The HP $341 vs the Dell $1149. There would be enough savings left over to upgrade to SSD, additional ram, 4k monitor, and a second workstation.
Dell T5810 Sale... $810, well configured
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
If anyone is interested in a Dell Optiplex i7, here's the refurbished model I bought recently: http://www.ebay.com/itm/381813422755?ul_noapp=true
This one is $249 and the shipping is a bit high at $32. I paid $335 plus $15 shipping a few months ago. There are also many refurbished Dell Precisions on eBay.
This one is $249 and the shipping is a bit high at $32. I paid $335 plus $15 shipping a few months ago. There are also many refurbished Dell Precisions on eBay.
If you want to buy a 9-year old computer with 3-generations old technology, you can probably get one for $50... but that's not the point. (Not that some "3-generations old" computers aren't adequate for trading... they can be. That's what I use.)
(If you recall, I said "$650 is a great deal... $850 is a good deal.... for $1149, I'd wait for a better deal".)
The xeon x5660 is manufactured in 2009, which makes it 7 years old not 9. Bench mark test 7954 vs 9862 for > double the price, only 20% faster. Which is fast enough for 98% traders. Savings can be used to upgrade to SSD and 4K monitor. There would no difference running multiple trade platforms vs over priced unit. Wait a few months and find them on ebay for similar price. I'd go for the 6 core for < half the price. I currently run a Dell T3500 Xeon quad core with bench mark around 5300, 2x nvidia NVS 420, 8 monitors, multiple trading platforms, MS office, MS developer suite, and python, simultaneously with out any problems.
You're right, my mistake... "7 years old, not 9". Still, we're talking about "well used with SATA II and USB 2.0" vs. New and more modern technology. The price differential isn't really the argument, is it? It' not like arguing "running to the corner Starbux in a 1950 Plymouth vs 2016 Dodge Charger".
The HP is "quite old and cheaper". DUH! I didn't make the argument that the older machine would be inadequate for trading, now did I?
Last edited:
I don't know how you tell unless you run it yourself and see or query the software maker.
Marketing ploy by CPU makers mostly. "More cores, more better. Cost more, too." Biggest jump in performance for most of the software we mortals use was from single core to 2 cores. I believe the majority and main stream of CPU lines today start with 4 cores.
"6 cores with 12 threads" likely > "4 cores, 8 threads" in software which utilizes all cores/threads. Almost none of the software does that.
An interesting stat on Passmark about CPUs is their "per core" performance.
Long ago multithreading programming was controlled by the programmer. Now compilers are intelligent to identify which processes can be parsed to run simultaneously, taking advantage of multicore multithreading architecture. If 1 horse can pull a cart, 2 horses can pull the the same cart more efficiently but not always faster. Now it depends on how much weight is in the cart. I program DB fetch in 1 thread and calc in another, DB write in another. But today's multitasking environments it's much more complex, with disk controllers, GPU etc. More cores is better, within cost restraints.