AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 63
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Ouch, that's what I wanted too, by the way. I have 6,577,074 transactions, slightly less than you, Docent.
P.S. Just ran it again. My time was 8:18 (498 sec!!!), though I did absolutely nothing. But that niggle (i had "wondered" about optimization for a minute or so before) was gone.
Deleted both files I needed (from cache and history). I don't understand anything. I'm going to try and get some more videogames.
There! That's what I'm talking about - something was wrong with you. And this "wrong" happened to you not at once. Well, your computer shouldn't freeze on optimization for a minute all of a sudden. This means that something else was demanding resources.
By the way, there's another parameter that I don't think we've talked about. There should not be a single checkmark in the Optimisation tab.
By the way. Obviously, it is quite problematic to manually cram 360800 variables into optimizer. But even if there are only, for example, 50 variables in the Expert Advisor, the task already turns out to be quite difficult. There is a simple, in my opinion, solution. In the optimizer's dialog allow to select the file with variables. Then any number of variables can be optimized. You will be able to train hard NS, etc. It might be worth to implement this in MT5, as the optimizer in it is not ready yet.
(shrugging his shoulders) Well, yes - that's right. There are different tasks to be solved in MT. The most massive of them and the most resource-intensive of them all is optimization. And that's what we are working on at the moment. Are you interested in other things? Well, then, the other.
(shrugging) Well, yes - that's right. There are different tasks to be solved in MT. The most massive of them and the most resource-intensive of the massive ones is optimization. And that's what we're working on at the moment. Are you interested in other things? Well, that's different.
Read my post on the previous page, please. I'm talking about optimisation, by means of the in-house optimiser.
By the way, there's another parameter that I don't think we've talked about. There should not be a single checkmark in the Optimisation tab.
They won't be there if you don't check them on purpose. But - I agree - it can be mentioned. In general, I see a kind of deadlock. If no action is taken, we will not get adequate results. Extra measures are a pain in the ass, but which few will agree and manage to do. The test assembly is a bummer. I don't know what's next.
Maybe it's not so terrible to make two additional steps: downloading of the reference history and spread calculation with the help of a programmer? What do you think?
..... It is difficult to do anything about the number of trades. But we can add a block of "very useful" calculations to the Expert Advisor's code in order to reduce the influence of negative factors for testing to the minimum. Say, the block of "very useful" calculations would take 95-99% of the total time. That's all. The task is solved. Sufficiently high reliability will be achieved for our experiments.......
Read my post on the previous page please. I'm talking about optimization, by means of regular optimizer.
Yeah. Sorry. - I quoted the wrong post of yours. But to that post (above) everything I wrote stands.
I read your post on the previous page. Actually, I've defined my position earlier (even earlier than your post!))). Nothing to add yet. I think... (What if it works? (think))))
Maybe it's not so scary to do two more extra steps: downloading the benchmark history and making the spread with the software? What do you think?
Maybe it's not so scary. But in view of Mathemat' s result (as well as Vinin's), which has noticeably changed without any obvious reason, maybe it's just not worth bothering so much?
By the way, I also got better result after one of my runs, but not that much, i.e. 6:58 (vs. 7:11).
I have also written to Belford in private with a question about how many decimal places are in his terminal. And begemot61 again promised to publish his results. I have also prepared a place for them in the table.
Some more information and we will be able to easily answer the main question for which kombat created the thread - which processor is better for optimization? As far as I understand, we don't have to make a precise quantitative estimate - an answer like "X processors are better for optimization" will do.
P.S. Shall we post improved results in the table?
OK, it's already 8:10 - a little, but also nice (I've closed a couple of apps).
P.S. I just remembered something else. During that optimization stall, which I had, core load pattern changed fundamentally: if at the beginning one core was almost fully loaded, and the other just a little bit, at the time of the stall the load on cores was equal.