I'm pretty sure Gnome is wrong on this one. All backtesting software is known to be extremely processor intensive... A faster cpu will *likely* speed things up. I've got 3 machiens here, dual core @ 2.5GHz, 2.9GHz and a quad core oc'ed to 3.4GHz. If you want me to test something and time it for you, I'd be more than glad to do it. - mnx
Thanks mnx, so what's best to improve backtestig software perfrmance - the processor or the RAM. Or are they equally important? Do you notice any meaningful difference between your dual core and quad core machines?
Quads are faster. Not because of the multi-thread capability, but they just run faster... not by much in most cases.. Best bang for the buck is E8200 or Q6600.
IF the problem is software, a faster CPU will likely NOT improve things much. Best to find out before buying. And "100% CPU" is usually due to faulty software.
they might be equally important. take a screenshot of task manager while running your backtest... (like the one I attached) that way we can see the CPU utilization and memory usage for the process... If you need help getting a screen capture of task manager, just ask... -mnx
software optimizations can usually do a lot more than getting faster hardware, and yes I agree 100% cpu usage is frequently "faulty" software..... BUT .... in this case I do not believe that it is NOT faulty software... I think the backtesting software is cpu intensive and it is fully utilizing the cpu, and therefore getting a faster cpu will make a big difference. - mnx
With the information given, logic suggests not BELIEVING anything ... not enough information provided yet.
An equally clocked quad (with the same cache per core) as a dual core, will be NO FASTER unless the software is multi-threaded. - mnx
A lot of people like those, but i don't like the fact that when the screen is dark (chart background or maybe you're waching a dark movie), you can see your own reflection. Same thing for those glossy HDTVs and monitors.