Selecting a computer configuration (expert optimisation a priority) - page 15
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
I remember doing an experiment with two-channel and single-channel configurations, although on MT4, and the single-channel version was 10 percent faster. That's why your words need to be justified.
I do not have computers of the needed configuration at hand to post screenshots here. What I have written is my impressions and result of switching from i5 (2700) to XEON 1620 (3600). The difference was many times but noticeable when all the cores were loaded. I have no problem loading all cores.
In general: one should try to work with professional computers and not with home computers, much less with gaming ones. With my links I wanted to show that it does not lead to exorbitant costs.
Computers should be designed on the information givenhere. There are all the necessary references to similar and related components. And the figures they usually have are NOT the passport figures, but the result of their own tests.
The prices for processors are in this shop. They are usually higher.
We used to have most of the shops carry components exactly from Nix.
And I used to pick them up - just from this site. I got them at Nix dealer prices +10%. I bought my last computer (ten years ago) that way.
Sadly, the DNS have now "squeezed out" almost all of them. I've specially walked through all the local shops I know - the prices are at best five per cent more expensive than the DnS ones, and more often - fifteen per cent. Plus the local DnS service centre is quite good, not worse than other centres (I dealt with them a couple of times on other occasions).
So - "with all the choice, there's no other alternative".
In general: you should try to work on professional computers, not on home computers, let alone gaming computers. With my references I wanted to show that it does not lead to exorbitant costs.
I agree with those statements, but as a rule all "professional" stuff costs much more and it's more difficult to maintain it.
I remember back in the second half of the 90s - I used to get a second-hand CD-RW "for next to nothing". People were just getting CD-ROMs and I got such a cool, "professional" thing.
The only problem was that it had a SCSI interface and a controller, which plugged into the old ISA bus. My new computer no longer had that bus. Seemed to be a piece of cake, just buy a PCI controller and be done with it. But this CD-RW didn't want to write CD-ROMs afterwards. And no matter how I configured it, it didn't work. Read - it reads. My friend put a native controller on the ISA bus and it works great. Inserted in PCI SCSI-controller - no conflicts or problems, all perfectly recognized, 95th Windows - finds it, driver puts - all fine, the drive writes... But it doesn't write. When you start recording, it hesitates, and that's it.
I was very glad when I sold this thing for the same money I bought it. The buyer squealed with joy. I suspect that only until he replaced the board, which no longer has the ISA connectors.
So all this "professional" equipment - while much more reliable, and often works better - has its pitfalls, which, at times, negate all its benefits.
Good luck!
I agree with these statements, but as a rule, all "professional" equipment is much more expensive and more difficult to maintain.
I remember back in the second half of the 90s - I got a second-hand CD-RW "almost for nothing". People were just getting CD-ROMs and I got such a cool, "professional" thing.
The only problem was that it had a SCSI interface and a controller, which plugged into the old ISA bus. My new computer no longer had that bus. Seemed to be a piece of cake, just buy a PCI controller and be done with it. But this CD-RW didn't want to write CD-ROMs afterwards. And no matter how I configured it, it didn't work. Read - it reads. My friend put a native controller on the ISA bus and it works great. Inserted in PCI SCSI-controller - no conflicts or problems, all perfectly recognized, 95th Windows - finds it, driver puts - all fine, the drive writes... But it doesn't write. When you start recording, it hesitates, and that's it.
I was very glad when I sold this thing for the same money I bought it. The buyer squealed with joy. I suspect that only until he replaced the board, which no longer had the ISA connectors.
So all this "professional" equipment - although much more reliable, and often works better - has its pitfalls, which, at times, negate all its benefits.
I guess what was meant here was Renat's tales of their cool servers. But that's probably more than a lakh (or more than a few). And the point for the average user? It's easier to use the cloud.
Ran the system on real TC League experts' optimization tasks (year, OLHC on 1M), using different computers (including junk ones).
If anyone is interested, I've got the following picture of processing speeds (the speed was measured only at forward optimization stage, when there is no waiting for generations, based on number of passes performed).
AMD Sempron LE-1200 (single core) processing speed was taken as one.
In this case.
- AMD Turion II P540 (two cores) has speed 4.24
- Intel Core2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66GHz (two cores) has speed 3.91
- Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.9GHz (two cores) has speed 6.79
- Intel Core i5 4440 @ 3.1GHz (four cores) has speeds of 19.73
- Intel Core i7 8700 @ 3.2GHz (twelve threads) has speed 37.49 (with turbo boost 50.38)
Speeds are taken as a total (not per core)Ran the system on real TC League experts' optimization tasks (year, OLHC on 1M), using different computers (including junk ones).
If anyone is interested, I've got the following picture of processing speeds (the speed was measured only at forward optimization stage, when there is no waiting for generations, based on number of passes performed).
AMD Sempron LE-1200 (single core) processing speed was taken as one.
In this case.
- AMD Turion II P540 (two cores) has speed 4.24
- Intel Core2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66GHz (two cores) has speed 3.91
- Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.9GHz (two cores) has speed 6.79
- Intel Core i5 4440 @ 3.1GHz (four cores) has speeds of 19.73
- Intel Core i7 8700 @ 3.2GHz (twelve threads) has a speed of 37.49 (with turbo boost 50.38)
Speeds are taken as a total (not per core)Interesting, but would have given the set and time, then it would have been more interesting :) I would compare with my mini mesh.
And why there's no option without hypertrading is sad.
Interesting, but would have given a set and time, then it would have been more interesting :) I would compare with my mini set.
And why there is no option without hypertrading is sad.
Well, the sets are standard, optimization of individual TC League EAs.
At the end of forward optimization - I look at how many passes this or that EA has made - respectively, this is its speed.
Without hypertrading - you can certainly try it... But on a "fast" TC - ChnFlatSAR.
I have run the test. I've got speed (I've got just over a thousand of tasks, so I haven't measured hundredths of a second):
That is, the benefit of hypertrading is somewhere between 15-20%.
Well, the sets are standard, the optimisation of individual EAs of the TC League.
At the end of forward-optimization - I see how many passes a particular EA has made - respectively, this is its speed.
Without hypertrading - you can certainly try it... But on a "fast" TS - ChnFlatSAR.
I have run the test. Get the speed (tasks were only a little over a thousand, so I have not taken a hundredth of a percent):
That is, hypertrading is about 15-20% useful.
I see, thanks.
Greetings, everyone.
I'm getting more and more stressed by my old system unit. After all, for almost 10 years it is not only obsolete, but it is already limiting me considerably.
So the question arose about getting a new system unit (I have a monitor and it suits me fine).
So.
Aim - maximum performance while optimizing the TC.
Budget - $500.
I'm partial to Intel's CPUs (I'm looking forward to i5 six-core units) and Asus boards (I really like their ability to control fan speeds).
Gaming capabilities are completely unimportant. The last thing I played this year was Age Of Empires (the very first one, from 1997). What are the newfangled toys out there now - not even aware of it.
Lower power is desirable - I like quiet, especially when you don't need performance. That's why it's important that the motherboard knows how to control all the fans in the system.
What do you suggest, colleagues?
Don't buy on AMD processors. In case you have to work in Android Studio you'll have problems with virtualisation.