Evaluating CPU cores for optimisation - page 19
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
Yes. But on mac everything (mt5) works through emulator, that's why test kinda dirty. In fact it beats Intel 7 and Raisen 9 or somewhere close, depending on the task
In fact, for work with MT5 at 8 threads it turns out between i7-8700 and Rizen 2700, as tasks per hour 394.27 will run.
Maybe in some synthetic it is faster, but here the problem is that while there is little useful software for it, and when there will be a lot, the processor will already be outdated.
I don't think the toy is worth the money.
In fact, for work with MT5 at 8 threads it turns out between i7-8700 and Rizen 2700, as tasks per hour 394.27 will run.
Maybe in some synthetic it is faster, but the problem is that while there is little useful software for it, and when there will be a lot of it, the processor will get outdated.
I don't think the toy is worth the money.
I've just skimmed the results above, the variation in cores is at most 15 percent. It's probably about that much of a difference.
Load it up to 90 percent, then you will see the difference. Up to 30-40 percent of load no difference can be seen.
Specifications Apple M1:
Load up to 90 per cent, then you will see the difference. Up to 30-40 per cent load, no difference can be seen.
Apple M1 specifications:
download it yourself, just adding some stats )
load it yourself, just a general statistic )
It's generally a good thing that 15% is enough for the task and the load is even)
If you are actively engaged in optimization, then take more cores. Time is the most precious thing we have.
Thank you.
Tested two 16 core Ryzen - the 3950X with the configuration I described above, with the 5950X, in a real test on historical data. No difference from the word "at all" - the 5950X is even a penny slower within the statistical margin of error. While the memory is faster on the 5950X build- 4000 instead of 3200 on the 3950X. Unexpectedly....
So drop the test results.
So drop the test results.
Only tested so far on historical data, and the test was relative to two different CPUs.
It turned out that XMP 4000 did not become on 5950X and it is not yet... Hence the tests were done at 2666 RAM speed. I.e. there will be an update. So far we can conclude that 3950X RAM3200 is identical in speed to 5950X RAM2666.
Tested so far only on historical data, and the test was relative to two different CPUs.
It turned out that XMP 4000 didn't become on 5950X and it doesn't become yet... Hence the tests were done at 2666 RAM speed. I.e. there will be an update. So far we can conclude that 3950X RAM3200 is identical in speed to 5950X RAM2666.
Will you post the results of comparison between 3950 and 5950 please, it will make sense to upgrade or not. Preferably with the same memory frequency. They both have stock 3200. For example my 3700x doesn't want to run with memory frequency higher than 3200, though the memory and the motherboard support it. That's why I'm interested in the stock version.