The idea is that you could get a faster processor (buy it on eBay or Ali) and it would be fine, but it's not fast enough.
No, it's a soldered-in processor. It is, in fact, a media player, for watching all sorts of nonsense for sleep, connected to a projector. The point of the experiment was to test on the cheesiest hardware available (which is where the metatrader runs).
No, there's a processor soldered in. It's basically a media player, for watching all sorts of nonsense for sleep, connected to a projector. The point of the experiment was to test on the most cheesy hardware available (which runs Metatrader).
Ah, so that's it, it was the availability of 8 gig RAM that confused me!
Serhii Shevchuk:
A good start:
And if you move the calculations to the body rather than to a function, it takes hours to compile...
Please test this version on FX with 4 and 8 agents.
So. Agents: 4. Optimisation passes: 8. Results:
2019.08.1001:31:47.465 Core 4 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:54.8142019.08.1001:31:48.782 Core 1 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:56.1362019.08.1001:31:49.263 Core 2 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:56.5572019.08.1001:31:50.412 Core 3 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:57.7112019.08.1001:34:45.025 Core 4 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:57.5602019.08.1001:34:45.482 Core 2 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:56.2182019.08.1001:34:45.637 Core 1 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:56.8502019.08.1001:34:49.330 Core 3 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:58.9162019.08.1001:34:49.330 Tester optimization finished, total passes 82019.08.1001:34:49.341 Statistics optimization done in5 minutes 58 seconds
2019.08.1001:34:49.341 Statistics shortest pass 0:02:54.814, longest pass 0:02:58.916, average pass 0:02:56.845
Agents: 8. Optimisation passes: 8. Results:
2019.08.1001:41:03.259 Core 2 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:22.6412019.08.1001:41:07.004 Core 8 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:25.2972019.08.1001:41:07.715 Core 7 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:26.0762019.08.1001:41:08.051 Core 1 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:27.4452019.08.1001:41:09.096 Core 6 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:27.4582019.08.1001:41:09.459 Core 4 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:28.8512019.08.1001:41:09.695 Core 3 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:29.0822019.08.1001:41:09.966 Core 5 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:04:28.2132019.08.1001:41:09.966 Tester optimization finished, total passes 82019.08.1001:41:09.977 Statistics optimization done in4 minutes 29 seconds
2019.08.1001:41:09.977 Statistics shortest pass 0:04:22.641, longest pass 0:04:29.082, average pass 0:04:26.882
Added:
So you're right - the FX processor smells like hyperthreading (although I took it as a full 8-core).
And the agent manager sees it as 8-core too (with the existing 7 agents it offers to add 1 more, see image):
P.S. Now this is interesting!
Deleted all the agents. Decided to add again. And then - for the first time in I don't know how many years - I was asked to add 4 agents instead of the usual 8:
So, something has changed in the tester in relation to ancient AMD stones, and, moreover, it's very fresh changes.
P.P.S.
Yes, build 2085 also proposed to add 8 agents. A very fresh innovation:
As time goes on, everything is shrinking. There used to be eight agents, now there are four.
So you're right - the FX processor smells like hyperthreading (although I took it as a full 8-core).
And the agent manager sees it as 8-core too (with the existing 7 agents it offers to add 1 more, see image):
P.S. Now this is interesting!
Deleted all the agents. Decided to add again. And then - for the first time in I don't know how many years - I was asked to add 4 agents instead of the usual 8:
So, something has changed in the tester in relation to ancient AMD stones, and, moreover, it's very fresh changes.
P.P.S.
Yes, build 2085 also proposed to add 8 agents. Quite a fresh innovation:
As time goes on, everything is shrinking. There used to be eight agents, now there are four.
I wasn't aware that an update was already happening to build 2097 - I've been using it since mid July (as a tester), and I was aware of this approach to disabling questionable agents - hypertrading and such as AMD, all agents can still be used on the local machine for now, and hopefully this won't change. Why this is done - I suspect for a fair assessment of the value of resources when selling them in the claud.
Still, it's interesting that the gain from 8 threads is very decent - 25%, and it's worth it to load all 8 agents.
At AMD on two computing cores (ALU), responsible for operations of addition and subtraction, and also comparison logic, and maybe more, 1 core (FPU) responsible for division and multiplication, i.e. operations with floating point, i.e. it is not hypertrading in the pure form.
