Friday, September 12th 2008

Memory Overclocking Could Pose Risks and Limits on Nehalem

Intel's upcoming Nehalem architecture brings in a host of changes. One of the most important of them is that the processors now carry memory controllers. From what is known so far, the upcoming Nehalem processors come with official support for DDR3 800 MHz and DDR3 1066 MHz though talk is that it just could slip in DDR3 1333 MHz support on an official scale. Here's a complication: Some of the computer enthusiasts with plans of retaining their current DDR3 1800/2000/beyond may have severe problems running the memory at their rated frequencies on a Nehalem chip. They might not work on their rated frequencies at all.

The reason behind this is that Nehalem has processor and memory voltages synchronized. Fresh studies suggest that a voltage of 2.0 V can fry a Nehalem processor. It was earlier noted that this voltage limit was 1.60 V to 1.70 V. It would need extreme caution for you to set the core to run at even 1.8 V since at that voltage the processor could start degrading and finally cease to work. The conclusion is that the Nehalem platform, with its synchronized CPU and memory voltages, will be limited by the DDR3 modules ability to reach high frequencies at lower voltages. This could have implications on the kind of memory kits that come out in the near future. Manufacturers could offer high-end kits that function well within 1.6 V with the supposedly high frequencies albeit loose timings, just to keep the memory and processor operating safely.Source: NordicHardware
Add your own comment

49 Comments on Memory Overclocking Could Pose Risks and Limits on Nehalem

#1
jbunch07
farlex85 said:
It's all relative. There's no $100 cpu I know of that can be oc'd to the equivalent of a $500 chip. That's like saying a e7200 can be oc'd to be the same as a q9650. Imho I don't think any chip should cost $500 if it has identical architecture to the ones lower but just w/ a higher multi. If they wanna charge such a high price, there needs to be new tech, but that's just my opinion. Oc'ing is a big reason core 2's have gotten all the praise they have, and thus become as successful as they have. Even the ones who don't oc end up hearing how great core 2 is b/c of it's success (of course they are just faster also, but oc has alot to do w/ it). If they abandon that, amd just might creep in w/ a oc'ing beast.
que Phenom FX :)
Posted on Reply
#2
farlex85
jbunch07 said:
que Phenom FX :)
Indeed, and at this point, if the FX is to overtake nehalem, I think it's going to be almost entirely intel's fault for intentionally not giving the consumer what they have very obviously called for. I guess we'll see though.......
Posted on Reply
#3
Deimos
Like a lot of people have said it doesn't make any sense. I"m gonna have to wait and see someone else verify this beyond one group.
Posted on Reply
#4
zithe
I never really intended to switch to 1366... Thanks for the news.
Posted on Reply
#5
candle_86
Darknova said:
Intel doesn't like overclocking what they deem to be "basic" CPUs (anything that is not an Extreme Edition), despite the money they've made with Core 2.

this makes me wonder if this is to stop overclocking on lower-end chips, maybe the EEs will have unsynced voltages.

In any case I wouldn't put 1.6v through my E8400, let alone a brand new $600+ set up.
Thats my thoughts, limit it like this and lock out the vid settings on the chips like they did with the multiplier and boom intel wins, want a high preformance PC by an EE or you can surf the net

yogurt_21 said:
first gen on chip memory controller. makes sense that they'd have some trouble. think of the 754's they were single channel for a reason.
It wasnt a limitation of the core, the 940 used the clawhammer also, as did 754 and 939. It was a way to reduce cost.

Beertintedgoggles said:
I still don't see this as true.... it is completely up to the motherboard manufacturers if they link the voltages for the mem. controller and the memory. Intel makes the chip that you dump into the slot; how the power is routed to the chip and all the other components on the MB is up to whoever builds the MB and not Intel. Maybe they are talking about the drive strength (voltage) of the data lines between the memory and CPU... that would make sense and should still be very easy to regulate and keep below 1.6V while being able to change both your CPU and memory voltages separately.
It could be talking about intel x58 boards of course being limited this way


as for the voltage, the IMC even at the same process with require more voltage
Posted on Reply
#6
_jM
Lga775 Ftw! Go Ddr2!
Posted on Reply
#7
Bull Dog
hat said:
I think this is fud, and here's why:

Synchronizing vmem and vcore is a move that could only be made by someone as dense as a neutron star. Even Intel's current most hardcore processor uses 0.85v by default if you get the best of the best. If you get the worst of the worst, it uses 1.3625v by default. If LGA775 used this synchronized vcore bullshit, that processor would be toast, almost garunteed. The standard voltage for DDR2 is 1.8v, and most kits use 1.9v at least; high performance kits use 2.1v or above. Unless you've got Liquid Nitrogen 24/7 don't even think of using any LGA775. If you've got DDR3, the standard is 1.5v, a little more bearable, still needs the best of the best aircooling or even water to handle this.

The DDR3 voltage standard is 1.5v. High performance DDR3 geneally uses 1.9v-2.0v. Sure Nehalem may be able to handle more voltage, but I think it's a bit rediculous to be forced to pump 1.5v through your processor all the time. And that's with a weak-ass kit. Want a high performance DDR3 kit? Well you're running 1.9v-2.0v through your shiny new Nehalem processor all the time. It would blow up before it even started. A retardedly reverse-innovative move. Or, much more likely, FUD.
My thoughts exactly as I read this. FUD, FUD, FUD. And hell, I don't even like Intel.
Posted on Reply
#8
eidairaman1
this sounds too much like a ruse to get AMD to release something good just so they can see what AMD does when they are top of hill just for them to release something to lay the smack on them, Cough- P4= AMD 64 Killing them, AMD gets lax, Intel hurts them with Core 2.
Posted on Reply
#9
qwerty_lesh
If this is true, i can see the issue for genuine enthusiasts or overclockers.
but really, only for them. i mean c'mon you get 6 DDR3 Sockets, and the EE series of Processors are going to kick ass eithrway, just look at some of the current EE lga775 cpus and its becomes obvious that for those who dont want to oc they can still have a crazy fast grunty beast machine, granted it'll cost more then those who want to buy up entry and mainstream and beef them to run like highend.
Posted on Reply
#10
Darknova
jbunch07 said:
But Intel has always been know for their overclocking performance. This is not like them.
But Intel have always been known for disliking overclocking. Just because they created an architecture that can OC ridiculously easy (Core 2) doesn't mean they want you to, or like that fact. They want money, Core 2 is raking it in, but with the release of Nehalem they are going to be more focused on getting as much money as possible out of people (IE the enthusiasts who have to have the latest) rather than having them buy much cheaper chips and overclocking the nuts off them.

As far as I'm aware, Intel has never promoted overclocking with anything that isn't an EE, I might have missed something though.
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
I say this is FUD. There's no way the vDIMM and vCore are linked. If anything, vCore and vMCH are linked. Memory slots generally have their own power phases on a board.
Posted on Reply
#12
Jansku07
The original rumor starter was Fudzilla (Link), so I'd doubt the news very much.
the upcoming Nehalem processors come with official support for DDR3 800 MHz and DDR3 1066 MHz though talk is that it just could slip in DDR3 1333 MHz support on an official scale.
I think that OEM-systems will only have memories upto 1066, but any overclocker could take them much further. Let's wait and see, shall we?
The reason behind this is that Nehalem has processor and memory voltages synchronized ...
Why would Intel handicap their own processors willingly? According to the source even the EE-processors would have this problem, and that sounds stupid to me.
My latest board from Taiwan - 800,1066,1333,1600,1866,2000 and variations in-between depending on QPI settings. Official support is 800/1066 at this time, would not be surprised if the XE gets a 1333 blessing at some point. Everything else is "overclocking" in Intel's own terminology but it certainly does not mean that the boards cannot offer support above 1066. However, triple channel 1066 at 5-4-3-15 matches up very well with the XE.
Thats from xtremesystems. You might wanna read this thread through (Link). I'd wait for more reliable sources to say their opinions about this, because Fudzilla and Nordichardware are just rumour sites.. :shadedshu I've got three words for this piece of "news" FUD FUD and FUD.
Posted on Reply
#13
candle_86
Darknova said:
But Intel have always been known for disliking overclocking. Just because they created an architecture that can OC ridiculously easy (Core 2) doesn't mean they want you to, or like that fact. They want money, Core 2 is raking it in, but with the release of Nehalem they are going to be more focused on getting as much money as possible out of people (IE the enthusiasts who have to have the latest) rather than having them buy much cheaper chips and overclocking the nuts off them.

As far as I'm aware, Intel has never promoted overclocking with anything that isn't an EE, I might have missed something though.
actully intel's havn't traditionally even been good overclockers till the drop to 90nm.


The Pentium Classic OC'd like shit

The Pentium II OC'd like shit because of the External cache ram, same with early Pentium III's

The Celeron was diffrent, but lacked the umph after the P3 came out to keep up even oc'd

The P3 Coppermine was decent, but it depended largely when you bought it, you didnt get many chips that would OC very well, the best where the 600/650 and 700 the rest where jokes, some late 750's could oc to 1000mhz but don't count on it

The Willimate came @ 1.4 and couldnt go above 2.0 stably.

The Northwoods could be pushed, but not that far, a 3.0 could get around 3.6 maybe with good air, it took water or phase to get that high even most of the time.

Only for the last 3 years have Intel had anything worth OCing, and that could OC.

There ability to OC has traditionally been about even with AMD, and untill the 965 if you wanted to OC an intel you where better off getting a non intel chipset board.


and to add to what you said, how many bought E6300's or E6600;s when core2 showed up and oc'd them past the x6800, how many think intel approved of you paying 500 for a 1000 dollar chip. They want max profits.
Posted on Reply
#14
lemonadesoda
Seems like Nehalem is the *new* P4 s423. Performance gains seem marginal, and a hell of a lot of hardware headaches.

Long live s775/s771. Intel: Get a Nehalem Core sans mem controller onto a s775/771. Thank you.
Posted on Reply
#15
Morgoth
i would like to test this out next month when there realising it and see if it works on 1333mhz



Many motherboard manufacturers have even added presets in the BIOS for setting the memory frequency to 1333, 1600, 1866, and 2000, along with some additional settings in between these. If that's not enough you can always play with the settings manually to go even higher. If you're wondering about the overclocking bit, we refer back to our previous story saying that Nehalem handles down -120C with ease and that Bloomfield will hit frequencies quite similar to those Yorkfield is doing under extreme cold.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheGoat Eater
THIS IS FUD - Finnish hardware news (cited from Fud)ftl...

(good to know people:D )
Posted on Reply
#18
Poisonsnak
soldier242 said:
maybe it is not about the syncronized volts but more about limited volts, like Intel is limiting the max vdimm to 1.8v
That sounds reasonable. It reminds me of when I had a socket 939 3000+ on a DFI Lanparty nf4 ultra-d, and the motherboard had a jumper so you could run the memory voltage regulators off the +5V rail from your PSU instead of +3.3V (from +3.3 the max vdimm you could get was about 3.1V). Instead of frying your RAM people would fry their CPUs and we were told it was because there was too large of a difference between the Vcore and Vdimm.
Posted on Reply
#19
hat
Enthusiast
If intel limits the max vdimm to 1.8v, whan what of the high performance DDR3 kits? I guess the fat 2v sticks are being put on a diet?
Posted on Reply
#20
AsphyxiA
eidairaman1 said:
this sounds too much like a ruse to get AMD to release something good just so they can see what AMD does when they are top of hill just for them to release something to lay the smack on them, Cough- P4= AMD 64 Killing them, AMD gets lax, Intel hurts them with Core 2.
dude, thats about the most fanboyish thing I've heard in a while. The reason Intel didn't take the lead in the first place is because of poor engineering and they didn't put the memory controller on CPU first. They tried but couldn't get it to work right so they dropped it. Why would Intel honestly spend shit loads of money on tech that just doesn't work, as a ruse to see what the competition will do? Fact is fact, AMD was the king for a while because they did something first. Intel took that back because they did something first too. It's too much risk for Intel to do something so petty. Intel definitely isn't the slow stupid kid who looks over AMD's shoulder at the test. These companies share tech all the time.

f**k I'm gonna stop ranting but that's my 2 cents.
Posted on Reply
#21
Scrizz
wow enough of this speculation bs.

I for one can't w8 for nehalem.
Posted on Reply
#22
AsRock
TPU addict
jbunch07 said:
But Intel has always been know for their overclocking performance. This is not like them.
INTEL don't like you doing it I remember the P2's were you would have to cover a pin on the slot up so overclocking was possible all though it was not on all chips..


If they let you overclock they want you to pay a months wages for it lol. I am surprised they let it go this far with he core 2's.
Posted on Reply
#24
KBD
AsRock said:
If they let you overclock they want you to pay a months wages for it lol. I am surprised they let it go this far with he core 2's.
I'm not surprised at all, they may not like overclocking but they benefited greatly from how well Core 2 overclocked. At stock Intel didn't have a great lead over AMD, but when overclocked its a different story. And now you had all the tech sites raving about how great C2D is, it was just a neat marketing trick on their part, this is what sells CPUs.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment