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."
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."
I'll just stick to the mathematics of quantum field theory. Kids these days and their crazy machines!
When we asked Pooh what the opposite of an Introduction was, he said "The what of a what?" which didn't help us as much as we had hoped...
Since when has a manufacturer said "Yes, over-volt the shit out of our part, it will be fine."
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
I understand the mindset, obligatory car analogy here, but it is not something I've ever done. Shopping for hardware has become a bit of a mine field lately, as most of the top tier motherboard and RAM manufacturers offer a *ton* of options for boosting the juice to various things all over the motherboard. They advertise this as a feature. I'm glad for those folks who like to go faster. It does make things a bit tricky having to check the RAM voltage, against what the motherboard can handle, and the processor will take, and hoping it all works. I'd like it if Asus and Gigabyte could maybe come up with a 'Get off my lawn!' series for us folks who like stock voltages, and wear onions on our belts.
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.
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.
for example
OCZ Platinum 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 is a 1.8v standard. that's NOT overclocking
I agree overclocking and you break something your own problem but this product can't even use some decent ram as its stated to be used without blowing the CPU. At that point I would want my CPU replaced thank you,
So you don't buy that memory to use with your new chip--that memory is out of spec.
This guy's the limit!
Yes and No. The JEDEC specifications say that DDR2 must be able to handle UP TO 2.3 volts before incurring any PERMANENT damage. However, 1.9v is considered the max when stability is of concern and anything over that is not guaranteed to work (properly).
DDR3 is specified to work at 1.575v, but able to withstand up to 1.975v .. Again, no guarantees it will function properly, but (according to the standard) shouldn't fry it. Now, other factors do come into play such as less life, more heat generated, more power used, etc.
The JEDEC specification is for memory modules. What Intel is saying is their processor will (likely) get damaged any more than 1.65v.
Push what limits?
You're not pushing a cpu, it was designed to run faster! Just bined lower.
You're not overclocking overclocking ram at 2v. Its designed to run with that voltage!
This isn't an overclocking issue, its a design flaw by Intel. Not our fault you can't see the forest for the trees.
Run a CRC on your brain, sparky, you dropped a bit or two.
The Nehalem CPU is designed to run at JDEC Spec of 1.5V, but can handle 1.65 without being binned. Yes, the RAM is designed for 2V, but the CPU wasn't - use the RAM, take a chance on killing the CPU and voiding your warranty.
60nm parts have 25% more area in which to absorb electrons and 25% more dielectric between elements than a 45nm part, so of course they could handle more voltage without damage. It's a design flaw in material physics, not the processor.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
... until somebody solders a crapload of diodes to their motherboard to drop each ram output line voltage by .7v.
Bonus points if they're LEDs.
Still running that Dell eh?
1.8 volts for DDR3 memory is severly out of spec.
The nominal voltage is 1.5. Chips nominally operating at higher voltages are of *LOWER QUALITY* than chips operating at the proper 1.5 voltage.
The ability to increase voltage to offset more aggressive timings than the memory supports is the real issue. At that point you are getting no real performance improvement and the real possibility of random bit flips + additional wear on the memory/northbridge/cpu.
DDR3 and CPU caches are all about bulk data transfers and have zero to do about latency. Whatever silly gains you think you are getting by playing with timings are hidden by the nature of the hardware.
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?
by adjusting the RAM voltage, you are also the voltages on the input pins of the processor. Overvolting an I/O pin can cause latchups, which basically is a short circuit.
Looks like there are enough missed points to go around. The JEDEC DDR3 specification (see JEDEC Standard No. 79-3B) explicitly defines VDD as 1.5 V +/- 0.075 V for DDR3-compliant memory modules. Furthermore, the max supported frequency is 1600 MHz. What OCZ and other like-minded manufacturers are doing is intentionally violating the DDR3 spec to enable overclockers. Higher frequencies can only be reached with higher voltages, so they screen the DRAM chips to find the ones that can be pushed the farthest. These are then sold to enthusiasts to enable them to "push the envelope" on their gaming monster. Specifications exist to enable interoperability between different manufacturers. Intel is supporting the spec. OCZ is not. It's hard to blame Intel for not supporting OCZ's non-compliant parts.
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.
No, they're lower binned parts that couldn't make "enthusiast" OR normal speeds at 1.5 volts.
They crank up the voltage and re-rate them at a higher speed, and slap on ridiculous cooling (heat spreaders, heat pipes, built in fans).
They KNOW these pieces will fail at high rates, so they jack up the price and call it gamer/enthusiast RAM. When the return rates start to drop off, they start issuing rebates to move remaining stock.
So much for intelligent design.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That extra 20fps won't make your penis any larger.
Sorry..
Gone!
I'll be the one laughing at the pathetic excuses you make up when I still kick your ass.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Although they are related measurements, process names refer to the ram cell pitch, not the size of the transistors.
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.