile ways of testing. What else could be used? Academic science with its rigorous validation of theories? I think traders who rely on it are mostly self-deceiving. Real science is not for the single trader, but for large teams (imho). Sorry if I have offended anyone.
P. S. And productivity is mainly needed in such areas as neural networks and multicurrency. You should agree that these are the most interesting directions. That's where I'd really like a more powerful configuration. So, as soon as I'll get down to it for real, I'm going to upgrade my config.