It is now being voiced about that Vmem beyond 2.2 volts when using phenom processor can possibly damage the internal memory controller and what that may lead to is yet unknown.
Printable View
It is now being voiced about that Vmem beyond 2.2 volts when using phenom processor can possibly damage the internal memory controller and what that may lead to is yet unknown.
:confused: how does the Vmem have anything to do with the memory controller? more info please?
Memory controller is in cpu and all you have to do is harken back to the days when high memory voltage on athlon 64 cpu could damage the internal memory controller and it seems similar is afoot now and that voltage appears to be 2.2 on the memory with phenom processor with internal memory controller.
Memory controller is on the CPU. Vmem is regulated by the motherboard. Memory controller voltage is a function of Vcore, not Vmem. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see evidence...
RGone i thought this was problem when running bh5 @3.3v or more, you had to run your cpu @1.4v to be safe
It's been said that RGone is correct.
I'd love for that to be incorrect though.
RGone, when are we gonna see alot of DFI/790 boards available?
Availability is abysmal
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=79509Quote:
Originally Posted by karbonkid
split power plane on RD790 board... ;)
I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by msimax
i guess you haven't been around K8 days when people were popping memory controllers with low vcore and high vdimmQuote:
Originally Posted by karbonkid
it didn't necessarity need to be 3v on vmem either
what happened back in K8 days? im still here!
runing 1.45 on vcore, 2.9v on mem, 4 sticks of 512
maybe Tony's theory is rubbish if you haven't killed the chip yet lol :D
Dont wory i runing 3.5-3.6v 24/7 on the my 4x512mb and have also runed like 4.1v in bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkorb
I've ran 2.2V very consistent so far (what my RAM is rated for) and 2.3V on the odd occassion. No problems since 12th Nov.
lol i believe you as i've seen your W.R. runsQuote:
Originally Posted by Lastviking
looks like Tony's theory is slowly drowning eheheh
It's not Tony's fault.He just passed some informations he thought were eleveant to future Phenom owners.BTW,every K8 &10 CPU has-built in over-voltage protection which in turn can fail..We need more examples of failures in these circuits(and as effect burned/dead Phenoms).
guys
If you want to kill the memory controller on your Phenom run 2.3V...its as simple as that.
Remember im not quoting the one or two it may or may not happen too...im quoting from advice i have heard from many people now who are telling me its VERY dangerous.
Im not bothered personally if you kill your CPU or your ram if something happens in the CPU that causes the memory to die...in the end its your CPU to kill and i respect that.
I already know this theory has been tested and the CPU did die...2.4V was the vmem.
So...its upto you
Some people need to learn those things the hard way :D
Tony maybe there is more to it than just high vdimm and low vcore
if not why are these systems still alive after all this time then??
ouch there goes my team cas3 performance @ high speedQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Tony, how is it then on am2 cpu's never had an issue on my am2 3600-5200 ones... was it just luck or is it also the combination with 790 boards or just phenom memory controller
Ironically enough, I myself lost a CPU (thankfully it was only a Sempron) to this :eek: - i've only just realised. I didn't know at the time because the only forums I used to follow were DFI-street... :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
mabye amds 65nm fab process is the one to blame?
when they still have problems with the process, i think it would be possible to see cpus/imc that are very voltage resistant and others that die just when you increase the voltage a bit above the recommended settings.
What is the title of this thread...does it say high vmem kills Brisbane?
K10 is a whole new architecture...remember that part.
There is 1 huge plus point here. K10 controlls memory a lot better than K8, as bios matures you will see.
Also clocks needing 2.4v on K8 don't need 2.4V on k10, in some cases huge drops in vmem will still work.
Sheesh.............this just keeps getting better and better :mad:
I'm happy with that...
What Tony says is absolutely true! Mem controller in K10 is way better compared to K8. My Ballistix is working flawlessly with 2.25V @1000MHz 4-4-4 timings. On K8 it needed 2.42V and it wasn't completely stable ...
