[FUD] " Nehalem only supports DDR3 800 or 1066 "

[gosh]

So it's all about bandwith then?

If you are running a big database then you may need plenty of bandwidth. Low latency is more important.

[@@@@]

So official support is 800mhz/1066mhz but it can support higher frequencies
Is it through Intel's XMP? I mean is it preset or user-defined?
with your motherboards what do you think is the most preferred DDR3 modules? I mean as how well it Overclock with the DDR3 and CPU + IMC +QP
Sorry for having so many questions just curious that's all and I tried to ask the question in a manner that is not covered by the NDA

[Blauhung]

So official support is 800mhz/1066mhz but it can support higher frequencies

yup

Is it through Intel's XMP? I mean is it preset or user-defined?

I believe both work

with your motherboards what do you think is the most preferred DDR3 modules? I mean as how well it Overclock with the DDR3 and CPU + IMC +QP
Sorry for having so many questions just curious that's all and I tried to ask the question in a manner that is not covered by the NDA

Right now it's looking like the best stuff to get would be around the 1333 mark with as low latencies as you can go (cas6-7). Bandwidth isn't really as much of an issue now with the 3 channel controller.

EDIT, actually, looks like Cas5 might almost be something to shoot for. OCZ looks like they have cas6 @ 1600
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227285

[doompc]

Question: how is the memory clock set on Nehalem?
Is it by an multiplier over QPI base clock (ie 3x133 for DDR3-800, 4x133 for DDR3-1066 and so on) ?

[Bellisimo]

really funny to see everyone panic it will not support 1333/1600.....
offcourse it will support that, but not officially

the only worrying story is about the volts

[bowman]

Question: how is the memory clock set on Nehalem?
Is it by an multiplier over QPI base clock (ie 3x133 for DDR3-800, 4x133 for DDR3-1066 and so on) ?

Yes.

[BulldogPO]

FUD can blow his balls, we have haer way too much false information from him.

[saveus222]

Why does anyone read/post/believe FUD?

lol coz sometimes they actually get onto the right thing.. biggg biggg humungous stress on sometimes..

[Tony]

The question is vdimm may be seen by the CPU IMC which may be the limiting factor here. So if 1.65V is the official safe max then thats what Intel is saying you should not exceed. Now we may see 1600 easy with 1.65V, we may even see 1800 easy as the limit on DDR3 has been 5h1tty clocks and jitter more than what the ram will actually do. So with a board and IMC designed to have super low jitter etc we may see ram clocking a whole lot better all of a sudden.

If Vdimm is limited (safe Limit) to 1.65V I am sure we will see the new breed of low voltage DDR3 being used for higher speeds with voltages of around 1.5V for desktop.

[Nedjo]

exactly, today we have official support DDR2-800, and you can use DDR2-1250 too ...

today we have official support for DDR2-1066 and sometime next year there'll be official spec for DDR3-1600

[Jimmer411]

I wonder if nehalem will act like a64 where memory speed, latency and divider for the most part don't mean jack for performance. Only clockspeed > all.

[JumpingJack]

Source: Fudzilla

Waggggghhhh, I know, I know, it' s Fud, but if it true what do you guys think?

In my opinion this make “almost as good as having a second graphics card” - Intel statement more BS


/discuss

See this response:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...21&postcount=6

Fuad is not very technically saavy, in fact, he knows pretty much nothing.