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."
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.
The're the same kind of people who outfit their base-line stock 4-banger Honda Civics with nitrous and twin turbos and then wonder why their engine blows and their clutches slip when the checkered flag drops.
If you push the limits of a device, you deserve what you get. Maybe good and cool, maybe broken shit.
Considering an entire subset of the industry exists dealing exclusively with parts designed to run 'faster-than-spec' I'm more inclined to lay the blame on Intel. They should know full well by now that the enthusiast market drives a lot of personal buying decisions further down the food chain...
Remember when Tom's Hardware broke this story?
If you can't release components that will run with existing kit, well someone is going to get the short end of that stick... And when it's the high end consumers, well Oops!
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
You're not pushing a cpu, it was designed to run faster! Just bined lower.
This is a brand new CPU. I don't think they're worried about the low-end market just yet, and are labeling them as high as they can.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You are missing a point here. there are ram chips out there that are designed to run with more voltage then 1.65. So you do not even need to overclock for this to happen.
You're missing the point here. If there are RAM chips out there that are designed to run with more voltage than 1.65v then those RAM chips are not designed to the JEDEC standard. Legally, they probably shouldn't even be able to sell them as DDR3 since DDR3 is a JEDEC standard and the parts on non-compliant. Of course, most of the memory manufacturers do this anyway, and since they are part of JEDEC nobody complains too loudly...except when things don't work, of course.
OCZ Platinum 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 is a 1.8v standard. that's NOT overclocking
But it is over-volted.
Actually, this is still logically intractable. The best you can do is run it and wait for it to fail. If it doesn't fail, all you've shown is that...it didn't happen to fail. That isn't to say that it WOULDN'T have failed if you had run it for one more cycle, just that in your test space, you didn't get it to fail.
Short form: try to prove that something DOESN'T fail is trying to prove a negative, which doesn't work.
This is what you were getting at, obviously. I just wanted to clear it up for other people. :)
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?
That extra 20fps won't make your penis any larger.
Sorry..
Gone!
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.