Support Board
Date/Time: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 11:47:40 +0000
[User Discussion] - CPU Recommendation - Intel i7 4770K vs. i5 4670K (8 threads vs. 4 threads)
View Count: 9660
| [2014-02-22 12:35:27] |
| Mack - Posts: 83 |
|
Dear community, I'm looking to run many SierraChart instances because I trade currencies. I have run as much as 4 SierraChart executables, and I noticed my system got slower under this load. At the moment, I'm looking to upgrade my trading system. I have read about hyperthreading, and I understand that the latest Intel CPUs have up to 8 threads. Practically, Windows treats 8 threads, as 8 different cores in the task manager. (afaik) Two of the most popular CPUs at this moment, are the i7 4770k (8 threads) and the i5 4670k (4 threads). Assuming I want to run 6 or 8 SierraChart instances, would having an 8 thread CPU increase performance, and overall snappiness of the System? http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4670K |
| [2014-02-22 15:29:11] |
| SgtJ - Posts: 154 |
|
I wouldn't upgrade from the i5 to the i7...re your link, but i'd buy the i7 over the i5 even though single core is the ~same. If you live near a microcenter they have good deals for the cpu alone, or mobo combo. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html |
| [2014-02-22 19:52:44] |
| |
|
If you are buying a new system, go with the system with more CPU cores.
Sierra Chart Support |
| [2014-02-22 21:51:35] |
| |
|
Have a look a getting a 6 core. We are really not sure enough about the actual implementation of hyperthreading to know how it would benefit Sierra Chart or not.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2014-02-23 18:01:46] |
| vegasfoster - Posts: 444 |
|
If you have the bucks, then go 4770k or 4930k. If you are on a budget, then you might also consider going AMD, because the second tier AMD 8-core can be had for only $250. I'm thinking that a single core of the AMD is likely faster than a single thread of the 4770k and most probably faster than a single core of an I5 split between two instances of SC. You would have to do some research on that subject to confirm it though. If you don't have a good graphics card and would rather not purchase one, then IMO this makes AMD a even stronger consideration because the onboard video is considerably better than Intel and may be sufficient to avoid purchasing a separate card, depending on your needs. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113346 Date Time Of Last Edit: 2014-02-23 18:02:29
|
| [2014-02-23 19:03:53] |
| SgtJ - Posts: 154 |
|
I'm an AMD fan, but even though their higher end chips have a higher clock rate, there are fewer instructions per nm, and they need ~3x the wattage to run. The 4770 can be bought right now for $250 at microcenter (walk in) and they'll drop another ~$30 off a motherboard if you buy them together. I personally like ASrock, (asus too). Some of the ASrock boards allow for 3 monitors with onboard video...the i5/i7's integrated graphics will take advantage of this. |
| [2014-02-23 19:35:36] |
| vegasfoster - Posts: 444 |
|
Personally, I don't see the wattage as being an issue, since much of the wattage has to do with the graphics, which if you aren't using then the wattage will be significantly less, and if you are, then it's still only 220 watts max and not much different than having standalone graphics. But that is a good deal if you can get a 4770 and mobo combo for that price, I would probably go for that as well. That said, I can vouch that even the latest integrated graphics on the Intel is still rather pathetic, and while it may be technically capable of pushing multiple monitors, and I could definitely be wrong because I haven't tried it, but I can't imagine it is practically capable of pushing multiple monitors. But I have not used AMD and can't vouch for it either, just from what I have read it has far superior graphics and may be better if you are looking for an all in one solution. It's just all so confusing :) |
| [2014-02-23 20:34:24] |
| SgtJ - Posts: 154 |
|
I'm personally not into gaming or highend graphics. The last AMD I built (tricore 3.2ghz) as a trading pc, worked well using dual head onboard video fwiw. Re wattage, depending on the i7 chosen, the highend AMD will cost at least $100+/yr more to operate...lol Date Time Of Last Edit: 2014-02-23 20:34:38
|
| [2014-03-06 19:49:49] |
| Futures Operator - Posts: 239 |
|
Does Sierra Chart take advantage of more cores, or plan to in the future? I'm buying a new mobile trading workstation and trying to choose a CPU.
|
| [2014-03-06 21:11:56] |
| Mack - Posts: 83 |
|
Afaik, the best way to utilize a multi-core CPU is to run multiple instances of Sierra. Each new Sierrachart you launch, will use a different core. Hence, the discussion above. More cores is better if you intend to run multiple instances of Sierra. If you intend to just run one SierraChart instance, go for the highest clock speed. (something like 3.7 Ghz). It should be said that Sierra is extremely efficient. Combined with a SSD it's extremely fast. Only when you run 6-8 instances, you will notice slow down. Particularly, when charting 30 symbols it takes some time to update each chart. --- Question to development team: Which do you rate more important? CPU, RAM, SSD? And in which order? I think it's probably, 1. SSD, 2. CPU, then 3. RAM. Do you agree with this? (ps. I assume you track say 30 symbols, and you run like 6~ Sierra Chart instances.) Date Time Of Last Edit: 2014-03-06 21:15:36
|
| [2014-03-07 22:54:34] |
| vegasfoster - Posts: 444 |
|
Unless something has changed, they have indicated they don't have any plans for it, but in my mind you could do it the same as a tabbed web browser, where a shell opens new instances of SC for each new chart so the load is distributed in that manner, but it appears seamless to the user. In my mind that would be significantly simpler than rewriting the whole of SC code to take advantage of multi-threading processing, but my mind is often deficient and I don't really know that ;-)
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2014-03-07 23:00:57
|
| [2014-03-07 23:51:51] |
| SgtJ - Posts: 154 |
|
IMO, for a trading pc. 1. CPU/board 2. Ram 3. Power supply 4. SSD/HD 5. Video SC doesn't typically use much memory, but it could be more important if you've upgraded a winXP 32bit box to win7. Ditto what Vegas says re multi-threaded |
| [2014-04-15 20:34:55] |
| Futures Operator - Posts: 239 |
|
I wonder why Support recommends more cores while Sierrachart is single threaded. Has anyone tested if Sierra runs better with hyper threading or without it/it disabled? |
| [2014-04-15 20:54:29] |
| Mack - Posts: 83 |
|
@Futures Operator I can see two ways to test Sierra Chart. - Make a copy of the Sierra Chart install directory, and let it update 20 symbols. [run 1 HT=off, run 2 HT =on]. - Time how long it takes to update all symbols. - Run the same backtest twice, time how long it takes. Any other ideas? |
| [2014-05-01 20:55:29] |
| Userpat617 - Posts: 2 |
|
MAKE SURE YOUR RAM UP TO SPEED CAS 10 1833MHZ OR MORE 24MHZ WITH CAS 10 OR 11
|
NM.PNGTo post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: