Vtt on DFI nF4 versus EMC2 on Java :-P

[EMC2]

DFI, Vtt, and Me
More Excerpts from a Java Junky

Once again I decided to step into the ring, this time with the opponent being Vtt on the DFI nF4

As shown in previous scope captures in this thread , Vtt fluctuates out of spec on the DFI nF4 under some conditions... in some cases badly, weaving like a college frat brother after a New Year's Eve bash

There have been a number of suppositions and theories put forth as to possible causes and fixes, and I finally had time to pull out ye ole Java beans, jumper wires, and start the proceedings <-that's me on the right Decided to do this one as a bit of a doc-u-modder-ry

First up was getting a good "lay of the land" to prevent releasing the magic smoke by probing around on the MB .

Typical of this stage was looking at Vref and Vmem at the DIMMs:


After coming up with a plan of attack, work commenced on a first stage proto circuit. The usual workplace is full, so I had to clear off a new area to work elsewhere. Here's a view of the temporary modder's "nest":

My old Amiga's mouse decided to watch the proceedings And here's a closeup of the first test widget to be cobbled together:


After initial testing and probing of the enemy's weaknesses , decided a better weapon was needed for this match.

Pulled out the drawing board and came up with a new weapon to combat the evil MB Ordered new supplies for the battle and then came the part I hate...waiting Kind feel like Wiley Coyote waiting on Acme to deliver the latest goodies, checking for deliveries each day after work

The first box of supplies arrives:


And after what seemed like forever, the last piece of the new weapon arrives on a Thursday:


Only one day to go, then it's the weekend Then it's time to get out the java , put on some tunes , and start assembly

Initial components on the back side of the board:


Stage 1 circuit complete, perspective of the size of the board:

Doesn't look like much, does it? Well... let's just say looks can be deceiving

Now to prep some test leads for the board. Need ends that can be clamped in the wire blocks easily and not get frayed, so we do this:

Strip and form a loop:


Tin the wire to give it rigidity and keep it from fraying:


Slide and shrink the insulation over it:


And now for a little test fit to make sure didn't make it too big:


Needed a test lead with a built in jumper too, so use an old trick like this...

Prepping:


Finished ends:


Of course, we always do a little bench testing first

Here's feeding the little fella with some voltage:


And here's a quick check of the output side of things:

Looking good so far

Now to get the MB ready for insertion... first item up is lifting the leg on the RT9173A:


Now we have to put a test lead wire on the pad:


Don't want to short anything out later, so next we insulate our work:


Now we're almost ready to commence round two after a lot of building and prep work... but first just like Wiley Coyote, we have to break for some lunch...

Prepping a quick bite to eat

Didn't think I survived on Java alone, did ya?

First up, we connect the jumper to the lifted leg and make sure we didn't kill anything during the mod to the MB:

Notice the red jumper wire where the RT9173A resides (overlook the mess in these pics... in the middle of getting ready to move)

MB still ok, now to hook up the new toy with power from the MB and see if we're still ok:

No magic smoke emminating from anything... still looking good

Time to put the camera away and get out the scope (no, not for my breath you smart alecks... one like this -> )

First thing is to see how well the filtering works on the VRef input from the MB:

Looking good... all the base MB frequencies are squashed that were so predominate on previous captures at the memory and bus clocks rates. Noise used to be 146mV peak-to-peak... now it's under 20mV and "out-of-band".

Now for a look at the noise on the output of the circuit:

The result is overlayed on top of the input noise analysis. The main noise component at 730Mhz is down another 15dB...now the peak noise is up at almost 900Mhz, but about 73dB down. Looking very good, less than 10mV peak-to-peak noise And only have half the high frequency caps are on the board As a point of comparison, the standard fluctuations on most Vtt circuits is up to 4 times the total noise seen here

Ok... now to start checking out some things. Decided to use MemTest 8 for the test condition. It doesn't give the worst fluctuations I've seen, but it does give repeatable results. An important note of sorts about the following scope pics... the Vref signal is recorded with full bandwidth of the test equipment... better than 1Ghz. The Vtt signal is bandwidth limited to 20Mhz so the DC changes can be seen (Vtt looks downright fugly without the limiting )

Here's one that will be familiar to anyone that's followed this saga, Vtt during T8 with the MB in it's stock condition:


I told Uwackme I would investigate his idea and take some pics with the Vref input to the RT9173A connected to a seperate divider from the MB, so those are the first tests.

