As there is less work to do per individual job, perhaps more time is spent with the CPU not working, while waiting for data for the new job?

When you reduce the number of bars, EA Studio has much less job to do and the Generator is faster.

OK, a theory: it did not occur to me before, partly as I don't know enough about the programming to have any insight, but about the only change I can think of which might be significant enough to cause that much of a difference in performance, is that I have greatly reduced the number bars being used to generate strategies.

I was previously using 500,000 bars (M1), but I am now using 20,019 bars (H1) for 20 instances, and 7,653 bars (H1) for the other 20.

Interesting, if that is the cause of the difference.

Hello Dun,

If there is a performance gain, it must be from something other.

I'm currently finalizing a new version, which will come with a more advanced Walk Forward and 7% faster backtester, but it is not yet uploaded.

Hi Popov ,

The new walk forward you speak of, can the optimisation settings be used?

If there is a performance gain, it must be from something other.

I'm currently finalizing a new version, which will come with a more advanced Walk Forward and 7% faster backtester, but it is not yet uploaded.

1. Did EA Studio just get more than twice as fast, or is it because I am somehow doing something different (or did Google Chrome somehow become more efficient?) ???

For the last few weeks, a 20 Core /40 Thread computer would go to nearly 100% CPU utilization with EA Studio Generator with 18 instances of EA Studio running.

Since about yesterday, I noticed that 20 instances were only consuming about 53%, so I am now running 40 instances and CPU usage is still only about 85%.

2. Also: is there a EA Studio change log somewhere?

Thanks!