I read a thread on the Sierra Chart support board that suggested turning hyperthreading off for some data issue ( although when I asked about it SC did not confirm there was any problem) so i5 saved me $50-100. but I do understand the concept of hyperthreading and did not get any answers as to why I would not want it.
The Xeon processors are recommended for "servers", but I am assuming that also is an improvement in reliability. But i7 has some features for home comfprt that do not come on Xeon.
Do you have any further thoughts on that topic? The computer may eventually become an all-around computer, so I might prefer i7 to Xeon. But for today, I am mostly interested in a trade-specific setup that has the ability to be modified for several years. My current trade-specific box is a 2005 (all other uses happen on another box), and Sony still has zero issues, so I am hoping to get some mileage out of whatever gets built.
I was thinking that, with 120 being pure budget and not very convenient. but I could add drives as needed. The one I listed was just to make it run, and all docs were to get pushed onto another computer where I have a lot of spare capacity, without paying for still somewhat pricey SSD.
Last edited by GaryD; February 8th, 2014 at 10:16 PM.
Favorite Futures: index and currency futures, stocks, options, warrants
Posts: 262 since May 2011
Thanks: 42 given,
I use a Xeon, and its typically recommended as a cheaper alternative to i7 if you choose a model without onboard GPU - But honestly, nothing charting wise or any other uses you mentioned will make use of hyper threading, therefore the i5 is fine.
I use a 120 for W7 pro 64bit OS, Office, Camtasia plus a host of other programs - still has oodles of room on it. You only need bigger if wanting to run all your personal folders OR if using some hard core Adobe etc video editing program
K series CPU's have much better resale value. OC'ing gives you a bit more performance at cost of increased heat. Latest Haswell Chips arent the greatest OC'ers .... up to you, if you want to squeeze some more juice out of the PC down the track when its getting long in the tooth. Personally, couldn't give a rats bum because I value reliability and while OC'ing can be stable, I dont want to introduce something else potentially causing problems.
I use an OC board with a non OCing Xeon CPU. The OC boards are designed to withstand greater heat and overall are just much more rugged in order to deal with the extra strain OCing puts on a system. Many are more featured than non OC boards, so this also can impact your decision.
build quality. Flimsy side panels, poor acoustics, poor cooling performance. The Corsair cases and Fractal cases are better made and offer superior cooling and noise dampening.
I'll find an example of a reliable PC with good bang for buck. How many monitors will you be running? If they are existing, what inputs do they have?
EDIT: Haswell will run three monitors, and the onboard GPU on the Intel chip is fine for charting - just have to stay within the GPU's max resolution
Last edited by kickmic; February 8th, 2014 at 10:57 PM.
Reason: add point
The following user says Thank You to kickmic for this post:
My mobo options were limited to 3: Asus, MSI and Gigabyte. (close 2nd was ASRock). I went Asus because of what I read about long term reputation, but see better pricing in the others. Asus and MSI have the lowest failure rates I could find. I see you went Gigabyte. Was that price related for that particular post, or do you consider it an equal?
You also went Xeon, and mentioned hyperthreading in a previous post. I have not found where hyperthreading would be a benefit for trading, but if I really knew I would not be asking. is there a trading related need for it, or are you just preparing the box for maximum useful life?
My memory choices were: Kingston, Crucial and Corsair. Also because of limited knowledge to what I have been reading since around December. Kingston seemed to get the lowest overall failure rate on it's value series (slightly higher failure for fancier ram)
For the case, noise does not bother me. I somewhat like the sound of the computer revving it's engine, so to speak. Does a cheap case hurt operation performance? To me, not being experienced at building a custom computer, the case just seems like a box that everything needs to fit it, and that it needs to have good ventilation? But, I could see where too much perforation in a case could cause less air flow... like opening two windows in a house at opposite ends of wind, versus all windows, the right openings would create higher velocity.
That is what I was thinking too. Actually, I considered only installing the OS and the trade platform on this one, and hard drives are easy to add as needed. But as prices continue to change, may go larger before build time. Kingston just dropped their 120 SSD to $69, but the reviews I have read lean towards Samsung, Intel or Crucial.
One thing I have learned about separating computer use between two is that the trade-only requires far less maintenance. And, I guess running Camtasia, Photoshop, etc would be fine too. It's the connecting to the rest of the world (email, internet) that seems to cause problems.
I currently run 3 from my trade computer and one from my everything-else computer.
On the trade box, my left and right monitors run via VGA and DVI (out HDMI in) out of a 2005 dual head video card into two Hanns-G 22" at 1280 x 1024. The center screen is via a Sabrent USB into an Acer 24" at 1920 x 1080. The center screen is far better at footprint, but everything else is fine (for me) at the lower res.
The laptop is running a 42" 1080p TV via HDMI, also at 1920 x 1080, but I can see where higher res and bigger screens might be the way to go as I move forward. But for today's use, the large screen is the one that changes, viewing other markets, higher timeframes, etc., and is not really used for "trading". I actually prefer that it runs a little large because I like that I can see it from almost anywhere in the house.
But I want the new build to be capable of running more (using additional cards), OR, possibly the ability to go 4K on the same number of screens, but larger viewing areas. Less pieces = higher reliability being my thought.
I am not an expert on motherboards. The reason for the choice was pricing and recommendations by other users.
I like Xeon for several reasons.
-> It has the graphics processing unit deactivated and therefore a lower TDP which makes it more suitable for running 24/7
-> My workstation uses ECC memory, which would not be possible with i5/i7
A quick comparison between the Xeon E3-1230 v3 and the Core i5 4670 K
Clock speed: ....... 3.3 GHz versus 3.4 GHz
Threads: ............. 8 versus 4
L3 cache: ............ 8 MB versus 6 MB
Hyperthreaded: .. yes versus no
GPU: ................... none versus Intel HD 4600
TDP: .................... 80W versus 84W
PassMark - CPU .. 9,556 versus 7,513
Price ................... $ 249 versus $ 229
I would go for the Xeon processor, although the differences are small.
I have no preference for any of them.
My preference is no noise or low noise. I am not fond of listening to a radiator concerto.
If you can't stand the silence, you can always listen to the beautiful master piece "Risveglio di una Citta" (waking up of a city) of the Italian futurist composer Luigi Russolo, see link below .....
The following 4 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post: