Friday, February 13th 2009
AMD Clarifies Erratum 379 ''DDR3-1333'', More Than a Fix in Works
AMD found itself in a tricky situation with its launch schedule for the DDR3-supportive AM3 socket platform: the revision guide document for 10h family of processors disclosed a rather serious erratum with the processors, with the company not recommending the use of more than two DDR3-1333 memory modules in all, or more than one module per memory channel, stating unreliable operation as consequence (more here). We rose doubts on a certain statement in the document circling around what we saw as a potential solution to the problem, and hence sought the company's comment.
AMD replied to us with a set of things, not necessarily interrelated, though in some way connected to the erratum, and the company's approach towards the DDR3 memory standard:
AMD replied to us with a set of things, not necessarily interrelated, though in some way connected to the erratum, and the company's approach towards the DDR3 memory standard:
- AMD confirms the issue as stated by the revision guide document, and is indeed working on a solution. The issue does not affect, in any way, using one DDR3-1333 memory module per channel
- The company has already specified the safest workaround for the issue: specifying the memory modules to run at the speeds of PC3-8500, 533 MHz (DDR3-1066). One can refer to hardware literature on how to do that
- AMD has given guidance to motherboard vendors on this issue. Some motherboards could rectify the issue by themselves, by operating the memory modules at PC3-8500 specifications. The incentive of tightening DRAM timings stays
- Good news for overclockers: You will be able to override the memory frequency control by motherboards, and can attempt to tweak frequencies at will. AMD product warranties, as always, don't cover damages caused by overclocking, even when overclocking is enabled via AMD Software
- Better news: Indications are that AMD is doing a lot more than creating a workaround for this issue, it may be devising a new feature altogether that, in the end, upholds the company's initiative to be enthusiast-friendly. Furthermore, AMD iterates that it is its intention to provide higher DDR3 frequencies as DDR3 becomes more prevalent
19 Comments on AMD Clarifies Erratum 379 ''DDR3-1333'', More Than a Fix in Works
I don't have the equipment, but it was stated in previous articles that increasing ram voltage might be a temporary fix until amd has a permanent one. Has anyone tried it. I'm thaaaaaat close to moving up. I still hold a strong grudge at Intel for the years that they ripped me off. I look at Intel with the same disgust as Sony. I'm still boycotting both. I'm so pig headed.:)
Hell, might as well stick with DDR2. I suppose the AM2+ socket has no future now though. But DDR3 gains you just about nothing with these CPUs.
It's too bad that it's apparently so hard to build support for DDR2 and 3 together in CPUs. If Intel had an i7 with DDR2 capabilities, that would be very sweet. Load one of those up with cheap DDR2 and away you go.
www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-810_6.html#sect0
The biggest issue they had was finding an am3 mobo, the 1600 ram ran fine.
Tye
download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf
looks like AMD is not the only one with errata's intel just kept there 21 pages of erratum under wraps instead of putting them public like AMD
face it people every proccessor has erratum the fact that AMD is public about it and is trying to fix it is a bloody good thing. stop going oh well it wont work with a full 4x2GB load just like P35 chipset (funny no?) doesn't insut the fact that these are good cpu's and there are currently a huge 4 models out that this even impacts the 710, 720BE, 810 and 910
If I make a car that for some reason doesn't work with Goodyear tires, then I am taking flak for it, but I guess I should just say that it's okay and not worry about it because there are so many other tires than only goodyear tires?
BTW I am in no way defending Intel, I myself don't like the i7 platform at all. I think it's far too expensive, and I don't like the way that if you have too much difference between your vcore and vdimm you risk frying something.
AMD already had this limitation, and they should have resolved this issue ASAP before the AM3 Phenom II launch. I am still waiting for that DDR2-1066 fix? It's been 2 years now?