If increasing NB voltage will mitigate risk of breaking CPU with over 2.2VDIMM then it's OK and most affected are AM2+ board owners (due to 1.1V NB power plane).
Thats good to know for us AM2 users....i cant wait for new revisions of stuff....i keep holding back longer and longer untill there is some thing stable...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Another thing isnt AMDgoing to surprize the Public today about blah blah something...?
Good surprize:Quote:
Originally Posted by gOtVoltage
http://www.newsobserver.com/1566/story/820114.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
MIPS: best. CPUs. ever.Quote:
Mike Uhler, former CTO of MIPS, has joined the company as its first vice president of Accelerated Computing
I still mess around on SGIs when I get the chance
This is awesome news indeed...
so whats the deal with K8 and high voltage? i dont wana break this puppy!
Sure but AMD lovers should not hype always inquirer news... All time this a disappointing reality after. I'm sure that one of the big trend of the amd bashing is more than one year of stories of inquirer or fuad equivalent cleaming super powerful extraordinary cpu... Obvisously the reality is then very deceptive...Quote:
Originally Posted by karbonkid
Lightman: are your Ballistx D9GMH? That's quite bad for those IC's, they normally can do 2.3/2.4V 1200 4-4-4-4. Mine are just binned versions of your chip (same SPD, but added EPP) and they do 1240 4-4-4-4 PL5 stock voltage since I bought them (2.2V).
Running more than that and you are rsiking it big time. My older D9 (crucial) with a 252CFM delta fan on them died in 3 days when I benched at 2.3V/2.35V for around 1 hr. One stick was fine and one was full of 8000+ errors after Test#1. And they were kept far colder than at stock, ambient was 4C and they were only slighty warmer than that.
I think that's where it originally came from:
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?%20threadid=69350
Quote:
AMD Phenom gets killed easily with high vdimm set
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a reviewer who has been testing Phenom CPUs, he has killed 4 Phenom 9000 series CPU by applying just 2.3-2.5v to the vDIMM setting.
So, beware if you intend to o/c the Phenom, bumping up the voltage to 2.3v can easily kill the memory controller resulting in a dead CPU.
Can someone who believes in this try to explain it with some technically sound knowledge? It makes little sense to me, if I look to the physics involved unless we're missing something crucial, in which case I want to know what it is.
That link works for me in describing the situation when running a PHENOM processor. No one knows all the whys nor will likely. When a warning is given, peeps can take the warning or do with their equipment as they please. Always cometh the one whom finds himself the exception to rally against anything not happening to them, happens all the time. However in reality you can likely save yourself some headaches by realizing that over 2.2Vmem on PHENOM processor stands a fair chance to damage the memory controller and since it seems PHENOM only that should be logic enough to know it ain't the boards doing the deed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
Hey, Robert:) have you gotten you're DFI 790FX-M2R yet?
Voltage leads, current follows. When you increase voltage, more current is pulled through. If the VDimm is higher than the IMC then the IMC has to sink more current to create the zeros on the Address and Data lines. The term "sink" I use to definite to pull down as from high about 2.1v (Logic 1) to low at around 0.25V. ( Logic 0 ) The source in this case is a bank of resistors feeding power into the A and D lines.
Lets say the resistors are 560 ohms using ohms load we take Volts / Ohms = Amps
2.0V / 560 = 3.57 Miliamps.
2.1V / 560 = 3.75 Miliamps.
2.2V / 560 = 3.93 Miliamps.
2.3v / 560 = 4.11 Miliamps.
You can see as the voltage is rising so if the amount of current the IMC has to pull to get a zero on the line.
he has one yes....he will be posting on the club with itQuote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
This is interesting. if voltages over 2.3v are likely to immediately? (time frame?) kill a Phenom, wont running 2.1 - 2.3v be coming very close to that? How long will a Phenom be able to handle even 2.0v before it burns out? Surely if 2.3v can kill it in a matter of minutes or hours, wouldnt 2.0 - 2.3v kill it in less than a year of use?
