AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 60
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
Svinozavr, what was the initial deposit in the test?
>> Liam.
Svinozavr, what was the initial deposit in the test?
What makes you ask? Something confuses you? I've got a fast stone, just started releasing at the beginning of the year - a 45nm Penrin core. It's a mobile version of the Wolfdale core. Compared to my previous Pentium M 1.8 MHz laptop it's just another level of speed. Sometimes I get the impression that it has two cores as at 100% load you are absolutely free to do any other routine. It didn't do that on the last laptop. Such is the case.
Why do you ask? Is there something confusing? I've got a fast stone that's only been in production since the beginning of the year - a 45nm Penrin core. It's a mobile version of the Wolfdale core. Compared to my previous Pentium M 1.8 MHz laptop it's just another level of speed. Sometimes you get the impression that it has two cores as at 100% load you are absolutely free to do any other routine. It didn't do that on the last laptop. That's the way it is.
What is confusing is that Mathemat is also equipped with 45 nm Wolfdale. But with higher frequency, three times bigger cache and faster memory. And slower than yours.
If you don't mind, re-run optimization, and then save the results to html and post them here. Or to mail docent2001 "dog" rambler dot ru. Time is not interesting in this case.
What's confusing is that Mathemat also has a 45nm Wolfdale. But with more frequency, triple the cache size and faster memory. But it is slower than yours.
If you don't mind, re-run optimization, and then save the results to html and post them here. Or to mail docent2001 "dog" rambler dot ru. Time in this case does not interest.
Not a bummer. Of course I won't post the 510 runs here - I'll attach them in my personal. I just don't understand what you can see in the results? The balance is not zeroed - I looked it up. All seems to be normal. But Alex's test results were not clear at all for the previous version of the test expert. At first, his result is as expected, in complete proportion to the test of the script and my Expert Advisor - i.e. faster with the appropriate factor. And then he re-runs it and the speed has strangely dropped. Something he seems to be doing wrong. He needs to look at the weight of the processes in task manager - maybe some process is eating up some resources.
Not a bummer. Of course, I won't post the 510 runs here - I'll attach them in person. I just don't understand what you can see in the results? The balance is not zeroed - I looked it up. All seems to be normal. And something was very strange with Aleksey, and on the previous version of the test expert. At first, his result is as expected, in complete proportion to the test of the script and my Expert Advisor - i.e. faster with the appropriate factor. And then he re-runs it and the speed has strangely dropped. Something he seems to be doing wrong. He needs to look at the weight of the processes in task manager - maybe some process is eating up some resources.
Haven't got the table yet.
Alexey seems to be doing everything right. But you have got efficiency on the level of high-end Core 2 models, though they have 6 times bigger cache and 2-channel memory which arouses certain suspicions of fidelity. By the way AMD processor, showing similar efficiency, also has 6Mb cache and much faster memory.
To all those who doubt the "usefulness" of time*frequency calculation. This product has a very definite physical meaning - it is the number of clock cycles the processor needs to perform the optimization. For processors of the same architecture the execution part is exactly the same, so the difference in speed is determined by "bottlenecks", in older models they are naturally "not so bottlenecks", so "efficiency" is higher, and performance grows faster than frequency!
Same test
The old one.
And this is the radiator I cleaned yesterday.
To all those who doubt the "usefulness" of the time*frequency calculation. This product has quite a definite physical meaning - it is the number of clock cycles required for the processor to perform optimization. For processors of one architecture the execution part is absolutely identical, thus the difference in speed is defined by "bottlenecks", in older models they are naturally "not so bottlenecks", therefore "efficiency" is higher and performance grows faster than frequency!
Looking at that table of yours, which option would you recommend for optimization? The question is not idle, to choose by product or by minimum counting time?
Looking at that table of yours, which option would you recommend for optimisation? The question is not idle, to choose by product or by minimum counting time?
Naturally, it is better to choose the counting time for optimization. t*f is needed to find bottlenecks. As soon as begemot61 will show us results (and Svinozavr will send us the table), we will draw final conclusions.