AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 7
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
Put it out there, Pyotr, I'll run it through. You don't even have to blurt it out, you can use something ready-made. When I do, I'll post my configuration. I can even try to experiment with memory size.
Put it out there, Pyotr, I'll run it through. You don't even have to blurt it out, you can use something ready-made. When I do, I'll post my configuration. I can even try to experiment with memory size.
Alexey, the main thing is to choose AMD and INTEL, so that stones would be equal in frequency...
Well, it is possible to tweak the frequency. However, I have to say beforehand, that I won't get more than 2.7...2.8 GHz (my motherboard is very simple, my stone is very bad).
Have someone from AMD post their results first.
to BARS and Mathemat
You can't compare CPUs of different architectures and manufacturers based on clock speed! Clock speed has not been an indicator of performance for 5 years or more.
You have to go with CPUs in the same price range. But I think that even if half of the forum joins the test initiated by you, there will not be representatives of all price ranges and the test will be incomplete. You can't do without specialized testing labs. IMHO
Put it out there, Pyotr, I'll run it through. You don't even have to blurt it out, you can use something ready-made. When I do, I'll post my configuration. I can even try to experiment with memory size.
Yes, you can take it from the delivery - there are a couple of them, I think: for MAKD and MA. Only we should agree upon the parameters and fill them into the Expert Advisor. May be, who will do it right? (Otherwise I am sick of them - I am agonizing with mine))). It will be necessary to test it, I think on a good-quality model. Not on the opening.
2 joo: Well, I knew someone was bound to say something about that. Right, of course. And you also have to take into account what kind of memory, what kind of motherboard and so on.
It has been proven for a long time that AMD does not heat up more than Intel, and sometimes even less! There are just adherents of Intel, who have seen Socket A processors last time - Athlon 1000. For them their acquaintance with AMD is over.
By the way, the computing centre and all the computers at IAPO are AMD-based =)) Before that they checked what was faster with cads of all flavors. AMD outplayed Intel by all means. And at the same time it is at least 2 times cheaper.
Where are the links, Skymaster? That's what I asked you the first time. Both about heating and about how AMD is beating Intel by all means.
P.S. AMD is strategically lagging behind Intel by at least a year, because so far this firm has not given birth to anything equal in performance at least to Core-i7 920, which is about a year old.
Shit. Highlighted for attention:
I read your post, carefully. But still, no one can be sure that, for example, the number of bars is the same for all test participants. That's why I offered the script. There should not be any doubts here.
The notion of frequency with the advent of TurboBoost in the latest Intel has become largely conditional. It is of course possible to disable this mode and work at a fair frequency, but why? We are interested in the practice.
And the fact that we won't get the statistics... It's all right. There are only two families here: Intel and AMD. I don't think anyone works in parallel in Windows on old macs with Motorola. Or on sanspark.