Tony......this is what I am referring too with Default Values AUTO Detect Being wrong in PCI-E with Voltage allocation when Cross Fire is in use or more than 2 PCI-E Devices
I killed my 9600 in a matter of minutes at 2.38V real while running under load, now the 9500 took a couple of days but that bastard needed to die. ;) The good news is that I can hit DDR2-1200 5-5-5-15 on the Gigabyte board (almost on the MSI board - 1180) with 2.2V. At the request of AMD I am not going to say what I just said so you never read what I did not say. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbosan
can anyone link me to an article or somthing that explains this more in depth? i dont wana bust my cpu!
Thanks. :)
So bingo13, what happened to your dead CPU's, RMA?
Newegg is not too happy with me right now..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Hahahaha, the perfect answer Bingo13Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
So what happens if I have a pair of Corsair TWIN2X2048-10000C5DF Dominator's which SPD at 2.4V? They should in theory fry my cpu as soon as I put some load on them without overclocking anything?
JM
that's pretty sad news
AMD is basically building CPUs for stock machines
why even waste time in PR on forums like extreme systems is beyond me
I get the same impression dinos AMD qualifies for the stock PC sector too bad I had very high hopes for all of this and personally as a customer I feel betrayed the way they blatantly lied to all of us me included.
Are you talking about macci here?Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
You seem to be.
well, look this way, it might encourage low voltage pc2 8000 (+) ram to be released. and one would assume that would clock better on high voltage tolerant systems.
darkorb - you are fine. this relates to K10 and VERY OLD K8 - eg the first clawhammer cpu's you have an x2. x2 = new k8.
my understanding goes thusly:
on an amd K8/K10 system the v-ddr is getting applied to certain areas of the dram controler, because it is sat on 1 end of a bus running on vddr voltage! its not soemthing that can be avoided. chipsets that are connected to the ram for non imc cpu's are also exposed to it, but they tend to be running much older, more rhobust process techniques - eg i think the KT800's are .25, while the first K8 were .13. thats a big difference. and as we all know, process shrink, voltage shrink.
amd fixed the delicate imc in the end, im sure that the same will happen again. - and even back then, if you ran an old core, you just used micron/samsung rams at upto 2.8v, and avoided bh5 at >3v. it wasnt the end of the world.
i am talking about AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
why would you make it personal......i enjoy reading anything the big man puts up as he glows in knowledge almost none of us here have......you can always learn something new from the guy
Sorry dinos I was asking you to clarify since when you said "why even waste time in PR on forums like extreme systems is beyond me" I couldn't understand who that AMD PR you're referring to is apart from one who is involved here.
I agree with you, having these new CPUs and even the X2s macci has been the best of help, really appreciate his contribution or no one would help us resolve anything of the many issues 'cus no one else really knew anything factually as good as he does because of his poistion. Even MSI/ASUS don't help no where near as much even when they know details, they all get too high headed and show an attitude. :rolleyes:
How many B2 owners will try this to get an B3 via RMA once it is available?
so are you saying that I shouldn't run my geil 4-4-4-12 @ 2its rated 2.4 V? Ive been leaving it all on auto since I read this thread lol, which is 1.8, and cant get it anywhere near 1066 speed.
I know I am going to try to.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
Count me in.
wait, so k10 has problems with 1066, has problems with certain mem timings, and it cant even run more than 2.2v vdimm?
not to mention the tlb bug and nb/l3 cache bug... and it cant clock as high as c2quad... man... this is awfull :(
everytime i convinced myself to buy phenom again i hear yet another bad thing that convinces me not to buy one :(
you plan to rma a processor in case you kill it with high vdimm? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dehx
I'm in the same boat :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
More like after using is ram @ default :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
I would say stay below 2.2V, you are not going to gain enough from a slightly lower latency with these early Phenoms anyway.
Now that Bingo13 toasted his I wonder if the Egg will consider by RMA :eek:
What are some of you guys going on about?
It was posted earlier that with the new IMC you don't need to run high volts to get performance.
2.2v seems to be plenty to get 1100mhz where before 2.4v was needed for the same frequency.
It is more efficient (IMC) so I would think that would be a good thing.
