Announcement

**Portman** · 14 January 2013, 11:22 AM

A suggestion that i highly recommend:
Use a solid state disk (SSD) for OS and programs , the cost for giga is much larger but you don't need more than 60GB and the overall increase in performance is awesome. You can always backup all other data on an external standard HD.
The reason of this increase is the "seek time" that in HD is about 200ms in SSD is about 3ms: every time the OS looks for a different file there is a difference in performance of about 7000%. All the system will be faster an average of 40%.
A solid state disk is almost like added RAM!
I use this:

Ci scusiamo per l'interruzione.

http://www.ebay.it/itm/SAMSUNG-SSD-interno-830-Series-128-GB-MZ-7PC128B-WW-/380497736808?pt=Memorie_per_PC_e_Server&hash=item58976eb468&_uhb=1

**The Geek** · 14 January 2013, 11:49 AM

6 core is overkill for a desktop / trading. { It works very well on 2 cores. } The 4 core AMD option will save you some $$$ with little if any performance degradation.

Agree about the SSD. Whilst it will have little or no impact on trading, it does make a big difference to start up & response times when opening up new apps etc.

16GB RAM is overkill for all but the most intensive users. Most rarely use more than 4GB even on 64 bit operating systems. Start with 4GB. { You can always upgrade later. }

**pdonald** · 14 January 2013, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by flok View Post

- how can i plug 2 monitors to the video card that had 1 dvi plug and 1 hdmi? will need an adapter?

You can connect Asus VE208T with DVI and your other monitor with HDMI. If your other monitor doesn't have an HDMI connector, it probably has DVI so you can buy an HDMI-DVI cable.

Originally posted by Portman View Post

The reason of this increase is the "seek time" that in HD is about 200ms in SSD is about 3ms: every time the OS looks for a different file there is a difference in performance of about 7000%. All the system will be faster an average of 40%.

Average HDD seek time is 9 ms, for SSD it's between 0.08 ms and 0.16 ms. That number 7000% is bullshit. 40% even more bullshit. If you get an SSD, your computer will be faster only when there's disk activity involved, for instance, programs will start faster, Windows will boot much, much faster. You'll wait less when you're copying files, etc.

But yeah, get an SSD. It won't make your computer magically "40%" faster, but you'll feel the difference.

**flok** · 14 January 2013, 11:57 AM

portman:
great, thanks! i didnt even know about the existence of these new disks.
but i need to think carefully about it, cause for my work (2d graphics) i need a lof of space to store big files.
also, i need to understand if the increase of performances justifies the expense (+150 euros more then the previewed budget).
i'm actually thinking to use these 150 to buy a new wacom graphic tablet, but i'll see.
i found these prices on the shop e-key.it
do you know it? reliable?

geek:
thanks for the advice, it's useless to buy more resources than windows can actually use

pdonald:
perfect, i can connect the old monitor with the dvi (i have a vga cable+adapter) and the new one with hdmi

**pdonald** · 14 January 2013, 12:04 PM

Your new monitor doesn't have an HDMI connector.

**flok** · 14 January 2013, 12:14 PM

is it possible to use an adapter and connect the hdmi plug of the video card to the dvi plug of the monitor?

Page not found – Video Over IP and HDMI Video Connectivity Solutions.

http://www.octavainc.com/HDMI%20DVI%20adapter.htm

**pdonald** · 14 January 2013, 12:18 PM

You don't need an expensive adapter, just the cheapest cable with an HDMI connector on one end and DVI on the other.

**The Geek** · 14 January 2013, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by flok View Post

geek:
thanks for the advice, it's useless to buy more resources than windows can actually use

Windows can use 16GB & 6 cores.

I just doubt very much that your day to day use would ever require it, so that would be money in the toilet.

**Portman** · 14 January 2013, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by pdonald View Post

That number 7000% is bullshit.

You right the increase of performance in finding files is not 7000% but more than 10000%
I repeat now for you a benchmark i made time ago:

An SSD disk vs a SATA 7200rpm disk

Geek is right, when a ladder is opened there is no real difference in trading speed, but often the system does a lot of things in the same time and SSD avoid dangerous bottlenecks.
For example i use SQL server to automate trading and it is a tipical program with a large number of random accesses. My system has had a great advantage from this disk.

However i don't work for Samsung

**flok** · 14 January 2013, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by The Geek View Post

Windows can use 16GB & 6 cores.

I just doubt very much that your day to day use would ever require it, so that would be money in the toilet.

right... this hardware was suggested by a friend that is an hardcore gamer. so maybe he thought that i wanted to play 3d games all the time at maximum graphic details. really i dont need it

**The Geek** · 14 January 2013, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Portman View Post

You right the increase of performance in finding files is not 7000% but more than 10000%
I repeat now for you a benchmark i made time ago:

An SSD disk vs a SATA 7200rpm disk

Geek is right, when a ladder is opened there is no real difference in trading speed, but often the system does a lot of things in the same time and SSD avoid dangerous bottlenecks.
For example i use SQL server to automate trading and it is a tipical program with with a large number of random accesses. My system has had a great advantage from this disk.

However i don't work for Samsung

SQL Server & SSD. Now that's a marriage made in heaven.

**pdonald** · 14 January 2013, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Portman View Post

You right the increase of performance in finding files is not 7000% but more than 10000%

It's more like double-bullshit.

Hard disk drives are like record players. Seek time is how long it takes to move the arm to the appropriate track. SSDs have no moving parts so you can't really compare them, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Even if you look at seek time as the time how long it takes to read a piece of data, it's wrong to quantify the performance improvement using the seek time ratio since blocks of data in hard disk drives are mostly next to each other and are read sequentially so you don't need to seek all the time (if it wasn't, it would take you hours to copy a 1 GB file), not to mention every HDD has a small cache built-in.

Here's a better comparison, in my opinion.

**The Geek** · 14 January 2013, 04:13 PM

Getting all hormonal over Benckmarks is all very well, but what counts is how it affects use.

We use SSDs in 5 out of 7 of our PCs. Where you can really notice the difference on a daily basis is....

1. The SSD PCs start up & shut down in 25 - 50% of the time taken by a standard HD.

2. When opening applications / saving large documents there is a significant difference in wait times.

3. A PC with a low amount of RAM / high usage of applications runs much quicker & smoother as there is much less delay on read / writes to the Windows swap file.

4. When developing a large project like the toy with hundreds of source files, build times are decreased significantly. { Hence why they are a no brainer for us. }

**shadowninja** · 14 January 2013, 04:24 PM

You could probably pick up a Pentium 4 on Gumtree free of charge that will be suitable for work, trading and entertainment unless work = broadcast quality video editing, trading = running a load of servers for an IB and entertainment = broadcasting multiple channels of some satellite TV station.

My recently retired P4 with a 1Gb card was more than suitable for your needs. I only upgraded to a dual core because I fancied having some BF3 action.

Announcement

hardware experts: i need advice to buy a new computer

hardware experts: i need advice to buy a new computer

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment