Theory of DDR3 Voltage Limitations for Bloomfield Gains Ground

It's not like they can prove you were using high voltage sticks, can they? Give it a shot and RMA it in hopes they'll take it. (That's if it's true.)

 

Dude only OC kits need higher than 1.5V.
Any standard PC1066 or PC1333 memory module needs 1.5V. (= 99% of the market)

Example:
http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/con...sp?root=us&LinkBack=&ktcpartno=KVR1333D3N9/2G

Why do people say stupid stuff? Nobody knows ...

 

you dont call ppl stupid on TPU and get away with it.

the fact is nehalem operates around 1.0v and ddr3 CANNOT OPERATE AT THAT VOLTAGE.

 

My OCZ DDR3 1600 PLATINUM 1.90V, I can put on garbage, because the Core i7 just work with memories 1.65V. If the people have DDR3, can forget. You need spend more money with DDR3 AGAIN

 

no one is seeing my point at all.

 

I find it hilarious that Nehalem only officially supports 1333.

 

I think what hes trying to say is that most DDR3-1066 and DDR3-1333 operate at approx 1.5 to 1.8 and if someone wants to overclock them they will have to raise the voltage and since they cant go over 1.65 this will limit the RAM overclock. Furthermore DDR3-1333 is inferior to current DDR2-1066, besides some DDR2 operates at 1200+ at good timings while DDR3 modules dont so there is no advantage to using these DDR3 modules.

@hat, i beleive its 1066, 1333 is overclocked not officially supported, correct?

 

I wonder if this will affect all boards or just the X58 (and other boards from Intel Chipsets)... This would be a perfect time for nvidia to bring out a board with unlinked voltages.

 

I'm thinking, and keep in mind this is just a guess, that Intel may be trying to force either individually or both JDEC and the RAM makers to come up with a ratified spec for memory speed and voltage. If memory serves JDEC was going to ratify at one time a DDR2/DDR3 2.0V spec but then memory makers just started cranking out faster and faster speeds while bypassing the verification process and they just stopped just short of making it final figuring they were going to do whatever they wanted JDEC be damned.

Personally I think this entire increasing voltage/speed willy-nilly is not really doing us any favors. I mean why the heck should you have to go in and manually tinker with your voltage and speed settings just to get something to run as advertised? Do not get me wrong I like tinkering as much as the next girl but this has gotten to insane amounts of silly in a rather short period of time.

I guess we'll see one way or the other as time goes by and word gets out about this.

 

what im saying is this...

nehalem operates at ~1.0v STOCK CLOCKS

IF the ram voltage is the same 1.0v THE BOARD/RAM WONT EVEN POST

to get the ram to boot you'd have the chip pretty close to its max voltage.

to solve this memory manufactures would have to develop ddr3 that can run around 1.0-1.6v depending on clocks. that is a tall order if you ask me.

 

One thing I don't understand is why Athlon could support all DDR voltages from it's early days.

Does anyone know what's technically different in built in memory conroller in K8 / K10 ?
I mean... voltage-wise..

 

idk..... i dont understand why the voltage is linked to the cpu at all.

 

Well, since the memory controller is integrated into the core, you have to think about CPU voltage.

There are obviously some drivers that seperate CPU logic from package pins, so there is possibility to 'translate' voltage.

I don't understand why it's so limited.

Athlons can drive 2.2V DDR2 while core voltage is at 1.1V for example.

 

Chill out mate. The memory controller and the RAM are synced only.

The memory controller syncing is purely only a monopolistic deterrent which Intel is using since AMD's offerings wont provide any dividends to users; i.e. AMD's proccessors are having a hard time competing. Thus Intel CAN "screw the customer over" by preventing the users from overclocking through this so-called design flaw.

Sure it might turn people away, but then again when you look back to AMD's offerings you'd probably look at the other Core 2 offerings instead.

Basically in short intel doesnt want you having as much value for money as possible; by running low end core i7 as fast as the top end one. Theres NO competition in the CPU market atm and this is one of the repercussions to the consumer.

 

maybe intel is a little behind because this is its first try with integrated mem contr or they do not want the i7 to be oc able because none would by their top series cpu at around 2000$ maybe....

 

Agreed. Plus think about it, if the bloomfield boards seriously had to run DDR3 at 1.0V to post, and as a result no boards would post, do you honestly think intel would sell any?

 

I agree. . Nvidia chipsets FTW!

 

NVidia can't help you at all
the mem controller is in the CPU

 

That site that unboxes it looks like it has lots of viruses.

 

lol

But i do believe, Nvidia chipset FTW.

 

Very close to the TRUTH