Seems like a bit of commonsense has flown out the window and been replaced with FUD.....
common sense?
this is xtremesystems!
we want the best possible memory performance and not "just about enough"
memory needs high vdimm to be maxed out, 2.2v is by far not enough...
I can run 2.2V at 1200 4-4-4-4 PL5 just fine. But these RAMs are the best I've had and most other 1066 RAM do not even run 1066 4-4-4-4 PL5 at 2.3V let alone those wanting to go bench 1300 and requiring 2.35-2.8V. So to bench latencies/maximum bandwidth/performance and show the Phenom platform in the best light as is done with all packages you would need to have high VDIMM available and higher speeds supported when overclocking.
Right now I don't even know if its just running the memory as high as 1000 which makes the system shutdown when oc'ing or what since it will not even boot at those speeds and requires a CMOS clear to start with 1066.
any updates?
so we have 2 people who had several phenoms die on them.
Can we get any more details about what exactly happened?
What vcore? what vdimm? what nb voltage? what boards?
On K8/K9 all you had to do to make sure you dont fry the imc with high vdimm was raise vcore.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
couldnt it be that we just have to raise vcore or the nb voltage to get phenom to work with high vdimm?Quote:
2.9 V -------- 1.125 V (min)
3.0 V -------- 1.175 V (min)
3.1 V -------- 1.225 V (min)
3.2 V -------- 1.285 V (min)
3.3 V -------- 1.335 V (min)
3.4 V -------- 1.375 V (min)
3.5 V -------- 1.425 V (min)
3.6 V -------- 1.475 V (min)
3.7 V -------- 1.535 V (min)
3.8 V -------- 1.585 V (min)
3.9 V -------- 1.625 V (min)
4.0 V -------- 1.675 V (min)
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Yep,could be,BUT ie. MSI's AM2+ mobos in the present BIOS versions don't have NB voltage control(essentially they do,BUT it in fact raises the chipset voltage instead of NB on-die... :shakes: )
So,we need people who are willing to try it out on GB or DFI.The bad/ugly is that they could still fry the CPUs if the theory is not true...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dehx
Hmm, the B3's will have a new naming 9x50. I assume they will have a big amount of B2's on stock, so the chances are good that you'll just get another B2. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by su35bm
I was running 2.42VDIMM for at least 8 hours so far..... (1.2Vcore)
Might be that 9500 are stronger than 9600 or simply it depends not only from VDIMM but also from amount of sticks filled in.... I'm running two.
Will try more during weekend... :p:
Well I dont have my Phenom running know, but i did bench and play aorund for houres at 2,43 on my gigabyte board. To 8h+ but one houre there and another the next day, will try with my DFi board after the hollidays,
@BadNizze & Lightman: 9500 needs more time. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
Glad I purchased ram for my Agena rig that only needs 1.85-1.90v.
I will give it more time during Christmas :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
I doubt they'd die that quick because even I've had it 2.3V at 1.232V VCore. But if they can get the dreaded 1.:1.266 divider working then I can test higher VDIMM. Right now I don't need any more till DDR2-1200 which is no where near what I can run with these low divders.
I killed these CPUs on both the MSI and Gigabyte boards. 1.344V or so on the CPU, 2.38~2.42V on the memory voltage, NB speed around 2000, and the key it appears is that I was using the 1066 setting and clocking up from that point. This has occurred with a couple of other people. AMD is looking at one of the dead CPUs at this time, but they continue to advise us not to run memory voltages above 2.2V for any length of time.
The good news is my 0744 9600 has not died after a week of trying to kill it, but I have noticed a little degradation in memory performance now. It could be I had a couple of weaker than normal CPUs (understand the last production batch is really strong). The main reason for the potential kill problem is something we will discuss shortly. ;)
@bingo13...............if I were to opt to get one of these chips would you say the 9600 is the better move?
http://www.jedec.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by darkorb
Memory is kinda loosey goosey ... there is a consortium organization, whose membership of course includes most all the major memory makers as well as Intel, AMD, nVidia etc. You can find the JEDEC standards for DDR2 memory at that web site.
