Not logged in
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

Forums>StrategyQuant>Pre-Sales Questions>Performance Xeon workstation and SQX

  • #240863| Reply
    Participant
    3 Posts

    Hello,
    can anyone write me please a performance PC in a standardized test (SQX Main menu / Settings -top right / benchmark)?
    Especially for a single-processor workstation. Best for Xeon E5-26xx series (CPU, version CPU or GHz, RAM,DDR3 or DDR4, number of strategies).

    Thanks

    #240936 Reply
    Participant
    3 Posts

    The price of 2x Xeon X5650 is very interesting. If you have someone, please write about the performance in SQX.

    Thanks

    #240938 Reply
    Customer
    385 Posts

    Looking at budget Single Xeons or older dual systems like X5650 I would instead go for a Threadripper with higher GHZ. The 1950X is cheap now and outperforms any older models of XEONs when making strategies in SQX. I find it is easy to compare performance in SQx between CPu’s. Just multiply total core count with Ghz and you have it.

    #240947 Reply
    Customer
    197 Posts

    2x XEON E5-2680 – 80000 strs in benchmark

    You want to be a profitable algotrader? Sharing of final strategies with real traders just started. Fill in this FORM. 500+ final SQX strategies for members running on demo account SQX demo acc. We provide also strategies for indices - DAX and DOW JONES, because we have realtick data from brokers.

    #240952 Reply
    Customer
    385 Posts

    Dual Systems with more then 64 Threads are splitted in groups by Windows and SQx can only use one Group. So 2 SQX has to be used to utilize both CPU,s or You have to disable Hyper threading. So i run 2 test in my dual system

    1x XEON E5-2673 V4 – 82000 strs in Benchmark

    1x XEON E5-2673 V4 -77000 strs in Benchmark

    1x XEON E5-2698 V4- 73000  ”

    1xXEON E5-2698 V4- 66000 ”

     

    Notice that one CPU always performs better then the other in dual socket systems.

    #240955 Reply
    Participant
    3 Posts

    mabi, hankeys:

    thank you for the information.

    #241039 Reply
    Customer
    385 Posts

    Threadripper 2950x – 84000

    #241109 Reply
    Customer
    385 Posts

    Threadripper 2950x – 84000

    Threadripper “gaming Mode”    – 93000   ( simultaneous multi threading turned of gives higher usage and output on all processes as WF, Montercarlo and Generation)

    #241155 Reply
    Customer
    10 Posts

    Benchmark

     

    Threadripper 1950x

    64gb @ 3200mhz

     

     

     

    #241261 Reply
    Customer
    484 Posts

    Benchmarking is vanity; the actual production number is sanity.

    Just saying…no competition; not suggesting I’m better…

     

     

    Vanity

    #241273 Reply
    Customer
    197 Posts

    these numbers will tell us nothing, we dont know what are you generating…this is not comparable if everyone is not using the same settings

    also benchmark from SQX could get results from 60-80 k, so it could differ, because its running only for few seconds

    for this purposes we run the same project for 1 hour in one of the cooperation groups and get these results

    this is comparable

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.

    You want to be a profitable algotrader? Sharing of final strategies with real traders just started. Fill in this FORM. 500+ final SQX strategies for members running on demo account SQX demo acc. We provide also strategies for indices - DAX and DOW JONES, because we have realtick data from brokers.

    #241299 Reply
    Customer
    484 Posts

    these numbers will tell us nothing, we dont know what are you generating…this is not comparable if everyone is not using the same settings also benchmark from SQX could get results from 60-80 k, so it could differ, because its running only for few seconds for this purposes we run the same project for 1 hour in one of the cooperation groups and get these results this is comparable

     

    Understood.

     

    it was more tongue in cheek to honest.

     

    I do not know the limits of SQX because I haven’t used it for very long.

    #242468 Reply
    Participant
    5 Posts

    i think the idea is interesting but it should be posted on general questions, it doesn’t have much in common with presales questions

    i agree with those who said that a test must be identical in order to compare 2 different proceesors

    in any case, from the tests i performed on SQ3 on mobile processors, i would say to any person interested in such comparisons that any dual CPU configuration with Xeon processors from Haswell up or a single CPU configuration with Intel 9900K or AMD Threadripper would be sufficient. This means at least 16 cores on any configuration, single or dual.

    Anything below would take a lot more time. This is something very general that any new “miner” should be aware of.

    Besides this, any other tests or detailed comparisons would be more like decorative than functional. I wouldn’t waste too much time into such comparisons.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  ivan.
    #242470 Reply
    Gianfranco
    Customer
    36 Posts

    you have to see how the SQX program is written if it takes advantage of all the available cores… I seem to have read can distribute in parallel calculation up to 24 cores … So I think for now you can not do more or a little more if they do not better distribute the parallel calculation example on 128 or more cores…. but when you have millions of billions of combinations to process 3.5 ghz 0 4 ghz
    little changes. maybe instead of 40 hours it takes 35 hours then the difference and a few years ago I was racing on a forum with big overclock and liquid cooling and I saw that the super top cpu is never convex in performance price ratio
    if there was a possibility to use TESLA nvidia cards in the pc that I use for SQX would be a nice leap forward but the program should support the CUDA libraries of nvidia and here we talk about 2000/3000 cuda core … then you start to think
    Thank you

    Gianfranco

    #242858 Reply
    Participant
    5 Posts

    the essence here is that mostly newcomers are interested in this subject and they are (or should be) focused on systems with maximum 24 cores. Main reason is that systems either new or used with more than 24 cores are too expensive for most newcomers

    and the main question of these people is how a reasonable system looks like and in what time interval can they expect to create a decent, working final strategy on a particular pair.

    i know this because last year i was also a newcomer and i put the same questions and i was looking for those answers on SQ3.

    An aproximate answer but sufficient for most would look like this: with the system X (…enter configuration) you can expect a decent final stategy on Y settings (enter parity and timeframe…etc) in Z hours, days or weeks

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
Reply To: Performance Xeon workstation and SQX

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Your information: