Not impressed......
- Thread starter lilduckling
- Start date
You just confirmed my suspicions. The charts/pages that do not have studies are fast, the ones with certain EFS are not.
I seriously doubt that there is anything wrong or lacking with your system setup. The issue lies in the way eSignal processes the data, and even the most robust systems available will come to a crawl with multiple instances of certain EFS studies.
Don't believe me?!!!
Per eSignal:
EFS/Add-on Studies:
Some studies can use exhaustive math routines that may fail to keep up as data rates increase. You may also have a bad or poorly written EFS that isn't optimized and could contribute to excessive CPU draw. Easiest way to determine whether an EFS or add-on study is causing the problem is to simply remove them from your Advanced Chart one at a time and monitor the change in CPU usage in the Task Manager. If you discover a problem with a specific study, you may want to use the eSignal EFS Community to help you determine how to improve the performance of that EFS. Click here to visit the EFS Forum.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q2BC12E9C
Your problem isn't with video or system ram. Remove all the studies and you'll quicky determine where the problem lies. eSignal is notorious for this.
st
Amen. I don't think most people even understand how video card memory is used. 128MB memory isnt enough? Holy crapQuote from Stealth Trader:
It doean't take a sledge hammer to place a thumb tack in cardboard. 8MB video is plenty to run charts. I suggest you do some research on this matter. He's running 2D charts, not Doom3!
LOL!!! Kids!!!! You send 'em to school, buy 'em books............
st
I understand there may be other reasons for the slowness, but running an 8MB card on a 4 monitor system with 21 or more windows open is a very good place to start looking for problems. If there is a known issue with Esignal, then so be it. But to suggest that my answer is childish or uninformed is rather ridiculous no?
I have done plenty of research on video cards, charting programs and trading software. I guess maybe we are operating in a different environment. For what I do and where I work 8MB cards would not do for an internet surfing computer, and 128MB simply isn't enough to run three monitors. Again, if it works for you guys and you think it's overkill, then so be it. I can prove rather easily the performance difference and advantage it gives to us.
Thanks,
- The New Guy
I have done plenty of research on video cards, charting programs and trading software. I guess maybe we are operating in a different environment. For what I do and where I work 8MB cards would not do for an internet surfing computer, and 128MB simply isn't enough to run three monitors. Again, if it works for you guys and you think it's overkill, then so be it. I can prove rather easily the performance difference and advantage it gives to us.
Thanks,
- The New Guy
The New Guy, 8MB is enough memory to run a monitor at 1600 x 1200 by 32bit (true color).
In the context of what is being described (2D charting application) I fail to see how additional video memory would have any affect on the application speed.
I would appreciate any links to articles that would further educate me on this subject.
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/tutorials/68/1/
In the context of what is being described (2D charting application) I fail to see how additional video memory would have any affect on the application speed.
I would appreciate any links to articles that would further educate me on this subject.
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/tutorials/68/1/
First, your twisting the facts to justify your position is indeed juvenile, as the original poster specifically stated that he is using the 8MB card on ONE monitor, not four as you now claim.
Second, your continued persistence that it could be the video card demonstrates you are indeed uninformed.
Third, it's never "ridiculous" to expose the truth, as your research on video cards is obviously flawed. Furthermore, understand the difference between a chart loading/building slow and the capability of graphics refreshing rate. The symptoms described were of the former.
Sorry to be so harsh, but when people inquire about an issue, your leading them down an asinine path to nowhere is not conducive to solving their problem and only serves to frustrate them. But if you wish to "prove rather easily" that I'm wrong, I'm all ears!
Have a nice day!
st
Of course it's enough to run it, but will the performance be at the desired level?
I didn't say that would affect the application speed, I simply said that it was a good place to start looking. Obviously you know more about Esignal than me, and what you've pointed to sounds like a very plausible solution. I assumed that there was more on that system than simply esignal, in particular I assumed there was some execution software. Ever try running TT on an 8MB card? Obvioiusly depends on your environment, but the networks I work in tend to have sub 10ms round trips to the exchange (depending on the exchange), and I'm sure not going to blow that hard work with screen refresh issues.
I don't have any links to articles relating to this, but I do wonder when that article you pointed me to was written. 8MB is not a "high-end" video card anymore, and hasn't been for quite a while now. The reason it's hard to find articles relating purely to speed is because high end graphics cards target CAD, DCC, and scientific applications and talk alot about anti aliasing, gamma levels and the like. The only way I could decide for sure was to set up two identical computers with different video cards and watch them side by side. It's was quite eye-opening for me actually, in TT the latency from the video card looks almost identical to network latency, and when the market really moves you'll actually get missing data from one PC. Of course, this is on a set up with dual 24 " flat screens, so the problems are exaggerated.
Again, it's hard to find information on this on the web. In my experience to get a trading environment to the level of what proffessionals need, you have to do some things that push the envelope, and a lot of things that are undocumented, or sometimes are just flat out counter to current thinking. I understand that some people may consider this "overkill", but what is overkill and what gives an advantage is a matter of interpretation, to me. If my traders pay me to give them the best trading environment possible and they can see the difference so I find it difficult to call it "overkill".
A retail trader trading from home probably has numerous issues to deal with before they get to this problem, however. So, given that they probably haven't dealt with them prior to this, sure 8MB is probably enough to run a single monitor and a charting program. I however, would not do that, and I still would not run three monitors off of a 128MB card.
Again, this is just my opinion, and it's possible we operate in two very different environments.
Thanks,
- The New Guy
Quote from Stealth Trader:
First, your twisting the facts to justify your position is indeed juvenile, as the original poster specifically stated that he is using the 8MB card on ONE monitor, not four as you now claim.
Second, your continued persistence that it could be the video card demonstrates you are indeed uninformed.
Third, it's never "ridiculous" to expose the truth, as your research on video cards is obviously flawed. Furthermore, understand the difference between a chart loading/building slow and the capability of graphics refreshing rate. The symptoms described were of the former.
Sorry to be so harsh, but when people inquire about an issue, your leading them down an asinine path to nowhere is not conducive to solving their problem and only serves to frustrate them. But if you wish to "prove rather easily" that I'm wrong, I'm all ears!
Have a nice day!
st
thenewguy does not know what it is to run a classroom of 50 students learning SCO Unix and 40+ students learning Oracle forms on a 286 DX25 with two 300 Mb SCSI HD and 24 Mb of RAM.
We were aghast when we got NT 3.51 and were recommended 32MB of RAM to run it, those were the days. OS2 in comparison was flying with 8Mb of RAM.
There is a lot that can be done to improve the performance of XP, a place to start can be www.tweakhound.com
