Login Page - Create Account

Support Board

Date/Time: Thu, 26 May 2022 05:01:58 +0000

[User Discussion] - Buying a New Computer

View Count: 6536

[2013-04-15 11:47:48]
narcese - Posts: 58
Are there minimum specification requirements to run Sierra Charts?
[2013-04-15 16:17:26]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 102878
Not really. Most any computer in the last 7 or 8 years should be fine.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy:

For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service:
Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing
[2013-04-15 19:04:10]
Tonkadad - Posts: 223
Think about how many monitors you want to have, I believe PCI 16 is the standard for video cards, you should be able to find a setup with 2 of those slots. That way you can easily run multiple monitors in the future.

Ram is cheap I would go with 8 gigs, quad core processor, I have been running SSD's for a couple of years now, I had no problems, great performance.

If the above is not familiar to you then just do some research on web, give it a couple of days, you should be able to make a decision.
[2013-04-17 00:23:20]
joshtrader - Posts: 377
And just to be clear, I am guessing SC still does not work with Windows 8 well, and many new PCs will have it, so this would be a major consideration, to look for a Windows 7 PC (Win7 is much better than Win8 anyway IMO).
[2013-04-17 16:29:52]
SgtJ - Posts: 154
[2013-05-23 13:37:39]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
Is SSD memory as robust and last as long as a good hard disk drive for those who constantly stream a lot of data over the net to files?
[2013-05-23 13:42:22]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
yes, you need an SSD to run the data and a hard drive disk to store it for the setup to work properly
[2013-05-23 14:09:35]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
So the SSD drives are at least as reliable than a hard disk when written to constantly for many hours on end?

I thought I read an article previously suggesting the SSDs have fairly high failure rate - I wonder how much longer than a good hard disk before they fail when used constantly?

[2013-05-23 14:37:47]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
as a trader you really want an SSD to run your applications and hard drive to store it so there is never a lag on your platforms


OCZ and corsair are good ones, i believe i use corsair. make sure and check the reviews if you are worried about life span
[2013-05-23 14:59:12]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
thanks a lot, User51479. Good point.

My query was really about reliability and life expectation, compared to a good hard disk when very heavily used. SSD vs HDD.

Any thoughts anyone?

[2013-05-23 15:07:55]
TastyRisk - Posts: 119
Multiple copies of Sierra Charts running 24/7 off a Intel SSD for a few years and no problems.

From what I can see these are the most reliable consumer (non-enterprise) brands;


I think it`s because they have the resources to do extensive R&D and need a reliable product to offer big companies like Dell etc.

Date Time Of Last Edit: 2013-05-23 15:09:28
[2013-05-23 15:11:05]
joshtrader - Posts: 377
I agree with TR - SSD technology seems to have come a long way in the last several years even, and Intel now even includes a 5 year warranty on their SSDs.
[2013-05-23 15:30:13]
ganz - Posts: 1048

imho Intel (5 years warranty) is a good choise, also Plextor M5Pro officially declares the Linux compatability and works just fine for me.


gd lck
[2013-05-23 16:12:12]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
Thaks a lot, guys. That's great.

Do you use SSD instead of hard disk, or do SSD work along with a hard disk - like a cache type thingy?

[2013-05-23 16:12:44]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
you need both
[2013-05-23 16:20:35]
ganz - Posts: 1048

a good SSD is the more expensive solution in terms of 1MB/$ and nothing more at this time

a lot of people are using a SSD for a system/software and HDD for a buckUp and DB, video, music, pictures, torrents, ftp and so on

gd lck
[2013-05-23 16:34:39]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
ah, I was thinking that SSD would be used for the destination Sierra data stream, so save the more temperamental hard disk? Do people use it for that - sierra data?
[2013-05-23 16:36:06]
ganz - Posts: 1048

Do people use it for that - sierra data?

I do :)

gd lck
[2013-05-23 16:38:13]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
if your SSD is too full it wont speed up your computer as it should, this is why you need to use the regular hard drive for storing your data like sierra charts and let the SSD execute them
[2013-05-24 12:01:10]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
Thanks User51479

I'm slightly confused.

If SSD works fine for storing everything, including all Sierra chart data, what is the advantage of having a hard disk at all, apart from cost? (I thought SSD's were supposed to gradually replace the old idea of spinning disks)

And if, for some technical reason that I dont know, it is recommended to use two drives not just one, then why not two SSD's? (ussuming they are large enough)


Thanks for all your help.

[2013-05-24 13:35:53]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
if your SSD is too full it wont speed up your computer as it should

and SSDs were made so your traditional hard drive didnt have to store AND execute your things. SSDs were made for execution
[2013-05-24 14:24:26]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
thanks again, User51479

Assuming they will not be very full, I'm still unsure what the technical advantage is of having: firstly, a spinning disk type device at all, and secondly two devices - an SSD and old school hard disk. (assuming space and cost is not a problem). What is the disadvantage in have one SSD on its own. What is the disadvantage in having two SSD's (if two devices are needed) over SSD and HDD

[2013-05-24 14:48:11]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
you can spend $2500-$3000 on a 1tb SSD when you can pay $80 for a 1tb HDD if you would like.. you will get the same performance as using an SSD and HDD together though so i dont see why anyone would do that esp when HDDs last a lot longer than SSD will

if your SSD is too full it wont speed up your computer as it should

and SSDs were made so your traditional hard drive didnt have to store AND execute your things. SSDs were made for execution

you can use a very large SSD for executing and storing but you will be spending the same amount it costs to build a nice computer on just the SSD
[2013-05-24 14:57:20]
PhilipJames - Posts: 34
Ok thanks, User.

So there is no technical reason to have a mechanical hard disk at all, but it is down to cost particulary if we want a high capacity?

If the pc is used almost exclusively for Sierra plus a few word documents and not a great deal more, maybe a lower capicity SSD would do?

And there's no real need then for a second drive of any kind, in that situation, unless it has to store more - videos etc?

Is it definitely a proven fact that, with the latest SSDs (eg Intel), that an SSD is very likely to have a shorter life than a good hard drive?

[2013-05-24 15:05:30]
M5amhan - Posts: 468
yes, an SSD will need to be updated. i am not sure on the time, it may be a few years. but the HDD will last as long as your computer does. its always good to have a bit of breathing room, windows alone will take up like 80g.. I have a 1tb HDD and i hardly use it for anything and i use 200gb on it, and i use 100g out of 167g i have on my SSD.. and all i do is use sierra charts/think or swim and google chrome. what would likely happen if you just use a low capacity SSD is you will run out of space on it and your computer will not be running efficiently. $80 is not a big deal when it means you will have space for your computer to breathe and you can use your SSD to execute programs, but do what you want. talk to your local computer guy

To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account:


Login Page - Create Account