FT71, Aside from the Dell 2001FP example in this thread question (and the additional real estate it gives) would you, yourself, still spend less for the Dell 1905FP for a 4 monitor setup? That is, does the trader-tried and proven 1905FP still offer more for the money at this date, especially if its non-cutting edge 25ms refresh rate is no problem for trading? Or, does the 1905FP's screen area and its 1280 X 1024 max resolution end up giving a lot less usable screen space than the 2001FP's additional screen area combined with its 1600 X 1200 max resolution? As you have stated in a prior LCD post, I'm also looking for the 1905FP to drop even below its best $260 sale price ($360 best for the 2001FP) as it nears its one year anniversary on the market... but the maximizing best usable screen space issue is making me re-evaluate the trader real world cost to value of these two 19" and 20" monitors...
I personally find when your running alot of graphics ,you have alot of quotes on the screens,graphs,scans,and its a very fast moving market it handles the lags way better then the cheaper cards. Yeah its alittle bit more expensive, but when your lagging, and your daytrading those few hundread more for a quality card will come back to bite you.
I was surfing the web about 6 months ago for a new computer setup for trading and came across this site www.tradingcomputers.com unbelievable.....blew my dell out of the water..... The box is huge, it looks like a server and I run 4 screens 19" and have never had a problem. Ultimate package for serious traders.
I would look at this from the perspective of "how long will you be comfortable with a 19" when it will become what a 17" is right now?" I'm a practical trader. I would still go for the 19" because it is so much cheaper than the 1" it gives me in the 20". The higher resolution is great, but for the price I can buy 2 19" for that 20" when on sale. I prefer more monitors over bigger ones. It allows me to cycle them out over time and give them to other traders, relatives, etc and it is cheaper. I don't particularly like the small print and the squinting needed on a 20" running at max. res. This is a personal preference. If I had to do my setup again today. I would still be the 1905 x 6 (4 on a quad stand and 2 flanking each side on their excellent bases). You just have to make sure that your computer has enough PCI slots to take the dual cards needed. On a side note, using gaming cards is not at all necessary for trading. Much of the capabilities of the higher cycles and 3D that you pay for will not help at all for trading. Go with simple Matrox or nVidia cards. You can get these for $30 to $100 and they do the job really well. Good luck.
Thank you, FuturesTrader71. A typically excellent post - much appreciated. (I also plan to travel with one of the 1905FPs [pedestal-removed] in tandem with a basic trader laptop.)
currently Im using esignal *grrrrr* lol which Im not really happy with right now, plus data feeds from my brokers. Im currently using 2 wireless connections right now. Shaw Cables Extreme Cable which gives 8MB download speeds and Telus's Home Networking package which gives me 2.5MB download speeds. If your using wireless, I suggest replacing the antennaes with better quality antennaes. My brother somehow set up my vaois, toshisbas, and desktops to work together. Ie... I can shift one screen on my vaoi to my toshiba, just like your standardard duel screens, but there notebooks.
Very true. Gaming cards are a complete waste of money and power. Fast markets do not place a higher demand on graphics as one previous poster may have lead you to believe . . . Fast markets place high demands on DATA-FEEDS and the quality of those feeds. Using a GeForce MX-440 PCI card with 64mb of RAM is more than adequate. A 128mb AGP card is also more than adequate. Period.
Correctamundo! Also, many more [and affordable] video card solutions for 1280 x 1024 than 1600 x 1200.