[INQ] Performance RAM will damage your Nehalem

Quote:

---

WE GOT WORD that Intel is adivising mobo-makers and memory vendors alike about their new X58+Core i7 combo and to abide to a strict 1.65V limit on memory voltages, beyond which there is the risk of burning out the CPU.

The info first tipped up on the XFastest forums where the admin posted several photos of an Asus P6T Deluxe (retail-packed) mobo including one of a big sticker over the DIMM slots motherboard warning that anything over 1.65V will fry the CPU.

Update: Asus called us back and confirmed the limitation on the RAM voltages. They are currently running a 1.7V kit in their UK office, but beyond that, you're on your own.

---

More here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naokaji

explained here on xs for those who dont want to give the inq hits: link

---

explained here on xs for those who dont want to give the inq hits: link

perhaps raising the CPU voltage is the cure :rolleyes:

inq is only about two weeks later then XS.

I like that our forum has better industry contacts then someone who is supposed to have industry contacts lol. :)

wohpdido here we go again... voltage above 1,45 can fry your cpu, voltages above 2,x can damge your ddr3 ram etc., etc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biohead

perhaps raising the CPU voltage is the cure :rolleyes:

---

I'm sure someone will find the trick. Telling me to stop overvolting my ram is like telling me to stop smoking crack; it just ain't happening.

Though the way Drwho? explained it the nehalem should really be able to clock ram in ways we havent seen before, even without the voltage.



P.S. - Simon; did you get my PM?

Memory makers must be not very happy with these news....if you take a look @ newegg, most of dd3 at sale are rated above 1.7~1.8 volts.

Isnt this the same as the A64, that above a certain voltage could kill the cpu?

It was the voltage differential could kill it. Mem controller got starved, I believe. Not sure the exact answer on that, but I do know it was the differential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morais

Memory makers must be not very happy with these news....if you take a look @ newegg, most of dd3 at sale are rated above 1.7~1.8 volts.

---

Most? Im sure most of it is 1.5V

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oohms

Isnt this the same as the A64, that above a certain voltage could kill the cpu?

---

But the threshold looks absurd this time around (compared to X48/38/K8/10).

I have no idea why Intel wanted to implement same process for the MC; most of us here would rather that they had that portion on a cruder process, volt it higher, and enable DDR3 to still go above 2V without much problem.

Especially when the power consumption tradeoff is rather minimal- it's a MC, FFS.

I bet I'll be running some Nehalem systems with the RAM at 2.27V 24/7 F@H and everything's gonna be ok.
Anybody wanna challenge me ? :D

not with bloomfield, to expensive. :D

So, I may be misinformed but intel seems to have made some different, if not strange design calls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

not with bloomfield, to expensive. :D

---

That's not going to stop me.

Oh, you mean expensive as in QX9770 expensive? Imagine if somebody would put those under high voltage! *laughter*

Woooo Benchzowner I love it!

yep ,


http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5...8458ye2sw3.jpg









thats the reason for this >>> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ght=DDR3+JEDEC




:up:

This is a ram voltage issue, not a CPU voltage issue I thought? That is what it sounds like in the OP. I know my ram came set at 1.8v out of the box. I don't see how they are going fast ram with nehalem if that is the case.

Duh, DDR3 not DDR2
<<<Stupid, stupid

Looks like the same problems with the early A64s were the MC voltage was the same as the ram voltage. Upping the ram voltage ups the MC voltage too and 1.65V is the max for the MC before frying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revv23

I'm sure someone will find the trick. Telling me to stop overvolting my ram is like telling me to stop smoking crack; it just ain't happening.

Though the way Drwho? explained it the nehalem should really be able to clock ram in ways we havent seen before, even without the voltage.



P.S. - Simon; did you get my PM?

---

you really should stop smoking the crack though :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

I bet I'll be running some Nehalem systems with the RAM at 2.27V 24/7 F@H and everything's gonna be ok.
Anybody wanna challenge me ? :D

---

if i recall, last time you did somthing like that you almost killed someone with a run away capacitor from an asus board :up:

Guess we'll just have to power the DIMMs separately. Will have to break out the scalpel and start slicing traces :D

...this is just confirming for me that I will be skipping nehalem. Q9650 FTW

So instantly rules out 1600Mhz+ DDR3, which kinda defeats the object of using it doesn't it?

We all know theres hardly no gain over DDR2 with low speed DDR3, yes triple channel+on die MC will provide heaps of bandwidth but surely Intel are going backwards here (so much for high end DDR3 prices falling)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r

So instantly rules out 1600Mhz+ DDR3, which kinda defeats the object of using it doesn't it?

We all know theres hardly no gain over DDR2 with low speed DDR3, yes triple channel+on die MC will provide heaps of bandwidth but surely Intel are going backwards here (so much for high end DDR3 prices falling)?

---

http://www.dvhardware.net/article24148.html
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820146873
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231185

Btw, bandwidth matters, not latency.