The voltage for JEDEC standardized DDR2 is 1.8+/-0.1 Volts for DDR2-800, as I recall (and I may be wrong), JEDEC never ratified any specs for memory above this speed... for DDR2 anyway.
Anand has summarized the JEDEC specs for DDR2/DDR3 in this article:
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2989
This of course does not stop memory makers from trying to woowooo your wallet with promises of faster memory or lower latency but outside of the standards -- you will commonly find low latency DDR2 but speced out at 2.0 or higher volts (operating voltage). nVidia even skirts this by the SPD to store special 'overclocked' settings for the memory used in it's SLI certified memory brand.
Nonetheless, Phenom, with the IMC, was likely built to withstand x% above and beyond the JEDEC spec, however it appears that limit is at or below 2.2 volts... so if you are looking for 1067 memory, or even low latency DDR2-800 ... pay attention to the voltage spec.
AMD will know if you ran it out of spec I suspect ... they will decline the RMA most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
I would not run it at 2.4 V given the information kindly passed in this thread by various users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist
If you leave it in auto, the memory will default to the JEDEC standard voltage and speeds that will operate at that voltage -- if you want the faster capability, then a) you need to manually set it, or b) if you have an nVidia chipset and the memory is SLI capable, then let the nVidia BIOS SLI option set it for you.
bingo13, Which MSI board let you run 1066 divider?Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
Hi JumpingJackQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Not only nVidia chipsets can do that. Our AMD Chipsets also can set EPP profile from extra SPD records ;) That's why my memory at default is trying to run DDR 1066 5-5-5 @2.212V :) Of course Gigabyte was kindly enough to put an option to disable EPP profiles and/or voltages in BIOS :) .
Do you know the spec's for ram voltages on K10? I can not find that info on the amd website.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
EDIT: #72 :rolleyes:;)
Anyway i would not try to get a b3 this way. If we ever need a quadcore workstation at work I can but my well tested one in that machine and the new one will end up in my machine for further testing.
I believe this is related to CMOS latch-up. Then I think that the circuit design to protect from latch-up increase the input capacitance (and then reduce frequency response). I think phenom work well with low voltage memory because they have reduce protection and then associate parasitics. The drawback is you have to respect absolute maximum ratings. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
That's a thoughful suggestion but I believe latchups are a very basic design problem which are dealt with long ago in CMOS design as there are many ways around it which have been implemented since very long now such as reducing Q1 gain and it would really be poor engineering to forego this. A latchup can occur in any system with just radiation, ESD, power spikes or high transient currents since it mainly occurs where high voltage transients exists and wherever you have large currents present rather than this scenario with low voltages and currents. When you have this defect it will destroy the components involved so you also have to cut down the current to the circuit by a very critical amount rather than the voltage. 1.8V-2.2V vs 2.2-2.4V doesn't seem like the amounts applicable to bypass this phenomenan since this seems to occur only when affecting the IMC voltage by increasing it. Don't you think? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
I don't know exactly how it's design for a cpu, and I 'm not enough aware of cmos device. I've seen different way to reduce latch-up with circuits solutions and/or technological solutions. But I only know I've seen this kind of problem with a cmos amplifier:
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tlc2652a.pdf
Don't know if it the same for phenom. don't know the solution AMD uses to reduce latch-up.Quote:
latch-up avoidance
Because CMOS devices are susceptible to latch-up due to their inherent parasitic thyristors, the TLC2652 inputs and output are designed to withstand −100-mA surge currents without sustaining latch-up; however, techniques to reduce the chance of latch-up should be used whenever possible. Internal protection diodes should not, by design, be forward biased. Applied input and output voltages should not exceed the supply voltage by more than 300 mV. Care should be exercised when using capacitive coupling on pulse generators. Supply transients should be shunted by the use of decoupling capacitors (0.1 μF typical) located across the supply rails as close to the device as possible.
The current path established if latch-up occurs is usually between the supply rails and is limited only by the impedance of the power supply and the forward resistance of the parasitic thyristor. The chance of latch-up occurring increases with increasing temperature (?) and supply voltage.
