AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 87
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
Ruslan, with such results you seem to be the first, not the last. But it can't be, because it never can be.
Try to perform the last posted test according to all the rules specified there. The EA itself is on pg. 50, in Docent's post. Conditions - as I myself have given them to others in private (I think they are complete):
0a. Before testing remove files in directories tester/caches and tester/history! This is necessary because with full repetition of the test data is cached, and the results are not what they should be. The test should, roughly speaking, be run from scratch.
0b. Pump up the M1 on EURUSD for about a year (more precisely, to September 15, 2008). This is also essential as the lack of history reduces the test time.
1. Initial deposit - 1 million USD exactly.
2. Settings of input parameters - the same as in the figure (only two parameters are changed).
3. In the tab "Optimization" there should be no checkboxes.
4. The brokerage company should have five digits (better Alpari).
5. The test should be conducted by opening prices. The test is for the period from 15.09.08 to 15.09.09.
6. Non-digit results in the output - to be included.
7. Genetics - cut off!
The report should be as follows:
1. Screenshot of test result (Settings tab, which shows total test time).
2. Screenshots of CPU-Z for the stone and memory. It is better to take a screenshot of CPU-Z at the moment of its operation to reflect real frequency.
The conditions are many, but it is not difficult to fulfil them all at once.Important: Clear the tester's cash and history folders!
===
Before the test, of course.
Yes, it is very important (see point 0a). I will highlight it in colour...
Lesh, I'm sorry - it's just that everyone's missing it for some reason. So I made sure.
The ff-performance comes out 578*1.5 = 867, i.e. at the level of an overclocked Core i7 920. Again something is obviously wrong, Ruslan.
If you're really interested in more or less objective results in comparison with others, download quotes from Metaquotes server - on another terminal, of course.
The ff-performance comes out 578*1.5 = 867, i.e. at the level of an overclocked Core i7 920. Again something is obviously wrong, Ruslan.
If you're really interested in more or less unbiased results compared to others, download quotes from Metaquotes server - on a different terminal, of course.
what are the dimensions and how do you output them ???
Svinozavr suggested this simple measure of math computing efficiency earlier, at the beginning of the thread. Simply multiply total testing time in seconds by actual stone frequency in gigs.
See the results on the page. 76. I expect something around ff~1500 or more on your configuration.