Here's Vtt during T8 with VrefIn (pin 4) of the RT9173A connected to a seperate divider connected to filtered power (configuration 1):

As you can see, Vtt on the MB continues it's same old song and dance

Here's test 2's results. This time VrefIn is being driven by a buffered version of the seperate divider to completely isolate it (configuration 2):

Still no joy The bell rings, the goils walk the floor and then we commence...

* ROUND 2 - First Stage Enabled *

Now it's time to engage the first stage of the new weapon and see what happens...

A capture during the initial tests in Memtest while verifying the MB still worked:

You'll notice the Vref input to the RT9173A is being modulated now to force it to properly maintain Vtt

Sat and watched Memtest running through it's paces and grinning whilst Vtt remained rock steady. Scope setup to trigger on any fluctuation greater than 10mV and no triggers Then we get up to T8...

... and we get mixed results. The first stage circuit works great, and Vtt remains steady except for in one spot. Spend some time fiddling and probing and end up changing the voltage scale on the Vref input to the RT9173A so I can see it's max swing. The results a pretty damning evidence pointing to the RT9173A being simply unable to supply the current demand being placed on it by the Vtt termination network on the MB. Check it out, T8 again:

Notice all the fluctuations are gone except for the one set of dips. Stage 1 is driving the input reference to the RT9173A all the way up to almost 2.3V (this with nominal value around 1.4V) and the RT9173A is simply refusing (unable) to put out anymore current to the Vtt termination I can hear the poor little thing saying, "I'm given her all she's got Scotty!" Definitely looks like DFI missed the boat here

Here's another capture of running T8 with the first stage engaged, with the voltage scale on the VrefIn to the RT9173A adjusted down so we can see how it's being modulated to maintain the steady Vtt as long as the RT9173A is able to handle the current load:

You can see how the VRefIn to the RT9173A modulates to maintain the nice steady Vtt between the two overload conditions. Can also notice there is one other point that the load current is getting up there (the point just above the 'M' in EMC2).

In conclusion and to quote a famous phrase, "Houston, we have a problem." There exists load conditions that the Vtt supply circuit on the MB simply can not handle.

The good news (of sorts) is the first stage of the new "weapon" works superbly, and can correct most Vtt fluctuation issues on MBs and the Vtt issue is much more clearly defined in the case of the DFI nF4, which is two-fold. The first, fluctuations due to load changes of a moderate level is easily correctable. The second, of those fluctuations due to apparent overloading of the RT9173A will take a bit more to overcome.

Oh... notice I've been saying "first stage"... well, there's a reason... I never come to a serious without a proper light saber of swiss army knife quality

First, we have "configuration 4" of the lightsaber to test using "stage 1"... which will allow supplementing the output of the RT9173A. And if that isn't successful... well, there's always "stage 2" to enable

So concludes another episode of the chronicles of a Looney Java Junky

Peace

[EMC2]

Preliminary Results of Round 3
He's baaaaaa-aaaaaaaack

Well, work has conspired against me getting much test time in this week and testing is not finished yet, but thought I would share some of the preliminary results of "Stage 1/Config 4".

This time instead of controlling the RT9173A's output via it's Vref In signal, the "new weapon" was configured to strictly augment the Vtt rail in parallel to the RT9173A.

Well, they say a pic is worth a thousand words, so here is what happened to Vtt when hit with the augmentation

The first few minutes of the round:

Needless to say, I looked something like this when I saw that ->

Late last night I saved and annotated this towards the end of a long test run so one can see the results clearly:



One note here...I'm using long, small Awg jumpers and SMD clip-ends with low amp ratings for this initial testing ... hence the Vmem input to the PWB showing some droop. Makes for some nice "outside-the-specs" testing conditions though


Now while pics of Vtt are good... there is always testing of other sorts Before I started making use of the little board that could, I did some baseline testing for comparison to know what affect a steady Vtt might have on things. I wanted to isolate the memory as best could, so all testing is done with a 8x CPU multiplier.

