Dual processors needed?

memory is the answer ( i got a gig too) but what I advise you is the following config.

MACHINE A (This machine it is only dedicated to Analysys)
PC P4 2.8, 1 Giga at 333, top HD at least 7200 ( i'm changing mine with the WD RAPTOR advised in the previous post)
2 LCD 21" 1 21" Analogic, PHARELIA MATROX 128 to drive them.
You can use the new QUADRA from NVIDIA and add up to 8 screen all DVI

MACHINE B ( This machine is only for operational purposes and some light analysys and back up)
Same config, little slower HD, only 2 SCREEN LCD 17"driveen by ATI

2 Separate T connections (or ADSL), small lan config..

One more HD DETACHED for further BACK up

2 CPU are usefull only for not Genetic but full Backtesting. There you see an immense jump in saving time
 
Quote from speedy:



Do you have multiple monitor cards or just one with an adaptor(s)? Which is the most cost effective way to do this that won't compromise performance? If you buy multiple monitor cards, what kind of RAM would you need for each. I see that good video cards can cost $300 each.
More...

1. Any good set-up will work equally well.
2. Power is not an issue. Performance is good for all (unless you want high power for gaming on the same computer)
3. You probably can't buy a card with less than 8 mgs of ram/monitor these days... 8mg is plenty for trading.
4. The biggest issues are
a. # of PCI slots to devote to monitors
b. Do you want a Media/TV Tuner also
c. Cost.
1. Can be as little as < $100 for 4 single cards
2. Can be $800 - $1000 for a new, top of line quad

If you can decide these issues, sombody here will have a system that you can duplicate.
 
Quote from gnome:



I've got 512 Ram on my machine. At full load, its "memory in use" runs about 360-420mb with leakage late in the day. Page memory is 768 for a total of about 1.2gig. How would increasing the physical memory to 1G improve performance, or would it?? TIA.
More...

Man, that's one thing that I hate, lazy programmers who leave memory lying around :mad:.

Anyway, Windows will use memory to cache stuff from disk, if nothing else - that alone will help you out. Plus, I usually have a couple other apps open. They aren't stealing many cycles, `cuz they ain't doing nothin', but they are burning memory. And I'd rather Windows kept that, then scribbling it out to disk.
 
Quote from speedy:



Do you have multiple monitor cards or just one with an adaptor(s)? Which is the most cost effective way to do this that won't compromise performance? If you buy multiple monitor cards, what kind of RAM would you need for each. I see that good video cards can cost $300 each.
More...

I'm running one Chaintech GeForce4 4600 AGP, and 3 Dual PCI Matrox G450s. If you have enough PCI slots, two duals are cheaper than one quad (as somebody here pointed out to me - thanks!).

I dunno offhand what kinda memory the G450s have (my Geforce proudly announces 128 Meg at startup :D) - but for trading purposes it's really a non-issue.
 
Quote from TGregg:



Man, that's one thing that I hate, lazy programmers who leave memory lying around :mad:.

Anyway, Windows will use memory to cache stuff from disk, if nothing else - that alone will help you out. Plus, I usually have a couple other apps open. They aren't stealing many cycles, `cuz they ain't doing nothin', but they are burning memory. And I'd rather Windows kept that, then scribbling it out to disk.
More...

I mostly understand how that works. However, I read an article about "Increased Ram, Increased Performance" (some time back when smaller amounts of Ram were the norm). It basically said that (a) increasing from 32 to 64 = significant improvement, (b) from 64 - 128, 10-15% improvement and (c) from 128-256, only 1% improvement.

That's why I ask about improvement from 512-1G. Maybe the improvement is very small when even the 512 isn't being stretched for use??
 
Quote from gnome:



I mostly understand how that works. However, I read an article about "Increased Ram, Increased Performance" (some time back when smaller amounts of Ram were the norm). It basically said that (a) increasing from 32 to 64 = significant improvement, (b) from 64 - 128, 10-15% improvement and (c) from 128-256, only 1% improvement.

That's why I ask about improvement from 512-1G. Maybe the improvement is very small when even the 512 isn't being stretched for use??
More...

That's an ancient stat, from waaaay back in the last century :D. Seriously though, that was when nonNT Windows couldn't use more than 256 or 512 or something (I think it was 256, might even have been 128). Meg that is. Might even have been NT4 limitation as well. But XP likes enough room to stretch out.

Right now, I am still in startup mode for the day (Fridays suck for me, so it's mostly a research and goof off day). My physical mem is about 33% utilized. But heck, the PC1066 memory that i use (I think I may have mistakenly posted that it's pc2100 someplace - got confused with some memory I had up on eBay) costs less than $100 for a 256k stick. So what the heck.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

I'm currently in transition from my (former) prop firm office, to trading pro, from home.