2019.08.1110:57:01.270 Core 3 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:21.3892019.08.1110:57:01.466 Core 1 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:21.6162019.08.1110:57:01.851 Core 4 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:21.9502019.08.1110:57:03.201 Core 2 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:23.2922019.08.1110:58:21.943 Core 3 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:20.6802019.08.1110:58:22.763 Core 1 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:21.3042019.08.1110:58:23.899 Core 4 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:22.0562019.08.1110:58:26.569 Core 2 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:23.3752019.08.1110:58:26.569 Tester optimization finished, total passes 82019.08.1110:58:26.579 Statistics optimization done in2 minutes 47 seconds
2019.08.1110:58:26.579 Statistics shortest pass 0:01:20.680, longest pass 0:01:23.375, average pass 0:01:21.957
Tree_Brut_TestPL - 8 agents
2019.08.1111:11:21.820 Core 7 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:03.8742019.08.1111:11:22.139 Core 2 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:04.3542019.08.1111:11:24.113 Core 3 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:06.1412019.08.1111:11:24.195 Core 4 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:06.4702019.08.1111:11:24.394 Core 6 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:06.5392019.08.1111:11:24.917 Core 5 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:06.9662019.08.1111:11:28.852 Core 1 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:11.0272019.08.1111:11:30.336 Core 8 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:12.3022019.08.1111:11:30.336 Tester optimization finished, total passes 82019.08.1111:11:30.346 Statistics optimization done in2 minutes 13 seconds
2019.08.1111:11:30.346 Statistics shortest pass 0:02:03.874, longest pass 0:02:12.302, average pass 0:02:07.209
Tree_Brut_TestPL_F - 4 agents
2019.08.1111:15:56.836 Core 4 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:03.3602019.08.1111:15:57.088 Core 3 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:03.5672019.08.1111:15:57.744 Core 2 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:04.2482019.08.1111:15:58.259 Core 1 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:04.7622019.08.1111:17:53.839 Core 2 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:56.1062019.08.1111:17:55.203 Core 3 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:58.1262019.08.1111:17:55.210 Core 4 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:58.3872019.08.1111:17:55.615 Core 1 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:57.3662019.08.1111:17:55.615 Tester optimization finished, total passes 82019.08.1111:17:55.625 Statistics optimization done in4 minutes 03 seconds
2019.08.1111:17:55.625 Statistics shortest pass 0:01:56.106, longest pass 0:02:04.762, average pass 0:02:00.740
Tree_Brut_TestPL_F - 8 agents
2019.08.1111:24:05.758 Core 6 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:30.4502019.08.1111:24:06.511 Core 1 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:32.3702019.08.1111:24:07.029 Core 4 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:32.8602019.08.1111:24:08.345 Core 2 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:34.2102019.08.1111:24:08.447 Core 5 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:33.1672019.08.1111:24:08.482 Core 3 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:34.2802019.08.1111:24:08.768 Core 8 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:33.6882019.08.1111:24:10.260 Core 7 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:35.0182019.08.1111:24:10.260 Tester optimization finished, total passes 82019.08.1111:24:10.270 Statistics optimization done in3 minutes 37 seconds
2019.08.1111:24:10.270 Statistics shortest pass 0:03:30.450, longest pass 0:03:35.018, average pass 0:03:33.255
And yet, there is a clear performance gain from using 8 agents vs. 4 agents, although the speed per agent is significantly higher when using 4 agents.
The next computer will be an older Phenom II X6 1065T with a 2900Mhz CPU.
2019.08.1112:08:13.905 Terminal Windows 7 (build 7600) x64, IE 8, AMD Phenom II X6 1065 T Processor, Memory: 5996 / 8191 Mb, Disk: 79 / 224 Gb, GMT+3
Tree_Brut_TestPL - 6 agents
2019.08.1112:11:06.766 Core 3 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:16.4132019.08.1112:11:07.043 Core 2 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:16.5932019.08.1112:11:08.079 Core 4 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:17.5382019.08.1112:11:08.277 Core 6 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:17.6982019.08.1112:11:16.133 Core 1 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:25.7202019.08.1112:11:17.239 Core 5 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:26.6922019.08.1112:11:17.239 Tester optimization finished, total passes 62019.08.1112:11:17.249 Statistics optimization done in2 minutes 27 seconds
2019.08.1112:11:17.249 Statistics shortest pass 0:02:16.413, longest pass 0:02:26.692, average pass 0:02:20.109
Tree_Brut_TestPL - 3 agents
2019.08.1112:16:01.529 Core 2 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:17.9602019.08.1112:16:01.530 Core 1 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:17.9602019.08.1112:16:01.787 Core 3 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:18.2192019.08.1112:18:19.602 Core 2 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:18.0732019.08.1112:18:19.630 Core 1 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:18.1002019.08.1112:18:20.100 Core 3 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:02:18.3112019.08.1112:18:20.100 Tester optimization finished, total passes 62019.08.1112:18:20.110 Statistics optimization done in4 minutes 37 seconds
2019.08.1112:18:20.110 Statistics shortest pass 0:02:17.960, longest pass 0:02:18.311, average pass 0:02:18.103
Checked it on 3 agents, to see the difference in architecture compared to FX - here we have 6 FPU's honestly.