The K9A Platinum, just with the latest engineering BIOS, should be public shortly. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
After today, I would say the 9600BE is the only choice, although my 9900 is running very well. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
SOI.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
Actually, this is a good question ... I do not know what the upper limit is spec'ed for the Phenom on the IMC, I have not looked through their specs. I can go look it up. EDIT: it is not listed, http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._15343,00.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by justapost
Nor is there a link from thier product page: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._15331,00.html
Though, I have had a blown AMD processor in the past that they rejected the RMA for overclocking (which I did not overclock, I was not happy).
why would a 9500 need more time than a 9600? that doesnt make any sense...Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
It sounds more like some cpus die quicker than others...
so first you killed it on one and then you killed it again on another board? ^^ heheheQuote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
is this 2.2v vdimm max official or unofficial?Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
i would rather say jedec is extremely slow at doing anything at all and they are sucking up so much to everybody they cannot possibly agree on anything usefull as somebody might not like it. hence jedec specs and what mfgs and customers are REALLY running their memory at are moving further away from each other day by day. thanks to jedec not getting their job done we now have epp, xmp and amds version of epp/xmp... hooray!Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
and all this because jedec couldnt agree to implement a voltage option in the spd spec. cause in the end thats all epp xmp and amds epp/xmp are about. they enable high speed memory by allowing higher vdimm than default.
wha? :zombie:Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
unless you mentioned you oced it or the cpu had clear signs from ocing thats very very unlikely. i worked for amd tech support and i cant imagine rmas being refused because of "ocing" when the cpu had never been oced or overvolted.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
bump... so no more dead phenoms from high vdimm?
i guess there was just some ES series that had problems with high vdimm?
Mine is still alive and kicking :DQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Mine were retail units, all 0743, have not been able to kill a 0744 yet, but have noticed a little degradation in memory performance. ;)
Gary how many did you kill and how are you killing them exactly
please share the settings
any updates?
what do you mean with memory perf degradation?
how much?
From what AMD told Bongo13, the problem appears to be current related, not substrate differential. This is evident by the fact they said any extended length of time. There is also the situation of it ocurring when clocked up which is heat build up. Look back to to page 2 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...8&postcount=36 where I gave a simplified example of the current curve as the result of voltage increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
2.4 vdimm here since day 1 (Nov 21st) no problems at all. I have decent cooling and low ambient, perhaps this helps.
Same as what I know. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaCajun
VCore?Quote:
Originally Posted by MR.Q
The failure modes for a processor overclocked via overvolted are very easy to spot as Intel/AMD both characterize very carefully what an overvolt on the CPU will do to cause damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
I have had a CPU RMA rejected because it was 'overvolted' in the past....
sorry but it sounds like for most k10 cpus 2.4v vdimm seems to be no problem... and besides benching i cant imagine why anybody would use more volts, so just like the tlb bug i dont think this is a serious issue. but im looking forward to hear how well k10 can take 2.7v vdimm from some extreme guys :D
so it WAS overvolted? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I want to use more volts because my ram is rated to run at 4-4-4-12 1066 @ 2.4V Im scared to move it above stock now and its running at 5-5-5-18 I think. My phenom is stable at 2.6ghz with a HTT of 237 (damn wall lol), but id like to fix my timings.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Pianist if your RAM is rated/warrantied for 2.4V, then you might as well run it.. as long as you keep it within spec. :D
Can you run 1066?
pianist, you might not need 2.4v for 1066 444... if it runs fine with 2.3v your putting less stress on the mem and cpu, give it a try :D
i thought about this again and again... could it be that the nb voltage has something to do with this? maybe high vdimm low nb voltage is what actually damaged the imc? or maybe high nb voltage plus high vdimm?
Yes, what VCore and other overvolts are you using. It's possible to reduce the stress but will it eventually give up the smoke?Quote:
Originally Posted by MR.Q
dont think so... atm it looks rather like most of them will work fine but some cpus will under some conditions die or get damaged