I'm now with Echo, and I intend to set up quad-monitors.

Analysis articles are mentioning "DUAL-PROCESSOR" configuration... I guess if you need speed, and you have the video signal going to 4 monitors, you'd need a little bit more processing power.

Is replacing my (1.4 GHZ) CPU with a dual-processor setup really necessary? Don't many of you run quad monitors on a single processor? Also, where can I find the connector to bind all 4 flat screens together? Thanx in advance- Elite trader never lets me down when I have questions...
More...


No offense, but you might want to ask why you need so many monitors: these are nice toys to have but IMHO they rarely help in any significant way with your ability to make money.
I know, I know , there are people that swear they need 10 monitors to be highly profitable ..... The setup looks cool but the best traders I know tend to focus on a handful of strategies: four monitors is approaching overload. Another point: all of the research I have ever seen - agrees with my own experience - shows that you really can only use about four sources of info before you get diminishing returns from the information clutter.

Just something to think about ... Whatever works though. If four makes money then do it. You can run 4 on a single CPU with the right card(s). Search the board for previous posts on these topics.
 
ReardenMetal,

As you are aware, "need" is a relative term. I can tell you without a doubt that if you are doing complex realtime scans on the entire market, even eight way systems will be overwhelmed.

The speed of the computer has little if anything to do with how many monitors are attached. It may seem that way if you have done the comparison, but it is an illusion created by the fact that you are more likely to have "more" running the more monitors you have attached, and that does put a greater load on the computer.

My recommendation for traders is to wait for a doubling of CPU speed to upgrade then get the CPU "two steps" below this one (e.g., 3.0 Ghz is the state of the art, get a 2.8 Ghz) for the best price/performance ratio. As you may be aware, the doubling of CPU speed takes about 18 months. The other upgrade I would do is to upgade the computer when there is a major upgrade to the CPU architecture (P3 -> P4, 32 bits to 64 bits data path, etc) but wait six months on this one otherwise you will get creamed on price. The other choice is upgrade if it is obvious you need more computing power, but don't do this without understanding what is going on - often a slow down can be alliviated by adding more RAM or by doing a disk defrag...

The reason to get a dual CPU computer are many, but for me, the added redundancy in case of a CPU failure makes the cost a no brainer. My trading computer is fully redundant. Redundant cooling fans, redundant power supplies, redundant disks RAID'ed, several graphics cards, not just for extra viewing, but in case one of them craps out on me, redundant UPS battery backup, etc. [Testing your setup with dialup is also a good idea from time to time so as to have connectivity backup. I pay $9/Month for this.]

When I "upgrade" my computer, I can save myself a bundle because I can reuse components into the new one. All I need to get is the new MOBO, new CPU's, and sometime new RAM sticks - I can reuse the case, disks, graphics cards, etc.

I have eight monitors and I want a ninth. I am also waiting for the QUAD's CPU MB from SuperMicro. :cool:

nitro
 
I was told by a computer salesman that unless your CPU usage is getting maxed out by the programs you are running (not just the initial spike caused by opening the program) that dual CPU's are a waste of money.

He also mentioned something about most software is not designed designed to take advantage of a dual processing enviroment.

I was totally ready ready to buy a dual CPU system if he told me it would improve my performance and he knew it, but didn't try to sell me something I didn't need. Seemed like a straight shooter.

regards,

Bruce Hawkins
 
Programs have to be specifically written to use more than 1 CPU at the same time. That dosen't mean you won't benefit from dual CPU's in general.

For starters, your OS will use both CPUs.

Most software is written "single threaded" which means, one CPU. Software that is "multi threaded" uses multiple simultaneous CPUs. Examples of this kind of software are: Mail server software (exchange, lotus notes), SQL server software, web server software, that kind of stuff. You may also find CPU intensive applications such as AutoCAD, or simulation software is most likely multi threaded.

Now, say you're running 2 or more single threaded applications at the same time. That dosen't mean all those apps are running on only the first CPU. Some of apps will use the first CPU, and some of the apps will use the second CPU. Plus, when you're running an app, and it's using CPU1, if you do a huge disk write, Windows may very well use CPU2 to do the write, leaving CPU1 dedicated to serving your application.

As far as RAM and drives go, the faster the better. And specifically to RAM, the more the merrier. Any RAM you don't use in your applications, Windows will use to cache your disk reads. I heard a statistic once that it took 1000 times longer to do a read from disk than a read from RAM.

Hope that clears up some of the confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top