Slashdot Mirror
Overclocked Memory Breaks Core i7 CPUs
arcticstoat writes "Overclockers looking to bolster their new Nehalem CPUs with overclocked memory may be disappointed. Intel is telling motherboard manufacturers not to encourage people to push the voltage of their DIMMs beyond 1.65V, as anything higher could damage the CPU. This will come as a blow to owners of enthusiast memory, such as Corsair's 2.133MHz DDR3 Dominator RAM, which needs 2V to run at its full speed with 9-9-9-24 timings."
They deserve busted components. If you push the limits of a device, you deserve what you get. Maybe good and cool, maybe broken shit.
Considering that so many memory modules require running out of spec voltages to operate properly, while the Intel CPU requires voltages within spec, it would appear to me that the memory makers are turning out bad memory.
Maybe instead of requiring users ramp voltages up to CPU damaging levels, they should fix their chips? Now that Intel has brought the memory controller into the CPU, that they have tighter tolerances for the voltages does not surprise me.
I suppose this is a downside(although not a terribly upsetting one) of Intel's move to an on-die memory controller. Typically, CPUs are moved onto smaller and lower voltage processes more aggressively than are the northbridge and southbridge. It looks as though, in this case, that means that the CPU will impose substantially lower voltage limits on RAM than the northbridge used to.
Given the boost that on-die memory controllers gave to AMD, back when they adopted them, I suspect that the tradeoff will still be worth it. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that there are going to be some very unhappy cries of "WTF! How could RAM voltage kill my CPU?" from adventuresome kiddies unfamiliar with the implications of this change. Warning stickers aren't going to deter them.
Intel can't do split volts on the cpu and ram like amd boards and older Intel boards can do??
Will any other stuff like this show up in QPI 2+ systems with the QPI bus?
They deserve to live with their results, be those increased performance or broken components. Saying they deserve busted components is like saying someone who soups up their car deserves a blown motor. Both endeavors, done correctly, can boost the performance of the tool in question. It's not hurting anyone, so why the sour grapes? Never were quite able to get the CPU overclocked so you want everyone who tries to fail?
Let me say this slowly:
If the factory makes it that way, it is not overclocked.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
A few months after the initial release of desktop i7 chips, they'll release a chip that can handle up to 2.0V DDR3 running at up to 2.4 GHz. The CPU will cost $1500, have an unlocked multiplier, and require a $300 motherboard, a $200 power supply, and a $100 cooling device to function with the out-of-spec enthusiast RAM. Gamers with more money than sense will eagerly shell out for it, and blame Nvidia's drivers when they only get an extra 1.3 FPS over JEDEC-compliant mainstream CPU/RAM configurations.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
[quote]such as Corsair's 2.133MHz DDR3 Dominator RAM, which needs 2V to run at its full speed with 9-9-9-24 timings."[/quote]
Please forgive me if I'm missing something...but isn't that RAM well, not great?
Various benchmark tests on the web show that RAM running at anything more than a 1:1 ratio (well, 2:1 if you consider that it's Double Data *Rate*) with the FSB doesn't increase performance at all. At this point, timings become important.
But 9-9-9-24 is pretty bad right? Lower is better right? For $90AUD I've got semi-budget performance RAM that has 4-4-4-12 timings. That's over double the latency timings.
So for the Corsair Dominator RAM to be worth it...you'd need to be running an FSB of 1.0665GHz. Meaning you'd need to have your CPU running at 4.266GHz FSB for it to be better than a slower RAM with better timings. Unless you're lowering your multiplier considerably, I don't see that as hugely attainable. And the loss of performance in timings is just too great.
Or am I missing something fundamental?
~Jarik