AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 58
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
But as far as processors (computers in general), their performance, measuring that performance - I will argue. For I am an engineer with a specialisation in computing machines, complexes systems and networks. For I have always been interested in how it all works at the lowest level. And in this area in all likelihood I will give you all a head start.
Colleague, there are enough engineers here. And as for the head start, don't get too excited.
Besides, someone might be familiar with the plans and results of leading CPU manufacturers, shall we say... somewhat from the inside.
So... let's keep communicating constructively. It's an interesting topic.
And anyway... I'm sick of optimizing shit for days just to make sure the system doesn't work.
Maybe at the same time we can figure out what to tweak in the code to make it optimized faster
I meant the practical side - by what criteria to choose a particular processor. And further additions may be made in comments to the article and the author will insert them in the article by himself if they inspire confidence.
Dear Rosh.
Could you help our fiddles, interesting, judging by the attention given to you as well, in this way.
For a test that is invariant to trading conditions and history, we need something like a test build of MT4, which should have history stored in it, no online access and in which the test EA with the necessary settings is already recorded.
Of course, we can achieve the same for all history and trading conditions, but it requires additional qualification and effort from a volunteer tester. Few people will do the test in this form (mainly because of laziness))).
Can something be done in this vein?
Yeah. In the script I at least tried to separate the tasks somehow. But in the proposed Expert Advisors everything is in a "heap". Find out why this or that machine is faster, whether because the memory is cooler, or because the CPU is more powerful, or maybe the bus is faster....
So far the second EA's test results show it all very well.
Although I would be interested to see the results of this test on P4 and Core ix, and somewhat less on Istanbul, but begemot61 doesn't show them... I thought he doesn't read this thread, but he does... But he's a real partisan with the tests.
What are you hiding, colleague?
Rather the opposite ...))
I gave the results on page 44 at nominal CPU mode. Script 44*2.8=123, EA 150*2.8=420.
For example for "blue" Core 2 Duo E7200 - script 117, Expert Advisor 539.
123-117=6 (<5%, not significant)
539-420=119 (>20%, and Phenom II outperforms significantly on optimization)
OK, let it be so (though the sample for comparison - E7200 - you've chosen very well: "blue" shows better results on average than my underprocessor). Also, I was guided by what I have in the table, not what you showed later, at face value.
Anyway, all in all it comes out that Phenom II, if better than the Core 2 Duo shown here, is not too critical.
So far the test results of the second EA show everything very well.
Although I would be interested to see results of this test on P4 and Core ix, and somewhat less on Istanbul, but begemot61 doesn't show them... I thought he doesn't read this thread, but he does... But he's a real partisan with the tests.
What are you hiding, colleague?
Sorry, well there wasn't time. I'll be sure to test it. Tomorrow at the latest.
OK, let it be (although the sample for comparison - E7200 - you have chosen very well: "blue" on average performs better than my underprocessor).
Just Core 2 Duo E7200 and Phenom II 720 of the same class - budget ones.
It's not clear why the Celeron 900 is faster than the E7200 ?
Just a Core 2 Duo E7200 and a Phenom II 720 in the same class - budget ones.
It's not clear why Celeron 900 is faster than E7200 ?
Probably the same reason why Opteron is faster than Phenom at lower frequency - something to do with account settings and insufficient (?) initial capital.
As svinozavr and begemot61 show their results with the 2nd variant EA - so this "dark spot" will be clarified slightly.
Comrades, has anyone here been testing the Atom... Or maybe just someone who knows. When trading, does the terminal load the system much at all? I can't decide whether to take the 270 single-core or the 330 dual-core Atom. The price difference is 300 p. But the second one consumes more power, not by much. But since I'm going to buy a power-efficient system, I have to think hard.
How many terminals can be started in parallel for trade on one core in 1.6 at peak? Or maybe I should get a dual core just in case?
Comrades, has anyone here been testing the Atom... Or maybe just someone who knows. When trading, does the terminal load the system much at all? I can't decide whether to take the 270 single-core or the 330 dual-core Atom. The price difference is 300 p. But the second one consumes more power, not by much. But since I'm going to buy a power-efficient system, I have to think hard.
How many terminals can be run in parallel for trading on one core in 1.6 at the peak? Or may be I should take a dual core one just in case?
If there is more than one terminal, two cores are a must. Although trading can also be done with a single core. 300 rubles. - Not a lot of money in this case. Again, you can run optimisation on two terminals - it will be faster.