|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>Besides, the real benchmarks I've seen for multi-cpu pc's show you won't
get anywhere near 1100 mhz throughput. More like 600-700. Still probably
slower than an Athlon or Alpha on NT.<
Thank you. I've been reading up on this and see that you get throughput of
100% on the first CPU and only about 50% on the second CPU.
Omega's site says TS has been written to take advantage of dual cpu's.
I'm not a techno wizard at all. What does Omega mean that it can take
advantage of
dual cpu's? Is TS written so that one CPU will strictly run the Global
Server? Any thoughts?
There is now an Athelon 900 mhz. Their gigahertz chip comes out the first
of the year.
However, reading Tomshardware.com I learned that for some applications it
may not perform any better than
a 700 mhz.
Any thoughts additional thoughts on
Athelon 700 mhz VS any Dual Processor set up?
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sigstroker@xxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Computer for Trade Station
> In a message dated 12/3/99 6:13:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> dennis@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > > My little 450 mhz chip is just not cutting it for real time charting
> and
> > > radar screen.
> > > 1. Dual 366 ppga Celerons overclocked at 550 each = 1100 mhz total
> > > I keep reviewing Matrox.com for a video card that runs 4 monitors.
> >
> > I don't get it. Seems like some people want to use one box with
> multiple
> > processors and multiple monitors to run multiple applications and/or
> > multiple workspaces. With the price of complete systems so cheap at
> > places like onsale.com, why not use one box, one cpu, one monitor,
> one
> > workspace and have a whole bunch of them networked together?
>
> Besides, the real benchmarks I've seen for multi-cpu pc's show you won't
> get
> anywhere near 1100 mhz throughput. More like 600-700. Still probably
> slower
> than an Athlon or Alpha on NT.
>
|