SQX : Performance per core / Number of cores? Threadrippers / I9 ?

I want to ask dev team and adv users what is better in terms of performance for new SQX.

Actually, new threadrippers are out with many many cores 16/24/32  but with lower clock speed per core.

At the end of the month will be out new i9  where clock per core is much better but they have also fewer cores. What do you recommend?

Is SQX optimized for using many many cores or all work will do JVM?

The more cores, the better overall performance, remember, you can start several SQ instances, so you can max out all the cores easily.  So the slower core speeds are no issue, because you have many more cores than on the i9 and overall the Threadripper´s total performance (utilizing all cores) smokes the i9. I am on a Threadripper 1950X (16 cores, 32 threads) and simply launch as many SQ´s until CPU load reaches 100%. Just make sure to have enough RAM too, as each instance of course requires some RAM 😉

SQx easily maxes my 40 threads. It will do that up to 64 threads after that Windows will group them and then SQx only uses one group unfortunately.  All thought it might be more diversifying to run many sessions as well even with SQx. I think is just math Clock speed times amount of cores.

mabi wrote:

SQx easily maxes my 40 threads. It will do that up to 64 threads after that Windows will group them and then SQx only uses one group unfortunately. All thought it might be more diversifying to run many sessions as well even with SQx. I think is just math Clock speed times amount of cores.

I learned something today, that Windows applications (unless written specifically to use more than one processor group) are limited to 64 logical processor cores.

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/hardtofind/2018/01/29/windows-server-with-more-than-64-logical-processors/

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/procthread/processor-groups

I don’t think I’m likely to have a computer with more than 64 anytime soon.

Linux group them first at 128 cores/threads.

All good guys, there is no limit of just 64 threads, it just groups them into 64er groups. However, if you have 128 threads, you can just run 2 SQ instances and map instance 1 to group0 with 64 cores and instance 2 to group1 with the other 64 cores. The issue just is that 1(!) istance cannot use 128 core.

Any news with SQX performance on threadripper? and i8?

hi guys,

how can i know whether SQx used max threads when i open only 1 instance?

Press ctrl alt del  go to task manager/performance  and check it  🙂

Having to run multiple instances of SQ requires wasting lots of RAM for the GUI and program data. I find more effient the Metaquotes’ approach with MT5 using “tester agents” to distribute the calculations. If SQ were to have such agents it would easier to use computers in a LAN, or even GPUs

with SQX is not much needed to run more instances of SQ, because even 1 instance can get you full load – this is not the solution for SQ 3, where you need to run more instances to get full load – so i need to run 8 of them a for this purposes i have 128 GB RAM. For new SQX i dont need that much now 🙂 but i am still generating some strs in the old version

mabi wrote:

Press ctrl alt del go to task manager/performance and check it

yes, i did so. I have set 32/64 cores  in performance on my Dual Xeon workstation, but CPU occupation keep 90% above. What does this mean? I have enough 128 Go memory

Not sure how it compares to other processors, but the screenshots below may give you an idea how it performs on a Threadripper 2950X running at stock. As you can see from the screenshots a single instance uses all cores fully at 100%. No need to run multiple instances.

Thnaks! This is for what im looking for.

A question and a tip for me … If you had a budget around 2500/3000 eur today to buy a workstation to work with SQX, what configuration would you choose?

i bought threadripper 2950x water cooled.  costs were around 2400 eur without vat. do not overinvest into ram better to more cores imo.