AMD 64 X2 3800 for multitask trading

nononsense · Sep 17, 2005

Quote from dcraig:

In fact many Java applications are multithreaded and TWS certainly is - just look in the log file. The only catch is that all updates to the screen in Java/Swing applications such as TWS are (or should be) done by a single thread - the AWT thread. If this one thread is consuming most of the CPU cycles used by the application then dual cores or multiple CPUs won't help much for that application.

System performance is a complex issue, but if you are running more than one application at a time eg TWS and charting software, browser etc, I think you will be better off with the cheapest dual core Athlon than the most expensive single core. The machine is likely to feel a little snappier too.

Unlike hyperthreading which was always a bit of a marketing ploy by Intel, multiprocessor (SMP) machines have been around for many years. The technology is well understood and acknowledged to yield very significant performance improvements. Dual core is just mutiprocessor where the multiple processors (two in this case) are built on the same chip.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/index.html#overall_performance

Intel seems to be doing great in multitasking as of late!

Runningbear · Sep 17, 2005

Guys,

The vast majority of my CPU usage is taken up by Esignal. I run about 10 tick charts (suck a lot of CPU capacity) with about 3 EFS studies on each.

I currently have an 2.8 ghz P4 which just doesn't cut it anymore.

I'm planning to upgrade my Ram, MB and chip and go the AMD 64 route in preparation for upgrading to XP64 in the next 12 months.

The 3800+ X2 chip is nearly twice as expensive as the 3500+ Venice core, so what I want to know is: Is it worth the extra money?

Most of the reviews I have read state that the dual core chip doesn't offer much more performance, unless you're doing things like video editing with true multithreaded applications etc.

It is my understanding that Esignal is not multithreaded, so what benefit would I get?

I'm thinking it would make more sense to upgrade to the Venice core now, then possibly update to the X2 in about 24 months time.

By this time I'll be running XP64, esignal will have implemented multithreading and the X2 chips will be, well, as cheap as chips!

Let us know your thoughts? The difference in cost between the two chips is what I plan to spend on 2 gig of ram.

Runningbear

Quote from gnome:

There have been tests by credible websites which have concluded, "... for multitasking, dualcore CPUs show significant improvement in overall performance..."

Holmes · Sep 17, 2005

Quote from Runningbear:

Guys,

The vast majority of my CPU usage is taken up by Esignal. I run about 10 tick charts (suck a lot of CPU capacity) with about 3 EFS studies on each.

I currently have an 2.8 ghz P4 which just doesn't cut it anymore.

I'm planning to upgrade my Ram, MB and chip and go the AMD 64 route in preparation for upgrading to XP64 in the next 12 months.

The 3800+ X2 chip is nearly twice as expensive as the 3500+ Venice core, so what I want to know is: Is it worth the extra money?

Most of the reviews I have read state that the dual core chip doesn't offer much more performance, unless you're doing things like video editing with true multithreaded applications etc.

It is my understanding that Esignal is not multithreaded, so what benefit would I get?

I'm thinking it would make more sense to upgrade to the Venice core now, then possibly update to the X2 in about 24 months time.

By this time I'll be running XP64, esignal will have implemented multithreading and the X2 chips will be, well, as cheap as chips!

Let us know your thoughts? The difference in cost between the two chips is what I plan to spend on 2 gig of ram.

Runningbear

Runningbear

respectfully - do what cmaxb suggested and note how many threads there are running. Then check how much memory is taken up by what. On a message board you can get only generic answers. To know what will work in your environment you will have first to investigate your own machine and then address the bottleneck.

imho the notion that increasing memory will improve performance is more often false than true. Without measuring you are working in the dark!

Sherlock

gnome · Sep 17, 2005

Quote from Runningbear:

"... Most of the reviews I have read state that the dual core chip doesn't offer much more performance, unless you're doing things like video editing with true multithreaded applications etc.

Are you sure they were not referencing *single* applications? The supposed "overall improvement in performance while multitasking" suggests some apps run on each core rather that one core running all. If possible, you should try it out before you buy.

dieselman8 · Sep 18, 2005

I'm running a dual xeon 3.6 overclocked to 4.4 with an active cooling system via compressor and refrigerant. Sure, it cost me 6.5K to build, but it's worth every penny. It runs the latest games with awesome speed.

nononsense · Sep 18, 2005

Quote from dieselman8:

I'm running a dual xeon 3.6 overclocked to 4.4 with an active cooling system via compressor and refrigerant. Sure, it cost me 6.5K to build, but it's worth every penny. It runs the latest games with awesome speed.

All that trouble for a meager 20% speedup?

duard · Sep 18, 2005

Nonsense,

I'd like to hear your thoughts on CPU's, datafeeds, charting software, and best bang for the buck.

Respectfully,

D.

ElectricSavant · Sep 18, 2005

kewl

Quote from dieselman8:

I'm running a dual xeon 3.6 overclocked to 4.4 with an active cooling system via compressor and refrigerant. Sure, it cost me 6.5K to build, but it's worth every penny. It runs the latest games with awesome speed.

Larr G Wang · Sep 18, 2005

Quote from dieselman8:

I'm running a dual xeon 3.6 overclocked to 4.4 with an active cooling system via compressor and refrigerant. Sure, it cost me 6.5K to build, but it's worth every penny. It runs the latest games with awesome speed.

wow runs latest games.. and "only" 6.5 K!
(With only another 6.5K i can buy a toyota!)

Bernard111 · Sep 20, 2005

Quote from Runningbear:

The 3800+ X2 chip is nearly twice as expensive as the 3500+ Venice core, so what I want to know is: Is it worth the extra money?

Runningbear

IMOO a $150/200 difference for CPU cost - without the need to buy another PC and reinstall the OS + software,etc. - could save you some ticks here and there (so gaining some edge on execution) using a CPU that tries to avoid as much as possible bottlenecks that can lead to 100% CPU usage. So the cost should not be a decisive issue, at least for a trader. Sure, if you trade long term it's not an issue at all!