Tree_Brut_TestPL_F - 6 agents
2019.08.1112:23:16.283 Core 1 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:39.6262019.08.1112:23:16.652 Core 5 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:39.6142019.08.1112:23:16.861 Core 3 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:40.2862019.08.1112:23:17.968 Core 2 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:41.2942019.08.1112:23:30.936 Core 4 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:53.8602019.08.1112:23:32.878 Core 6 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:55.9492019.08.1112:23:32.878 Tester optimization finished, total passes 62019.08.1112:23:32.888 Statistics optimization done in3 minutes 57 seconds
2019.08.1112:23:32.888 Statistics shortest pass 0:03:39.614, longest pass 0:03:55.949, average pass 0:03:45.104
Only 20 seconds behind FX in core speed, which isn't bad considering the 1100Mhz frequency difference!
My result (Inter Core i7-8700, 3.2 GHz, 16 Gb, hypertrading enabled, there are 12 agents, but only six worked, by the number of physical cores) :
2019.08.1112:35:27.825 Core 04 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.3782019.08.1112:35:27.841 Core 01 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.2412019.08.1112:35:28.620 Core 06 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:11.1302019.08.1112:35:28.626 Core 03 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:11.0362019.08.1112:35:28.704 Core 12 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:11.1002019.08.1112:35:29.296 Core 02 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:11.7062019.08.1112:35:29.296 Tester optimization finished, total passes 62019.08.1112:35:29.307 Statistics optimization done in1 minutes 13 seconds
2019.08.1112:35:29.307 Statistics shortest pass 0:01:10.241, longest pass 0:01:11.706, average pass 0:01:10.931
It seems to me that for hypertrading, it is very important that the data fits into the CPU cache. Virtual cores benefit precisely when the processor does not need to access main memory, when all data is in cache. Correspondingly, if large arrays are being calculated (real ticks in a couple of years) - hypertrading will be of little use. However, when processing relatively small data (in my experience, about a year or a year and a half for 1MOHLC), hypertrading gives quite a noticeable performance gain.
My result (Inter Core i7-8700, 3.2 GHz, 16 Gb, hypertrading enabled, there are 12 agents, but only six worked, by the number of physical cores) :
It seems to me that for hypertrading, it is very important that the data fits into the cache of the processor. Virtual cores benefit when the processor does not need to access main memory, when all data is in cache. Correspondingly, if large arrays are being calculated (real ticks in a couple of years) - hypertrading will be of little use. However, when processing relatively small data (in my experience, about a year or a year and a half for 1MOHLC), hypertrading gives quite a noticeable performance gain.
Now it is suggested to put up tests ofTree_Brut_TestPL andTree_Brut_TestPL_F - if possible (with indication what kind of Expert Advisor), then give(give) information on two variants, well, with hypertrading(all agents) and without - and while there is no understanding of objective, need it or not.
Now we are proposing to put up tests ofTree_Brut_TestPL andTree_Brut_TestPL_F - if possible (indicating what kind of Expert Advisor), then give (give) information on the two versions, well, with hypertrading (all agents) and without - and while there is no understanding of objective, you need it or not.
Above - Tree_Brut_TestPL_F
Here is the second one, in the same configuration:
2019.08.1114:32:43.819 Core 07 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:00:33.1572019.08.1114:32:44.209 Core 04 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:00:33.4942019.08.1114:32:44.291 Core 03 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:00:33.6642019.08.1114:32:44.415 Core 01 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:00:33.8462019.08.1114:32:44.568 Core 02 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:00:34.0312019.08.1114:32:44.683 Core 05 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:00:34.0822019.08.1114:32:44.683 Tester optimization finished, total passes 62019.08.1114:32:44.693 Statistics optimization done in0 minutes 34 seconds
2019.08.1114:32:44.693 Statistics shortest pass 0:00:33.157, longest pass 0:00:34.082, average pass 0:00:33.712
Same (without F) when running 12 virtual cores:
2019.08.1114:36:39.685 Core 05 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:43.9392019.08.1114:36:39.843 Core 03 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:44.1022019.08.1114:36:40.327 Core 04 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:44.5812019.08.1114:36:40.394 Core 07 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:44.6502019.08.1114:36:40.514 Core 10 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:44.2152019.08.1114:36:40.707 Core 06 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:44.4542019.08.1114:36:40.732 Core 09 pass 9 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:44.3672019.08.1114:36:40.885 Core 02 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:45.1432019.08.1114:36:41.253 Core 01 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:45.5122019.08.1114:36:41.727 Core 12 pass 11 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:45.3252019.08.1114:36:41.786 Core 11 pass 10 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:45.4072019.08.1114:36:41.899 Core 08 pass 8 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:45.5632019.08.1114:36:41.899 Tester optimization finished, total passes 122019.08.1114:36:41.909 Statistics optimization done in1 minutes 46 seconds
2019.08.1114:36:41.909 Statistics shortest pass 0:01:43.939, longest pass 0:01:45.563, average pass 0:01:44.771
Expert "with F" when running 12 virtual cores:
2019.08.1114:48:04.349 Core 09 pass 10 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:16.0052019.08.1114:48:06.012 Core 02 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:18.1942019.08.1114:48:06.269 Core 11 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:18.1522019.08.1114:48:06.902 Core 01 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:18.8692019.08.1114:48:06.925 Core 10 pass 8 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:18.5902019.08.1114:48:06.958 Core 05 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:18.8162019.08.1114:48:07.269 Core 07 pass 7 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:19.0442019.08.1114:48:07.460 Core 04 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:19.4702019.08.1114:48:07.818 Core 06 pass 6 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:19.6342019.08.1114:48:08.151 Core 12 pass 11 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:19.7772019.08.1114:48:08.463 Core 03 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:20.5632019.08.1114:48:09.072 Core 08 pass 9 returned result 1001000.00in0:03:20.7362019.08.1114:48:09.072 Tester optimization finished, total passes 122019.08.1114:48:09.083 Statistics optimization done in3 minutes 23 seconds
2019.08.1114:48:09.083 Statistics shortest pass 0:03:16.005, longest pass 0:03:20.736, average pass 0:03:18.987
I'm going to turn off hypertrading now...
Expert "without F" and without hypertrading with six passes:
2019.08.1114:56:16.918 Core 5 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:09.2912019.08.1114:56:16.984 Core 1 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:09.4522019.08.1114:56:17.228 Core 3 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:09.6352019.08.1114:56:17.797 Core 6 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.1632019.08.1114:56:18.164 Core 2 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.7252019.08.1114:56:18.284 Core 4 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.675
Expert "with F" and without hypertrading with six passes:
2019.08.1115:01:43.644 Core 3 pass 2 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.1382019.08.1115:01:43.984 Core 1 pass 0 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.4942019.08.1115:01:44.121 Core 5 pass 4 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.5852019.08.1115:01:44.310 Core 2 pass 1 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.8682019.08.1115:01:44.318 Core 4 pass 3 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.7822019.08.1115:01:44.397 Core 6 pass 5 returned result 1001000.00in0:01:10.8592019.08.1115:01:44.397 Tester optimization finished, total passes 62019.08.1115:01:44.407 Statistics optimization done in1 minutes 12 seconds
2019.08.1115:01:44.407 Statistics shortest pass 0:01:10.138, longest pass 0:01:10.868, average pass 0:01:10.6212019.08.1115:01:44.407 Statistics 6000 frames (2.36 Mb total, 412 bytes per frame) received
Allow the use of cookies to log in to the MQL5.com website.
Please enable the necessary setting in your browser, otherwise you will not be able to log in.
You are signed in. Two-factor authentication has been disabled. Set it up again and scan a new QR code, or continue with two-factor authentication disabled.
The idea is that you could get a faster processor (buy it on eBay or Ali) and it would be fine, but it's not fast enough.
No, it's a soldered-in processor. It is, in fact, a media player, for watching all sorts of nonsense for sleep, connected to a projector. The point of the experiment was to test on the cheesiest hardware available (which is where the metatrader runs).
Added:
A good start:
No, there's a processor soldered in. It's basically a media player, for watching all sorts of nonsense for sleep, connected to a projector. The point of the experiment was to test on the most cheesy hardware available (which runs Metatrader).
Ah, so that's it, it was the availability of 8 gig RAM that confused me!
A good start:
And if you move the calculations to the body rather than to a function, it takes hours to compile...
Please test this version on FX with 4 and 8 agents.
So.
Agents: 4. Optimisation passes: 8. Results:
Agents: 8. Optimisation passes: 8. Results:
Added:
So you're right - the FX processor smells like hyperthreading (although I took it as a full 8-core).
And the agent manager sees it as 8-core too (with the existing 7 agents it offers to add 1 more, see image):
P.S. Now this is interesting!