BASELINE TESTS
First up, a nice long baseline using T5 :


Not bad, 292Mhz for T5... although I've run higher with a different CPU in the past.

Now we switch over to T8... first at the same 292Mhz:

Nope, fails on the 4th pass

Ok,what about 288Mhz?

Well, it made it to the 5th pass

Ok, let's try 284Mhz:

A little 14 Pass, 33 minute run with no errors... 8Mhz below what T5 ran at.


TEST RESULTS USING Vtt AUGMENTATION

Here are some of the results so far with the vastly improved Vtt shown in the scope capture above with the little board that could:

First up, a view of some late night testing this week with the improved Vtt:


Was going to originally show the closeup pic of that run for this post, but when I was assembling and annotating the pics, I noticed it wasn't as long of a run as the baseline, so....

....a 24 pass, 53 minute run of T8 - longer than the baseline T8 test and most benchies (sorry, forgot to turn the flash off ...something about sleep deprivation and celebration )

Yes, that's right... 14Mhz higher than the baseline... and 6Mhz above the T5 run Quite obviously, Vtt does make a difference


NOTE: ALL test results shown were done with the EXACT same BIOS settings (except for FSB), same memory, CPU, etc., etc. The ONLY diffs are FSB speed and Vtt configurations.


On a silly side note, I think that's the first I've used on here

Well, it's a short update... but it sure was sweet

--------- Update to post, Round 3 TCCD roundup ----------

A few updates to this part of things...

First, this is where the TCCD ended up at with long runs of MemTest:

MemTest T8 ended up @ 297Mhz (298Mhz had an error every 80 mins or so)... MemTest T5 showed a small gain of 2Mhz to 294Mhz from the baseline (Vtt only has one smaller fluctuation at the end of it, so no surprise there). Important to note once again, there are NO changes to BIOS settings other than MemClock speeds and NO hardware changes. Who knows... maybe it could now be tweaked with a bit tighter timings or up another couple Mhz with different drive strengths... time allowing I might just check


And here are some further shots of Vtt for comparison:

In this one I switched off the circuit half way thru a scope capture:


And here is where I switched it back on:


You can see both stock DFI and augmented DFI Vtt on the same pics now


And here are pics showing the positive and negative Vtt fluctuations with the augmented Vtt... that 8mV fluctuation noted in the first part of this post is actually a +/-4mV fluctuation from nominal...




so we ended up going from a 72mV droop to a 4mV droop. Not bad, eh? Oh... one other small comment, if you look in the original thread, those Vtt fluctuations can get much worse without augmentation....

* Minor Update, Stability Overnight *
And here's a pic of the overnight run off T1 thru T8 at our 294Mhz point using the little PWB that could:

A bit of improvement over the previous short term stability of T8 at 284Mhz we started with, eh?

Further updates as things unfold... BH5 testing now in progress

Peace

[EMC2]

* Round 4 - UTT BH5 and the Java Junky *

Now for a little UUT BH look-see Decided to use an average pair of UUT BH with a similiar Winnie... and of course lots of

First we have some baseline testing to lay out... let's see how it went:

A little low voltage (3.2 in BIOS, 3.28 measured) T5 baseline:

Not bad, but then Vtt is pretty stable during T5

Let's try and crank up T8 at the same voltage/frequency:

Arrrrgggghhhh! Lock-up bigtime

After half-a-dozen reboots to lower the frequency, we arrive at a lowly 200Mhz:

and while she doesn't lock-up, we STILL have errors

Ok, let's try it with a bit more voltage, this time 3.5V in the BIOS, 3.57 measured, first at 249Mhz:

Nope.... some errors.

A clean run down a notch to 248Mhz:


After the previous debacle with T8, decided to start low... here's 211Mhz:

Well, at least it didn't lock-up

Drop it down a notch to 210Mhz:

Ahhhhh... an actual error free run of T8

Let's take a peek at what Vtt looked like with the MB in stock trim trying to run T8:

Worse than the TCCD runs... 120mV drops

The obligitory annotated capture:


Darn stock configuration is kicking the UTT BH5 in the nads

Alright, it's time to beat this MB into shape Hooked the little board that could back up

After enduring sooooo many runs to determine the baseline conditions, I said the heck with it, and also cranked the multiplier up a notch to 9X so I could get the rest of this round of testing finished today... so sue me Everything else however, as before, remains exactly the same in the BIOS.

Now let's take another peek at Vtt while running T8 using the UTT BH and see how it looks with augmentation:

Once again, we have success with the little board that does Now that Vtt looks good, maybe we can get somewhere...

A quick run at the 3.2V BIOS setting:

Much better, 242Mhz and passing all tests (compared to 200Mhz and still failing)

Now some runs with the 3.5V BIOS setting...

A clean T5 run at 252Mhz :

Pretty good, gained 4Mhz on T5

But... will T8 still hold up:

Yup, a nice little run at 255Mhz, 45Mhz above what we could do in stock trim

And here's an almost 2 hour ramble through all the tests at 252Mhz:

That's 4Mhz above what T5 ran at before and 42Mhz above what T8 would do

Being the curious sort, decided to check what the peak augmentation current during a T8 run:

Having to pump almost 3A to get rid of those 120mV droops No wonder we have some small fluctuations of Vmem at the input to the little board using those foot long wires and little SMD clips to bring power over Even with all that though, it still holds Vtt to only an 7mV fluctuation.


Had some time left, so decided to go ahead and see what happens when we ran OCCT using the handy dandy little board on Vtt...

First, a little refresher picture from the original thread on this problem of what Vtt looks like during OCCT with the MB in stock trim:

Nasty, over 200mV dips in Vtt with the MB stock. Needless to say, OCCT use to fail like T8 did

And what does Vtt look like running OCCT with the addition of our little PWB?

Vast majority of the time, even tho working like mad, it keeps the fluctuations to under 8mV

There were some occasional times it had to open the throttle up full bore tho like this:

Resulting in a whopping 23mV peak Still waaaaaaaay better than the >200mV nastiness from before... and not bad at all considering the test lash-up

But.... is it enough to get us through OCCT without problem? Hmmmmmm......

Ok, ok... so we lost the grand total of 3/4 of a Mhz from our Memtest speeds, so fire me

/me hears a voice in the background

What's that Michal... did you say Spi32M for you???? Here ya go bud, just remember, it is NOT a max speed run, just a comparison point to the stock MB

Even took a pic of it just for grins and giggles


And while I was putting this post together, I ran one last little test to verify stability

Just a wee 934% run of the Windows version of Memtest

Sooooooooooooo... in summary:
Stock DFI nF4 MB and UUT BH, with 3.5V in the BIOS - a "staggering" 210Mhz max stable in MemTest8...
And with the little board that could - a nice 251.3Mhz stable in anything you throw at it

Oh... and the 3.8V or higher pics... well, if you go back up to the first post you can see the board was initially tested with a 4V input I dislike going over the mid 3s for Vmem on air cooling...and all this testing has been done on an air cooled low-grade Winnie at under 1.6V Vcore. Just think... with a different CPU, some proper cooling, and higher voltage...

Have to give a big hand to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting


Peace

ps. Further updates will end up down below

[uwackme]

PM me if you want me to send you a 9173A to use for testing augmentation.

That is very annoying that the current limit is tripped. It's set inside the chip, we can't... O'Clock it

So your circuit makes up for a clear deficiency in the 9173. I was going on the assumption ( always bad ) that the 9173 internally had a good feedback path for maintaining Vtt output to match the desired Vref input. You've proven the internal 9173 circuit doesn't have good enough noise rejection to deal with the application... AND... that it cant meet the current requirements of the Vtt termination.

Hopefully adding current augmentation to your circuit can solve the last issue. Good catch EMC.

Im so used to OVER designing things, it amazes me when a high volume device...like this motherboard (100's of K's of units shipped)... doesn't have plenty of "margin" to avoid disasterous support situations.

RikTek.... you're FIRED!!!

I prpose for the final permanent design, that you use a connection to the JP17 as a way of getting at the 3.3V and Vmem sources... that way the user just needs to pop off one of the JP17 jumpers and plug on a cable from your board.

Try to minimize the soldering required.... but soldering WILL be required to tie into these high current signals when you add Vtt supply augmentation.

I'd suggest using a second 9173A only because it will most easily mesh with the onboard one. Otherwise I'd say totally supplant the onboard 9173A and make a device with Vtt regulation at higher current. Just have the user desolder-bend up 9173 pins so its not driving the Vtt anymore.

Kinda sux that we'll all have to mod our boards so extensibly just to get it to work right.

[EMC2]

Doesn't look like much, does it? Well... let's just say looks can be deceiving

Peace

[EMC2]

Post 2 now populated

[bachus_anonym]

Looking at that thread makes my head hurt, seriously! But I finished it, with help of a couple of Aspirine tablets
I think we should create something like "electronics engineer corner" here or something of the likes, just for you Daniel All that work and testing you put into it is just tremendous!

So, it looks like your little "vtt circuit" gadget fixes some of the problems and allows your TCCD to run better cleaner! Well done Looks like all that java wasn't wasted

[craig588]

If this is a universal (Meaning it can work on more than just the DFI NF4 mobo) VTT circut add on that can be soldered and not jumpered in I will pay alot for it.

[uwackme]

Nice work Dan,

So clearly the 9173A's regulation efficiency and noise rejection sharply falls off with output current. And in DFI's design it is severely overstressed.

As I thought, we are all leaving 10-20Mhz memory-FSB on the table with this Vtt flaw. I also believe that we are all required to use higher Vcore to achieve Prime/SuperPI stability due in part to this Vtt issue. I think you'll find that you can drop Vcore a bit on your system now, and maintain stability.

In part people getting 260-270Mhz out of BH5 or VX had boath good ram AND thier specific boards had a less tilted Vtt output. While most of use were in the 250-255 range with ram that "should" be doing better.

Dan is going through the kind of analysis that the manufacture is SUPPOSED to go through before making the product. Design review, stress testing, etc. It's pennywise and pound foolish to forego doing extensive testing at the pre-production phase, where this limitation would have been caught.

Let this be a lesson to DFI and all others.... there is no escaping your homework. Electrons are electrons

Hurry up and sign me up for one Dan !!!!!!

[[XC] moddolicous]

This looks really good and professional. Are there going to be any test with some BH-5 @ around 3.8 or so volts to make sure of this?

[EMC2]

*Michal*
/me sends a nice Tylenol Laced "Super-Pi" your way
Which thread, this one or the original (guess is original)...

No, no.... don't put me in a little box in the corner bro, I wouldn't fit Besides, I need room to roam and have just a wee bit broader range than that

Thanks, but truth be told only put in about 10 hours total on the brain storming, circuit design, and PWB once I decided to do it... that part was easy. It's the fabrication, documentation, and more importantly proper testing that eats up so much time! (and the darn waiting on supplies, lol)

Oh... and I never waste good java


*Craig*
In answer to the Q, if it has Vtt on it.... AMD/Intel, DDR, DDR2, big, little... doesn't matter, it'll do what it is intended to do Does have a number of little things I haven't gotten into as well Along with two special "features" tailored to the DFI nF4 (but which are not limiting factors for use anywhere else). At a later point I'll lay it all out

Thanks Jim,
Just FYI... it's Daniel bro While the RT9173A does not have the best regulation possible, the part itself really doesn't have a noise rejection problem per say... again, mainly an implementation/usage issue here (tho it would still fluctuate 30mV or so even if it wasn't overloaded in this MB design... and maybe others *cough*nF3 maybe*cough*).

As far as other things besides max OC (will vary depending on memory and MB), I strongly suspect that a lot of the sometimes "flakey stability" people see is related... and yes, there exists a possibility that the same OC with a little less Vcore may be possible (from my experience with AMD A64s, Vcore does help a bit with the mem controller speed). There's also a feature of the A64 that isn't used often... that can be taken advantage of with this design


*moddolicous*
Testing is far from complete... and yes, in fact some "new" BH-5 is next up in the testing Q.

Peace

[flexy]

this is an awesome thread even if i might possibly only understand a fraction of it...

