spend $$$ on faster single CPU or adding 2nd CPU???

[quanttrade99z]

Hello All

Last minute quick question for all you processor experts. I'm about to buy a DELL Precision T5400. It can take a 2nd processors. I'm trying to decide if I should spend extra money on a 2nd processor OR just upgrade a single processor.

Details below.
2nd processor is $300
<Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5405 (2.00GHz,2X6M L2,1333)>

Or for less money I could upgrade the primary/only CPU from 2.00 GHz to 2.33 GHz.

The system is for multi-tasking, mostly simple office applcations, excel, Bloomberg, Adobe, but lots of applications open at the same time, and very frequent switching around. Stability and quick speed of switching between apps is most important. No super heavy number crunching...

Thanks!!!!


Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5460 (3.16GHz,2X6M L2,1333) [add $1,430]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5450 (3.00GHz,2X6M L2,1333) [add $1,130]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333) [add $900]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5430 (2.66GHz, 2X6M L2,1333) [add $660]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5420 (2.50GHz, 2X6M L2,1333) [add $430]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5410 (2.33GHz,2X6M L2,1333) [add $230]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5405 (2.00GHz,2X6M L2,1333) [Included in Price]

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5260 (3.33GHz,6M L2,1333) [add $1,130]

 

[Tencntraze]

I would think that given your usage you would be much better off maybe upping the speed of the processor a bit, but spend extra money on more RAM, which would be the best thing to help multi-tasking.

 

[aigomorla]

my honest advice.

you wont see much benifit, either path you go.

But id grab the second quad and have 8 cores just for scalability purposes.

You'll see more benifit from 4 more cores in the long run then 330 more mhz.

 

[boomhower]

From what you are doing you really are not going to benefit that much from a quad to begin with. Stick with one. Why are you going with server hardware? The consumer chips are just as reliable.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: quanttrade99z
Or for less money I could upgrade the primary/only CPU from 2.00 GHz to 2.33 GHz.

The system is for multi-tasking, mostly simple office applcations, excel, Bloomberg, Adobe, but lots of applications open at the same time, and very frequent switching around. Stability and quick speed of switching between apps is most important. No super heavy number crunching...

Hey quanttrade...take it from a fellow quant trader (forex for me) that unless you are doing serious algorithm optimizations on years and years of backtest tick data you don't need that extra quad-core. You will benefit far more in the immediate term by having that 2.33GHz processor versus the 2.0GHz processor as the majority of your specific applications are themselves single-threaded.

So you hit the right mixture, got yourself a quad-core for handling multiple simultaneous applications, and now you need to ensure the speed of any given core is good to go.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: quanttrade99z
Or for less money I could upgrade the primary/only CPU from 2.00 GHz to 2.33 GHz.

The system is for multi-tasking, mostly simple office applcations, excel, Bloomberg, Adobe, but lots of applications open at the same time, and very frequent switching around. Stability and quick speed of switching between apps is most important. No super heavy number crunching...

Hey quanttrade...take it from a fellow quant trader (forex for me) that unless you are doing serious algorithm optimizations on years and years of backtest tick data you don't need that extra quad-core. You will benefit far more in the immediate term by having that 2.33GHz processor versus the 2.0GHz processor as the majority of your specific applications are themselves single-threaded.

So you hit the right mixture, got yourself a quad-core for handling multiple simultaneous applications, and now you need to ensure the speed of any given core is good to go.

hehe..

however..

230 dollar upgrade for 330mhz.. or 300 dollar upgrade for 4 more cores at 2.0ghz.

everyway i look at it, 70 dollars for 4 more cores... I cant justify not getting 4 more cores for that price.


IDC your call again?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
hehe..

however..

230 dollar upgrade for 330mhz.. or 300 dollar upgrade for 4 more cores at 2.0ghz.

everyway i look at it, 70 dollars for 4 more cores... I cant justify not getting 4 more cores for that price.


IDC your call again?

I didn't bother to look at the cash he's talking about tossing for that extra 330MHz...:shocked: That's highway robbery. I was just matching his stated needs with the hardware options.

Yeah, $70 for a second quad is a much better deal although I have no idea what he'd put the chips to work doing besides being a heater. At least you know he'll benefit from having a computer be 17% faster on all applications with the higher clocked quad.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
At least you know he'll benefit from having a computer be 17% faster on all applications with the higher clocked quad.

wont be noticible.

although with the second cpu resell/service life extends greatly vs 330mhz.

 

[taltamir]

I was going to tell you the same thing I said to the "mission critical server to replace 6 year old desktop" guy, i decided to look that one up just for the fun of it and lo and behold... it happens to be you...

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...word1=mission+critical

Why did you start a new thread? you could have just answered some of the questions on what it will actually be DOING and then we would give you advice on what to get in it.

Actually, i see you make a lot of threads with the same or similar question / title and never post in them again, only create them. There is a reply button on the bottom right of every message, it will reply to the entire thread. use it.

 

[firewolfsm]

NEITHER

Go buy a budget desktop, this is a complete waste of money. Get a quad core and 4GB of ram off the consumer desktops and it will be very fast for you. This costs twice as much and has NO benefit for what you're doing.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
NEITHER

Go buy a budget desktop, this is a complete waste of money. Get a quad core and 4GB of ram off the consumer desktops and it will be very fast for you. This costs twice as much and has NO benefit for what you're doing.

Bingo.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
NEITHER

Go buy a budget desktop, this is a complete waste of money. Get a quad core and 4GB of ram off the consumer desktops and it will be very fast for you. This costs twice as much and has NO benefit for what you're doing.

:thumbsup:

 

[quanttrade99z]

Here is why I hope that it is not a waste of money...

I run this system 24-7. Any increase in stability is very valuable to me.
I want the system to NEVER crash. If it crashes at an inopportune time, I wil might lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in trading.

I did by best research... server processors are supposed to be be more stable... i guess that ECC RAM is probably more stable too.

Therefore, I think that it is worth it to buy a "workstation/Xeon" as opposed to "dimension/consumer/non-server".

Although, I do admit that I am not an expert on any of this... that's why looking for advise here...

You really think there is NO benefit at all from spending extra money on Workstation/Server/Xeon? i.e. no increase in stablity or performance at all?

Thank you all
quanttrade99z

 

[evilbix]

if you want stability you might want to look at what OS you are running, and what apps are running. your software config will be more important than hardware if you plan on running it 24x7.


server parts are best for systems that NEED 2 or more cpu chips, other than that consumer grade is perfectly adequate.

my best advice is to get a custom build

get the BEST power supply you can find, and also do not hold back on buying a good UPS unit.

then just go with a q6600, 3 or 4 gigs of memory (depending on whether you want 32 or 64 bit)
get 2 hard drives (i recommend seagate es.2 drives) in raid 1
and that's pretty much it.
maybe you'd want two monitors that are 22inch so you can make your multitasking a bit easier.

a decent cpu, with raid 1, and a good software config will be your best bet at nearly 100% uptime.

every computer will glitch up here and there, but providing a good clean power source will help eliminate most errors.

 

[Stageman]

I'm no expert but my assumption would be that this person needs a commercial product because of duty cycle rating. At least I would expect commercially targeted products to have a duty cycle rating on them or other assurances. I really don't know how it works in the commercial CPU product world but that would be my assumption for the moment. Again, I'm out of my depth but don't commercial systems also have certain and numerous fault tolerance specifications and mechanisms? I also agree that good software management should play an important part.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: quanttrade99z
I want the system to NEVER crash. If it crashes at an inopportune time, I wil might lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in trading.

Im sorry your asking for the impossible on windows platform. Windows always crashes at least once.


as much as i hate saying this.

Get a Mac.

 

[taltamir]

i have seen macs crash enough times. And even linux crashes on occasion.
And besides, are his programs gonna work for those systems?
they are custom programs right? some program that manages finances? or do you run some generic purchased software? actually, forget a yes no answer, WHAT programs are you running specifically?

You ask for advice but do not give the information needed to supply you with good advice.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir
You ask for advice but do not give the information needed to supply you with good advice.

Just like any customer, this is where marketing wins when they come up with the "platinum" plan.

Originally posted by: quanttrade99z
I run this system 24-7. Any increase in stability is very valuable to me.
I want the system to NEVER crash. If it crashes at an inopportune time, I wil might lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in trading.

Your software environment (operating system plus your particular application) will inevitably crash, nothing is crash proof, ever.

Actually it is a hallmark of a good trader to know how to build-in redundancy in your trade strategy so you aren't at risk of such an issue. A trade strategy that is critically hinging on absolute up-to-the-second access to the markets is a trade strategy with critical flaws.

At any rate you are far more likely to lose access to the markets by way of your internet provider losing internet access intermittantly or from power-outages in your area, etc.

But computer hardware is something that is in your control to minimize the risks of losing market access...you need to seek out a computer system that has built-in hardware redundancy...dual power supplies, Raid-5 or Raid-6 hard-drive sub-system, ECC ram, etc.

Personally I run both a DSL line as well as a cable-modem line simultaneously to give me some internet access redundancy should either provider have an outage. In addition I run a computer on the east-coast as well as the west-coast for power-outage isolation.

If you are worried about losing out on a $100k opportunity my missing a market timing then surely you have the resources and impetus to have multiple geographic locations from which to operate your business. (if you don't then I dare say you are just spouting BS, and you wouldn't be doing that to us now would you?)

Originally posted by: quanttrade99z
You really think there is NO benefit at all from spending extra money on Workstation/Server/Xeon? i.e. no increase in stablity or performance at all?

Sure there are benefits - first and foremost it benefits the seller to sell you such high-margin equipment. Second it benefits you in a mental appeasement manner as you clearly need the peace of mind of believing you bought the best so you are entitled to having nothing but the best up-time. Same consumer mentality that gives BMW a price premium. (nothing wrong with that) The third benefit is that there can be some truth to it provided you throw the extra money at a reputable dealer who actually invests their time and money into designing and building better quality workstations.

Best of luck.

 

[taltamir]

excellent points idontcare. Very VERY correct on all accounts.

Really if he stands to loose so much money from no instant access then he needs to hire some ITs to design a system in multiple states (for power isolation as you said) with redundant components and double internet access (remember when a few years back the biggest cable land line provider web bankrupt? all cable services stopped for two days, most never came back, AT&T came back with their own backup hardware on the third day and that was it).

Option 1: Hire an IT/more then one.
Option 2: Become an IT.
Option 3: Make costly mistakes. (like purchasing an expensive "server", and then make the second mistake of actually thinking it will prevent downtime)
Option 4: Adapt market strategy to allow for downtime.
Option 5: Give us sufficient data and hope to get good free advice from ITs in their free time and then go and try to do it yourself without messing up.

Personally, I would go with option 1 if I were you.

 

[aigomorla]

i have never seen a mac crash if used for what he is describing.
ive only seen mac's crash when people try to tweek the OS or do something stupid.
Even then i still bet you windows will crash b4 MAC OS does.


I love this sig a guy on this forum has:

You need to pay someone 10g's and have a full on competition to hack into a mac.

It takes 10g's in firewall and hardware support to prevent a hacker from breaking into a PC.


For reliability in that degree without an IT, MAC FTW!

I called an elected mod in the apple section to chime in. OP i seriously recomend you hear the mac aspect to this arguement. A MAC might be a better machine for you.

 

[taltamir]

I have worked with many macs and PCs in video editing... no games, no OS tweaking, nothing... just running a few programs like photoshop and the like. We have about a dozen macs, and about a dozen PCs running windows. And a server running linux.
The server crashes on occasion, but very rarely (shit, linux and solaris crash on me at home, and more often then windows).

The Macs crashes very often.

The PCs crashed very rarely.

I have recently done some serious damage to my vista install by putting logitech's drivers on it, however MS is not at fault for extremely shitty drivers made my a third party. That is part of the reason why macs are considered more reliable, they control EVERYTHING on it. But if you choose QUALITY brands for windows and don't install crap, then it is the most stable OS out there.

Anyways. I think that considering he claims to be risking hundreds of thousands for not having instant up time, what he needs is an IT, not a mac. And it should be running some nix flavor, and it should be redundant, in different states, with raid1 and multiple internet connections. This kind of setup is suprisingly inexpensive.

He can also just have it at his own home with dual ISP and a serious UPS.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
i have never seen a mac crash if used for what he is describing.
ive only seen mac's crash when people try to tweek the OS or do something stupid.
Even then i still bet you windows will crash b4 MAC OS does.


I love this sig a guy on this forum has:

You need to pay someone 10g's and have a full on competition to hack into a mac.

It takes 10g's in firewall and hardware support to prevent a hacker from breaking into a PC.


For reliability in that degree without an IT, MAC FTW!

I called an elected mod in the apple section to chime in. OP i seriously recomend you hear the mac aspect to this arguement. A MAC might be a better machine for you.

I suspect my trading applications are far more hardware challenging than the OP's given that his were developed >6yrs ago and my applications haven't crashed windows XP on consumer desktop equipment in nearly 2 yrs.

You don't need a MAC to ensure uptime, you need a judicious selection of equipment and a reasonable pre-qualification routine. Sure you could leverage the fact that Apple does a lot of this for you, and you pay a premium for that, but it doesn't mean it is necessary.

(this is my point, MAC isn't THE answer, it is merely an alternative that is equally valid as building your own windows box with an eye towards quality components)

My personal experience with a MAC says yeah sure it's great for uptime, so is my TI-86 calculator (never crashed on me once! honest!) but that doesn't mean jack about being able to run my applications that require a windows/dos environment. I'd be VERY suprised if running his >6yr old app on a MAC emulation environment doesn't expose him to more instability than running it on a DELL box with windows.

 

[Cardio]

Why don't you just build, (or have someone do it), 2 high quality computers with top equipment and run them both. If it's that important. If I wanted something quality I certainly would not buy some package built computer. I'm not getting a Dell, Dude. Any Dell. Or HP or whatever. Have you looked at their designs? The quality of the components. Built to one standard.....cheap. Recently looked at a friends Dell XPS top line box, high dollar. The CPU heatsink was cooled by the exhuast air from the POWER SUPPLY. A plastic duct from the PS blew into the HS. You probably don't believe, I wouldn't either if I hadn't seen it!

The damn software is what is going to crash. Mac's don't crash, yeah right.