i'm a tech retard. i never would of thought this people always tell me its not important to have a lot of video memory...in fact some told me not to get a high end card because it would take up more ram. Does anybody disagree/agree with the above advice? And by lag, I mean 1/10 of a second, not the kind of lag where say your cqg is falling behind TT...like I've seen that before, so if its noticable on a chart, thats crazy long. The lag i'm talking about is like, literally 1/10 of a second/it not only "feels wrong" but you end of not getting shares/print a shit price.
In a trading application, the only thing you need your video card for is a frame buffer, that is, the number of pixels (example: 1024 x 768) by the color depth (24 bit color = 3 bytes per pixel). Do the math (1024 x 768 x 3 = ~ 2MB), the basic memory requirements for even large monitors is tiny compared to the amt of memory that current video cards come with. Additional video card memory is used by games for things like 3D effects, textures and shaders (which can consume huge amounts of RAM). None of those graphics features are used in any trading application I am aware of. In short, I call BS.
In the W2K version of my current trading rig, the video cards had only 4mb RAM each... and that was plenty.... no lag, no problems, ever.
Don't gamers complain about certain large monitors (24" and up) having an "input lag"?... a weakness in the monitor which can't be overcome with a faster video card or CPU?
Not being a gamer I didn't even know about this stuff but in googling around I did find articles...this one has a nice video that shows the effect: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2009/02/06/the-dark-side-of-overdrive/4
its 25 milliseconds maximum, unless you're a pro gamer or at least a competitive fps gamer I don't think that matters. it's clearly your feed and not the video card... you could of had a video card in 98 and it wouldn't have problems handling 2d.