CPU speed is currently well above 1G hz. When considering a new machine, do we really need a dual-processor?
Does a dual-processor machine really have advantage?
- Thread starter CoolTrader
- Start date
Win2000 and XP supports multiple processors, while 98/95 and ME doesn't. linux supports multiple processors as well.
So if you're running multiple apps you will see some speed improvement in a dual processor system. Generally, the best you can expect is somewhere between 1.3 to 1.8 over one processor.
Some applications can (internally) take advange of multiple processors and spread the load around. Generally those a specialized applications ... I don't know if any of the trading software does that.
I decided to get multiple PCs since that seems to offer similar benefits at little extra cost.
So if you're running multiple apps you will see some speed improvement in a dual processor system. Generally, the best you can expect is somewhere between 1.3 to 1.8 over one processor.
Some applications can (internally) take advange of multiple processors and spread the load around. Generally those a specialized applications ... I don't know if any of the trading software does that.
I decided to get multiple PCs since that seems to offer similar benefits at little extra cost.
If you use multiple PCs, Can they share ADSL or cable internet connection?
It is hard to measure how much performance gain a dual-processor can provide. When you place an order, the entire action finishes in a couple of seconds, can you really feel any difference?
Multi Processors computer are good for very CPU intensive program. e.g. database, computation...
For trading, you need more memory than extra processor.
For trading, you need more memory than extra processor.
Only go with a duet if there truly is a specific need within your interface. If trading is all you are concerned with, you are much better off to stick with 1 and either jack up your current machine, or possibly get a backup and run two towers simulataneously. Let me give you an example. Last year I decided that my personal best fit was to have multiple monitors while running 1 ridiculous tower as opposed to 2 PC's or processors, etc. If you have an unlimited amount of funds, by all means, throw it into whatever floats your boat.
I went with an Asus ATX mother w/ P4 running @ 2.0 GHZ. I through in 1024 SDRAM along with a Maxtor internal HD that packs a whopping 160 GB capacity. I installed two additional Nvidia 64 bit video graphics cards to run extra monitors. It was rather inexpensive when compared to buying an additional PC or something remotely comparable to my home build at the retail level. There are not many machines out there that will beat this combo for speed and multitasking ability from a value perspective.
Baron
ET Founder
More info on that topic can be found at http://www.elitetrader.com/ha/guide/index.cfm?s=12&t=60&p=2
Yes, I have 4 PC's on a single cable modem connection. The reason I like multiple PCs is that I run charting on one PC, order entry on a 2nd etc. That way, if something crashes, I immediately have a backup. For most of the software I've seen a standard 2GHz PC with 512MB memory would be more than sufficient. I use multiple PCs for reliability mostly.
the info you provided is outdated. IMO
"First of all, the good systems are expensive due to their use of the Pentium III Xeon processor. This chip has been designed with large amounts of cache memory in order to communicate efficiently with additional system processors. Xeon processors with 2MB of cache memory can easily cost ten times as much as a standard Pentium III chip of like speed. Motherboards that accept multiple processors are high-dollar items as well."
One doesn't need the Xeon version of the PIII to run duals. The standard PIII will work fine with duals. As of now one can even run AMD Athlon's in a dual config. The motherboards that support these chips are not "high-dollar", but that's a discretionary term, so my view might be quite different.
"The second and even bigger reason why I don't like multi-processor boxes is because they are a total waste of money when used with mainstream financial applications. Although it's true that two or more linked processors can outperform a single processor system, these gains can only be realized when using specially tuned, multithreaded applications."
Tradestation is multithreaded.
When running mulitple charting/trading/chat related software during the day, Windows 2000 will allocate the processors out to each of the programs making them more efficient. Does everyone need a dual system, NO. Just taking a different view here, as I don't believe as you say it's a waste of money. I've ran numerous systems over the years, and the dual processor machines have always run smoother.
Just pointing out a few changes, as your article is outdated. You might want to consider updating it.
"First of all, the good systems are expensive due to their use of the Pentium III Xeon processor. This chip has been designed with large amounts of cache memory in order to communicate efficiently with additional system processors. Xeon processors with 2MB of cache memory can easily cost ten times as much as a standard Pentium III chip of like speed. Motherboards that accept multiple processors are high-dollar items as well."
One doesn't need the Xeon version of the PIII to run duals. The standard PIII will work fine with duals. As of now one can even run AMD Athlon's in a dual config. The motherboards that support these chips are not "high-dollar", but that's a discretionary term, so my view might be quite different.
"The second and even bigger reason why I don't like multi-processor boxes is because they are a total waste of money when used with mainstream financial applications. Although it's true that two or more linked processors can outperform a single processor system, these gains can only be realized when using specially tuned, multithreaded applications."
Tradestation is multithreaded.
When running mulitple charting/trading/chat related software during the day, Windows 2000 will allocate the processors out to each of the programs making them more efficient. Does everyone need a dual system, NO. Just taking a different view here, as I don't believe as you say it's a waste of money. I've ran numerous systems over the years, and the dual processor machines have always run smoother.
Just pointing out a few changes, as your article is outdated. You might want to consider updating it.
This is absolutely correct. Unless the programs that you are running were compiled by the manufacturer to support symetrical multiprocessors, there is no advantage. Furthermore, these types of programs usually have other side effects - that is they may cause other problems. Stick to one processor. Memory, hard disk speed and fast internet connection are more important.