Rdram
- Thread starter rafat
- Start date
Magna
Administrator
That's more than enough ram to run trading software, regardless of the number of monitors, and regardless of your operating system. As to hardware specific to traders, fish around the hardware section here as there's been lots of discussions on this subject, with lots of website links.
512 meg more than enough. Make sure you OS is stable.
e.g. W2K.
Here is interesting site with a lot of different configurations.
http://www.daytradingstocks.com/tradestations.html
e.g. W2K.
Here is interesting site with a lot of different configurations.
http://www.daytradingstocks.com/tradestations.html
i have 512k rdram running on window 2000 pro. with 4 monitors running on a dell 2ghz machine - with trading software and quote software - runs with no hang ups
512 meg more than enough. Make sure you OS is stable.
e.g. W2K.
e.g. W2K.
512MB is necessary, but not sufficient for me. I use TradeStation 6, and I am watching several workspaces with a total of about 150 stocks, with at least two time frames on each. In addition, I have other software that needs to be running as well. I am going to need to upgrade to 1GB soon.
Therefore, the answer is, it depends on how much stuff you have open on your machine.
nitro
rafat -
nitro's right, it'll depend primarily on what your process mix is, how big of a memory hog each program is, how many different programs you run at once, etc.
# of monitors is generally not a main memory issue since the display memory is in the graphics/video hardware and the base level memory difference between running 1 monitor and 4 monitors is essentially unnoticable.
My usual machine is a 512Mb dual processor W2K system with 3 monitors that's got more than enough space for trading and a bunch of other things, but I also have an older uniprocessor NT machine with dual monitors and only 128MB that I sometimes have to use from a different location and I can run a normal contingent of software from it.
Figure under typical conditions if you have Internet Explorer open it needs about 14-15MB and each additional instance takes about 4 MB. I'm running Trade Prospector Realtime for charting and analysis with a dozen or more chart and quote windows each with a number of studies and/or signals and it uses only about 20-25 MB, MS Outlook uses 2-3 MB, Norton uses about 5 MB, the trade entry program takes about 6-7 MB, and WNT needs about 40-50 MB. Everything runs fine on the 128 MB box.
But you've got to know your software mix and footprint requirements - if you're using some real memory hog software or a need to run a dozen different big programs at the same time, 512 MB might not be enough. But under normal conditions, I'd guess you should be fine.
What are you planning on running on the machine?
nitro's right, it'll depend primarily on what your process mix is, how big of a memory hog each program is, how many different programs you run at once, etc.
# of monitors is generally not a main memory issue since the display memory is in the graphics/video hardware and the base level memory difference between running 1 monitor and 4 monitors is essentially unnoticable.
My usual machine is a 512Mb dual processor W2K system with 3 monitors that's got more than enough space for trading and a bunch of other things, but I also have an older uniprocessor NT machine with dual monitors and only 128MB that I sometimes have to use from a different location and I can run a normal contingent of software from it.
Figure under typical conditions if you have Internet Explorer open it needs about 14-15MB and each additional instance takes about 4 MB. I'm running Trade Prospector Realtime for charting and analysis with a dozen or more chart and quote windows each with a number of studies and/or signals and it uses only about 20-25 MB, MS Outlook uses 2-3 MB, Norton uses about 5 MB, the trade entry program takes about 6-7 MB, and WNT needs about 40-50 MB. Everything runs fine on the 128 MB box.
But you've got to know your software mix and footprint requirements - if you're using some real memory hog software or a need to run a dozen different big programs at the same time, 512 MB might not be enough. But under normal conditions, I'd guess you should be fine.
What are you planning on running on the machine?
I have a dual 600cpu machine with 512mb of RDRAM, running win2k on 5 monitors (my tradestation should still be on the DTstocks site). I run FirstAlert, CyberPro, IB, about 6 IE's, MIRC, Trillian, DNS2Go, RogerWilco, OutlookExpress, and newsWatch. FirstAlert runs up to 150mb or so of mem usage by the close of the mkt. The overall system runs fine...but I am borderline....1GB would be better. So...it really depends on what you run.....but IMO, Win2k the most significant aspect of the whole machine....makes all the difference.
Cas
Cas
"As a general guideline, you should install 192 MB of memory for every monitor you will be using. For example, if you were building a four-monitor workstation, you would need to install 768 MB (4 x 192) of memory. This would be enough for your system to handle any peaks in memory demand without having to use the hard drive unnecessarily." By Baron Robertson on the link hardware.
Personally i run 1gig with 4 monitors .
Personally i run 1gig with 4 monitors .
I personally think that the amount of memory you need comes down to what applications you are using. If you are running tradestation and you are doing intensive derivatives pricing in excel, you are going to need at least 1 gig. It all comes down to how mathematically intensive your apps are. Obviously, your quoting software is just getting streams and not doing much processing. But I have to say that I'm always doing very intensive excel calculations so I'm going to upgrade to 1 gig from the 512 that I have now. It's just not enough for me.
Also, make sure that you get rdram and not ddr. I've heard from computer techies that when you get the blazing new P4s, the ddr memory won't be able to keep up as well as rdram. Benchmark tests prove this. The only reason that intel is mainly supporting ddr is because Rambus has some rediculous licensing fees.
Also, make sure that you get rdram and not ddr. I've heard from computer techies that when you get the blazing new P4s, the ddr memory won't be able to keep up as well as rdram. Benchmark tests prove this. The only reason that intel is mainly supporting ddr is because Rambus has some rediculous licensing fees.