But when i did my personal tests a while ago with the cheapest DMM possible and i could literally watch my OCCT crash on the DMM i *knew* we have some serious issues here and thats why i am following the developments like a hawk.

For some users its maybe 20mhz more....for others it MIGHT be the reason for general instability/flakyness.

MY QUESTION now, what do we "average" people need (on parts etc.) and what exactly has to be modified/sodlered on the board ?

I am not even interested in the BH-5 etc. tests anymore because what i saw above is PLENTY to make me want to have that little board NOW

[.sentinel]

Nice job You really know your stuff

[EMC2]

Flexy -
If there's something that you don't understand, just ask

One thing that might help some people is how to "read" the o'scope pics. Just remember, you are looking at voltage with respect to time. Most of those pics encompass a 20 second period in time, showing what the various signals are doing over that time frame. Time is from left (earliest) to right (latest) and voltage is up and down. You can see the scales along the bottom of the captures for the various signals and the time scale. One "division" is the area between a pair of the light yellow dotted grid lines on the scope screen. There are also "tick marks" that are spaced at 1/5th a division interval. It's just like looking at a graph in Excel or a graph in math with X-Y axis Time is on the X-axis (left to right), Voltage on the Y-axis (up and down). Then the various signals have an "offset" applied to them to position them on the screen. Note that each signal has it's own offset and scale. (maybe I'll annotate a pic about this for clarity)

Regarding the other Q... when all testing is done, I'll get into that part. Regarding MB changes... pretty much like any other volt-mod... soldering some wires to a handful of spots... at most lifting 1 leg on the RT9173A or its equivalent on other MBs (may/may not be required, depending).

General comment... this isn't and never was about $s... mainly it was the fun of the challenge Other constraints going into it was

• a) keep the cost down
• b) flexibility
• c) KISS (keep-it-simple-)
• d) reliability
• e) the most accurate, stable Vtt possible given the other constraints
• f) ease of use

So far it's hitting bullseyes Oh... and I'm included in that "we" of yours

Regarding the "NOW" part... I could go ahead and say, "Hey, it works, let's go"... BUT I am a very strong advocate of detailed, documented, controlled, thorough, OVERtesting before anything leaves my big paws. I won't budge from that principle.

--- All ---
Thanks

[tennvols_69]

ive researched a few ic's for this problem if you want i can send you details on the chip and you can overlook it! jlmk

[EMC2]

Thanks... but looked at a good dozen possibilities... and the ones I'm using fit my technical requirements best... and are working very well

That said, if you want my view for something you are doing, I'm always willing to lend a paw with an open mind

[Autochthon]

Sry Emc2, Even with my super dooper ultra vision I can't id all those little components you used from those pics

[EMC2]

I wonder why not

[craig588]

He blurred them out. I was going to build one on my own, but noticed that.

[Tony]

Awesome thread with great results, proves my point there is more to overclocking ram that more voltage.

Great work!

[EMC2]

Thanks bro And your OC'ing comment holds true for many things BT

BTW... look up, another round of results have been added...

Peace

[bachus_anonym]

Interesting results from part #4, Daniel

All we need now is a couple more of those "little boards that could" for some further "beta-testing" It still makes me wonder If only your board (or some low overall percentage) was one that needed to be "enhanced" or all boards will benefit in same way your did?

Excellent detective work, once again! Thanks for 32M, too

[uwackme]

Awesome work bunky.

Now Im dying to find out what my system will do FIXED. If Im at 250Mhz 512Mx4 with a stock board, will this give me 10+Mhz more after it's cleaned up!!!!

The BH5 behavior is eeirily familiar. Makes me wonder of the NF2 design has a similar flaw in it, the old BH5 "should" be doing 250Mhz and only does 200Mhz stable..... brings back bad memories.

This may be the root of why my OCZ ValueVX BH5 does so less MAX fsb than the OCZ 3200Gold BH5...all UTT BH5, but maybe the ValueVX sticks are more sensitive to the Vtt droop. It's Test8 and Windows that errors out at lower FSB. Further, the OLD BH5, like my HyperX 3000 might perk right up, as they act JUST LIKE your BH5 on stock board.

Looking forward to your getting some UTT-CH/VX sticks for testing....just to see what level Vtt error it generates, and the same for Ballistix sticks.

Sign me up for one LBTC from the first batch.

[EMC2]

First, a couple of more pics of note....

While I went about life, left the board running Windows Memtest and ended up with this pic:

Over 10,000%... pretty darn stable, eh?

And here is a pic of what the augmented Vtt looks like during a Spi32M run:

Based on the augmentation signal, it too is affected by Vtt.

--- Michal ---
Regarding wondering "if it's only my MB"... or if "all boards would benefit as mine did"...

No, it definitely isn't just my MB. I doubt mine is the worst (in fact suspect some get returned as a result of this as "unstable/bad" MBs). In addtion, I'm quite sure there are others that don't have the same magnitude of problem. Just like any other electronics, be it memory or CPUs or other components, there will be a distribution of values.

But... I would for starters refer you to the original thread where I raised this issue.

Here are some pics Oskar took (#120). One is with the MB in standard trim, the other with the Vctrl input to the RT9173A tied to the +3.3V rail. You can note that while he has them "compressed" using a 100mV/division scale, they too fluctuate somewhere in the 60mV to 90mV range.

Then take a look at Oskar's comments in this post of his (#124). Note in particular his last comment... 4 boards looked at, all act close to the pics he posted... and his next to last comment, in item 3 that his measurement of 94mV is not so good...

How much it would help would vary from system to system... and condition to condition. Running 1 DIMM or even likely 2x256 it would make little difference for example. For a given MB, the more memory used, the faster the speeds, and the tighter the timings, the more it could help. In some cases it might show up as "wierd" intermittent instabilities as have been seen. In others it might be max OC limitations... or the need for slacker timings (example: I can actually run the memory higher with the MB in stock form, if I slack the timings waaay off... do things like 2T with only 2x512MB, no interleave, etc., etc.) And it is not just with the DFI nF4. There are other MBs out there with this issue, one example might be as uwackme raised above...

You can get somewhat of an idea by various methods without a . One is to take a good DMM to Vtt while you run MemTest 8 (or OCCT when it fails). Another is to compare your max stable Memtest T5 and T8 runs (30mins to 1 hour runs, not 2 pass runs)... or your max stable Memtest runs to your max stable windows benchie frequencies.

I know there are those that will/do disagree, but Memtest is actually a very good indicator/tool when properly used. You'll notice for example, I lost less than 1Mhz between stable Memtest and stable anything in windows. Historically over the years, I've seen from none to only a couple of Mhz difference between the two (memtest and windows) on a properly setup and tuned system (this includes things like timings, PSU, MB tweaks, etc.). When there has been a greater difference, it has always indicated a problem of some kind (not necessarily MB). The same can be said for T5 vs T8 in my experience regarding indicators... T8 usually can be run at a higher memory frequency than T8. Which test fails and how can be a very useful tool

Would everyone gain the large amounts I did... NO. Would some gain more... yes. Fact is, I would have shown greater gains with a different CPU/cooling method Others might only show a couple Mhz. On some other MB designs, you would get no gains. Or your CPU/memory might hold you back from reaching the point it would be beneficial. But... in the land of OC'ing, any gain is a gain

Oh... regarding the 32M... I knew you wanted to ask And, you're welcome bro


---uwackme---
Thanks

Most of your Qs are answered above as best can be. Regarding other MBs... quite possible, in some cases very probable. Power and termination and the like are often overlooked in "the-need-for-speed" As Bigtoe alluded to, there are many aspects to OC'ing, other than cranking up the voltage. He also made an interesting comment that's semi-well known, although that is the first time I've seen it publicly quantified...

FX55 have the best memory controllers so overclcoking ram is a little bit easier. our tests back at OCZ have shown an FX can be anything upto 25fsb better with ram over an el cheapo venice or winchester.

I have little doubt that with, for example, an 0442 FX the mid-range UTT BH I have would push quite a bit higher.

The UTT-CH testing might happen As far as the Ballistix sticks - anybody care to donate some for testing? I will say this tho - regardless of memory type, the affect is there once you go to two or more double ranked DIMMs.

LBTC previously noted

Peace

[blander]

a compare to hipros booster would be very interesting