Deleted all the agents. Decided to add again. And then - for the first time in I don't know how many years - I was asked to add 4 agents instead of the usual 8:
So, something has changed in the tester in relation to ancient AMD stones, and, moreover, it's very fresh changes.
P.P.S.
Yes, build 2085 also proposed to add 8 agents. A very fresh innovation:

As time goes on, everything is shrinking. There used to be eight agents, now there are four.So.
Agents: 4. Optimization passes: 8. Results:
Agents: 8. Optimisation passes: 8. Results:
Added:
So you're right - the FX processor smells like hyperthreading (although I took it as a full 8-core).
And the agent manager sees it as 8-core too (with the existing 7 agents it offers to add 1 more, see image):
P.S. Now this is interesting!
Deleted all the agents. Decided to add again. And then - for the first time in I don't know how many years - I was asked to add 4 agents instead of the usual 8:
So, something has changed in the tester in relation to ancient AMD stones, and, moreover, it's very fresh changes.
P.P.S.
Yes, build 2085 also proposed to add 8 agents. Quite a fresh innovation:
As time goes on, everything is shrinking. There used to be eight agents, now there are four.I wasn't aware that an update was already happening to build 2097 - I've been using it since mid July (as a tester), and I was aware of this approach to disabling questionable agents - hypertrading and such as AMD, all agents can still be used on the local machine for now, and hopefully this won't change. Why this is done - I suspect for a fair assessment of the value of resources when selling them in the claud.
Still, it's interesting that the gain from 8 threads is very decent - 25%, and it's worth it to load all 8 agents.
At AMD on two computing cores (ALU), responsible for operations of addition and subtraction, and also comparison logic, and maybe more, 1 core (FPU) responsible for division and multiplication, i.e. operations with floating point, i.e. it is not hypertrading in the pure form.
Caught a netbook, but it was faster than a Xeron - surprised.
Got a chance to test mainframe with FX-8350 - no 4000Mhz overclocking.
Tree_Brut_TestPL - 4 agents
Tree_Brut_TestPL - 8 agents
Tree_Brut_TestPL_F - 4 agents
Tree_Brut_TestPL_F - 8 agents
And yet, there is a clear performance gain from using 8 agents vs. 4 agents, although the speed per agent is significantly higher when using 4 agents.
The next computer will be an older Phenom II X6 1065T with a 2900Mhz CPU.
Tree_Brut_TestPL - 6 agents
Tree_Brut_TestPL - 3 agents
Checked it on 3 agents, to see the difference in architecture compared to FX - here we have 6 FPU's honestly.
Tree_Brut_TestPL_F - 6 agents
Only 20 seconds behind FX in core speed, which isn't bad considering the 1100Mhz frequency difference!
My result (Inter Core i7-8700, 3.2 GHz, 16 Gb, hypertrading enabled, there are 12 agents, but only six worked, by the number of physical cores) :
It seems to me that for hypertrading, it is very important that the data fits into the CPU cache. Virtual cores benefit precisely when the processor does not need to access main memory, when all data is in cache. Correspondingly, if large arrays are being calculated (real ticks in a couple of years) - hypertrading will be of little use. However, when processing relatively small data (in my experience, about a year or a year and a half for 1MOHLC), hypertrading gives quite a noticeable performance gain.My result (Inter Core i7-8700, 3.2 GHz, 16 Gb, hypertrading enabled, there are 12 agents, but only six worked, by the number of physical cores) :
It seems to me that for hypertrading, it is very important that the data fits into the cache of the processor. Virtual cores benefit when the processor does not need to access main memory, when all data is in cache. Correspondingly, if large arrays are being calculated (real ticks in a couple of years) - hypertrading will be of little use. However, when processing relatively small data (in my experience, about a year or a year and a half for 1MOHLC), hypertrading gives quite a noticeable performance gain.Now it is suggested to put up tests ofTree_Brut_TestPL andTree_Brut_TestPL_F - if possible (with indication what kind of Expert Advisor), then give(give) information on two variants, well, with hypertrading(all agents) and without - and while there is no understanding of objective, need it or not.
Now we are proposing to put up tests ofTree_Brut_TestPL andTree_Brut_TestPL_F - if possible (indicating what kind of Expert Advisor), then give (give) information on the two versions, well, with hypertrading (all agents) and without - and while there is no understanding of objective, you need it or not.
Above - Tree_Brut_TestPL_F
Here is the second one, in the same configuration:
Same (without F) when running 12 virtual cores:
Expert "with F" when running 12 virtual cores:
I'm going to turn off hypertrading now...
Expert "without F" and without hypertrading with six passes:
Expert "with F" and without hypertrading with six passes: