Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Actually, the AMD gives more bang for the buck. I've been using an AMD processor and motherboard with my current 5 year old box and had no issues. One pays a premium for the Intel brand, all other things equal.
SS drives are too expensive considering the alternative. They are where flat screen tvs were 10 years ago in terms of price performance. I use a RAID system now and don't want to give that up. Also, I've never had a hard drive fail (knock on wood).
If this computer were purchased from a Dell, HP or other branded manufacturer, it would be much more expensive than the $1300 I'm paying which includes the cost to built and test it.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
The prices are pretty attractive; the 955 will sell for $245 (and it already has been) and the 945 will go for $225. That pits the 955 against Intel’s Core 2 Duo Q9550 ($266) and the Core i7-920 ($284), the latter having a much higher motherboard cost of course.
Unless you’re running applications that are very well optimized for Intel’s architectures, the Phenom II X4 955 is faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9550. Compared to the Core i7-920, it loses hands down although the chip does come close in some games. AnandTech: AMD's Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition
No. I think this is fast enough for the trading apps and I don't want the additional heat generation either. My experience with overclocked trading computers didn't result in much of a difference in realworld use.
For running multiple monitors, two video cards would work.. and you'd have an extra output for a 4th monitor if you wanted to add one later.
Since ninjatrader makes absolutely no use of 3d acceleration and is not likely to any time soon, you'd be just as well off with a couple of entry level cards at $60 to $120 each as you would be with a more expensive card.
I think the processor is the only thing that will give you a noticeable performance boost. The video card and hard drive speed will probably not matter at all. RAM speed does not matter at all either in my experience, although you want plenty of it.
Motherboard stability is also worth paying more for, which is an argument for spending the extra dollars for a good motherboard. You might want a motherboard that is designed for heavy useage such as for servers or serious workstations.
I would stay away from RAID 0. The performance boost is negligable and your chance of hard drive failure increases exponentially. You will be just as happy with a simple cheap hard drive as you would be with anything more expensive.
SSD drives are not worth it either. I have one and the performance boost is not noticeable at all for trading.
Yeah, that's a step up from what I didn't want. It's a gaming powerhouse card and besides, you have to get a display port cable to hook in the third monitor which adds about $75.
I have been using two Nvidia GT9500 cards in the current box and they are really adequaite except for the fan noise. The new box has to run super quiet, that's one of my requirements, so I'll probably go with two cards with passive cooling.
gamers card: