I want to build a PC to work with MT5, what do you advise and why? - page 42
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
Here as usual there are nuances - it is necessary to consult with more knowledgeable comrades, because previously (long ago) it was necessary that and processors were not just one model, but preferably and series and memory peculiar wishes. Otherwise the game was not worth the candle;
and the OS then is no longer HomeEdition :-)
and they're still warming up together, and you need propellators, and that's all at home. You probably don't want to enjoy the acoustics of a Boeing taking off every morning or when rebooting ? :-) Servers are like that, you can hear the power and strength when you switch them on.
It's like one thing pulls the other - a bigger computer and for a long time/growth, so reasonable+reliable cooling and a spacious, competent case. It also means a good PSU. A lot of HDD/SDD means a lot of data and some of them are important. That means additional requirements to PSU and probably also UPS
Long-term purchase means attention to details - capacitors, bridges and other subtleties. They usually die. Minimum of integrations - everything that can be separate, separately. Then it will break down separately and be replaced too.
It will turn out that the available HDDs and other spare parts are a drop in the ocean, it is easier to buy new ones.
Prots - one stepping is enough. Memory - look at banks and ranks, ECC, equal to each processor and it is desirable not to allocate for one task or virtualisation more than one processor, because NUMA and access to "neighbouring" memory is much (probably many times) slower.
OS - I've forgotten that Windows has such fiddles with the version, I haven't dealt with it for a long time :)
Servers are loud just because they try to pack everything tightly, hence the small high-speed buzzers.
In my house, on the contrary, I try to put low-speed 120mm everywhere.
For discs - 5-10 watts per spindle, more when starting, but you can start with a delay. For ssd - less.
You can do without one of the most consuming components - a powerful graphics card.
And yes, at my home my computer, home server-router, monitors and switch on UPS (2 9Ah batteries) live more than half an hour.
I'm looking at one of these ( Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3 (18 (36) cores at 2.3 - 3.6 GHz)).
Just in case - SATA connectors like this one (corner on the edge of the board) may not have a very reliable contact, especially in the top one, I've encountered it.
Vladimir, price/performance is the criterion here. With the same number of cores and threads AMD wins, with equal prices.
As an example of technology development look at this flagship beast AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ PRO 3995WX true even with my fanaticism is not ready to give up about 7000$.
In my choice of 16 cores and 32 threads, you can learn for 30-40 thousand, for 30 it is true if you take a second-hand stone, which is quite loyal to me.
Can I find a Xeon on 16 cores with 32 threads for 30 thousand rubles, about 4 gz?
AMD has been called a stove all my life, now it's Intel) at the same speed Intel burns more than 1.5 times, in optimisation you will have to insert earplugs, now Ryzen 5700x comes from China instead of 3700x, 65W TDP only, you can remove restrictions in bios will be about 100W, similar Intel 150-200W consumes
Intel and AMD are an eternal dispute, and at each stage of the product there are nuances. AMD was an "oven" in the times of K7 (Athlon) then there was not even thermal control in CPUs, it just burned, Intel had thermal control, but it was 20 years ago. And that time Intel had a failed Pentium 4 when they emphasised on frequency, then in the new Core generation they returned to optimisation not at the expense of frequency and started to increase cores and cache.
and now they are focusing on frequency, their 5gpc is about 250W, that's crazy.
there is no progress for a long time, now AMD has progress, there are of course off the scale models of processors, RX6600 is the most energy efficient card now, faster than the former favourite 1060 in almost 2 times while consuming almost 1.5 times less, that's progress.
nvidia has no progress at all after 1000 models, 1060 120W (I have a unique version was 150W TDP))), how much the next ones consumed? almost 1.5 times more.
so and now the frequency emphasis, their 5gpc is given at about 250W, crazy.
I agree that a 250W CPU is insane. Silicon technology has come to an end, no matter how you improve the process, you can't increase the frequency, they focus on the number of cores and the amount of cache. Silicon's physical limit is about 5Ghz.
Why I will remain an Intel supporter, because Intel is the one who makes the key certificates. When MQL said a long time ago that we don't support CPUs without SSE2, did AMD introduce SSE2 ?
is this the same argument)
Intel will be interesting when it moves to the same higher tech. level, while Intel-burner is not interesting at all.
Why I will remain an Intel supporter, because Intel makes the key certificates. When long ago MQL said that we don't support CPUs without SSE2, did SSE2 was introduced by AMD?
go to 32 bit....
modern 64 is amd64 :-) the Intel version is dead
go to 32 bits.....
modern 64 is amd64 :-) the intel version is dead
I've had 64 bit since 2005, one or the other.