# Theory of DDR3 Voltage Limitations for Bloomfield Gains Ground



## btarunr (Oct 3, 2008)

Nehalem does promise to be a processor to look out for, it would be Intel's next installment, post the successful Core 2 series processors. This time however, Intel made a core modification with the way the system handles memory. The Bloomfield processors house a massive 192-bit wide memory controller for supporting tri-channel DDR3 memory. It however was found that the controller could bring in limitations to the DIMM voltages that the system could support. 

The retail version of ASUS P6T Deluxe OC Palm Edition motherboard was unboxed by XFastest. Being the retail product, as usually, it comes with precautionary labels attached to parts of the motherboard. The one that covers the 6 DDR3 DIMM slots reads: 



> According to Intel CPU SPEC, DIMMs with voltage setting over 1.65V may damage the CPU permanently. We recommend you to install DIMMs with voltage setting below 1.65V.








It could have implications on the current DDR3 memory market as well as you, if you happen to have DDR3 modules, which you plan to retain for use in the future platform, that operate above the said voltage. It also means that in the near future, we could be seeing memory sticks that facilitate overclocking at much lower voltages. From a technology standpoint, companies such as Samsung, Elpida, Micron, etc., are working on releasing DRAM chips based on newer silicon fabrication technologies, that operate at lower voltages.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Laurijan (Oct 3, 2008)

Damit that meens that the new Kingston HyperX 2000MHz rated @ 1.9V could fry Core i7 processors


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Oct 3, 2008)

Wow everyone who purchased DDR3 in the hopes of saving time and energy shopping for new RAM for their x58 builds just got screwed. Although, anyone who would switch to this new platform so quickly likely wouldn't care about the costs.


----------



## Tau (Oct 3, 2008)

This is a downer   all the current DDR3 ram is useless now, as most is 1.8V+


----------



## Morgoth (Oct 3, 2008)

is it posible to instal the 1,8 volt ram and lower it in bios to 1.65?


----------



## Tau (Oct 3, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> is it posible to instal the 1,8 volt ram and lower it in bios to 1.65?



Sure, but it might not be stable.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 3, 2008)

Why would it be useless? IIRC, you can lower the voltage of RAM as well as increase it. So what's stopping you lowering your RAM speed and voltage to the point where it works? I would have thought BIOS updates for the motherboard could add support for higher voltage RAM and it's most likely just a deterrent, it probably won't fuck anything up.


----------



## Tau (Oct 3, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> Why would it be useless? IIRC, you can lower the voltage of RAM as well as increase it. So what's stopping you lowering your RAM speed and voltage to the point where it works? I would have thought BIOS updates for the motherboard could add support for higher voltage RAM and it's most likely just a deterrent, it probably won't fuck anything up.



Just a deterrent?  Since the memory controller is now on the chip i doubt that it is.  Will have to see what the reviews say, and wait for someone to stuff on 2.2V+ through it and see what happens.


----------



## npp (Oct 3, 2008)

It's nice to see that vendors will be pushed to comply with JEDEC standards at last. Most "high performance" DDR3 modules operate at voltages in excess of 1,8V - the maximum JEDEC allowed for _DDR2_ memory! I have rarely spotted DDR3 modules working at 1,5V, actually, and I certainly don't find this to be a good practice - if JEDEC state a maximum voltage for given memory technology, they surely have the reason to do so. But I guess it will be hard to justify water-cooled modlues working @1,5V, right .


----------



## btarunr (Oct 3, 2008)

Tau said:


> Just a deterrent?  Since the memory controller is now on the chip i doubt that it is.  Will have to see what the reviews say, and wait for someone to stuff on 2.2V+ through it and see what happens.



DIMM @ 2.2V  + Bloomfield = Boomfield.


----------



## Tau (Oct 3, 2008)

btarunr said:


> DIMM @ 2.2V  + Bloomfield = Boomfield.



Yeah i know, i was trying to make a point


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 3, 2008)

npp said:


> It's nice to see that vendors will be pushed to comply with JEDEC standards at last. Most "high performance" DDR3 modules operate at voltages in excess of 1,8V - the maximum JEDEC allowed for _DDR2_ memory! I have rarely spotted DDR3 modules working at 1,5V, actually, and I certainly don't find this to be a good practice - if JEDEC state a maximum voltage for given memory technology, they surely have the reason to do so. But I guess it will be hard to justify water-cooled modlues working @1,5V, right .



Here, here!  This is what we should be seeing out of DDR3 memory to begin with.  If they want to up the speed then invest in doing so lower then 1.65V or don't introduce anything at all.  DDR3 IMO has a been a complete mess with higher then normal voltage and higher then normal latency.  Maybe with this requirement the memory market will finally get it together!  

We should be seeing timing of 7-7-7 or lower and voltage of 1.5V DDR3 1600.  Instead we are seeing 9-9-9 at 1.8V+ or 7-7-7 at 1.8V+.  It shouldn't be that way if they want to convince people that DDR3 is next gen.  That's why it's not doing well IMO.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 3, 2008)

I find this odd -- how is it that AMD gets around having different voltages for their memory even though they're using the same kind of integrated memory controller?  Is this something unique to DDR3 ram?


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 3, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> I find this odd -- how is it that AMD gets around having different voltages for their memory even though they're using the same kind of integrated memory controller?  Is this something unique to DDR3 ram?




Same question here...

Wonder when we'll see DDR3 modules with 6-pin PCIE power connectors?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 3, 2008)

The JEDEC of DDR2 is 1.8V.  You can buy 4Gigs of ram at 2.0V which is only 0.2V difference.  I can run my 4Gig kit just below 2.0V. These 4Gig kits usually come with PSC memory ICs. 

Regardless of what voltage AMD can accept it shouldn't be that way.  If PSC can bring 4gigs of DDR2 of memory close to JEDEC there is no reason why everyone else can't do the same with DDR3. This would bring the difference down from whopping (1.5V - 1.9V =) 0.4V to 0.1V using 4Gigs at 7-7-7!

It's funny how we went from 2Gigs of DDR2 at 2.2V (where 2.1V is more common) down to 4Gigs of ram below 2.0V! But can't see the same innovation with DDR3 which is suppose to be next gen!


----------



## thebeephaha (Oct 3, 2008)

I see this as a major fail if this is actually true.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 3, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> I find this odd -- how is it that AMD gets around having different voltages for their memory even though they're using the same kind of integrated memory controller?  Is this something unique to DDR3 ram?



Exactly what I'm thinking.


----------



## wolf2009 (Oct 3, 2008)

btarunr said:


> DIMM @ 2.2V  + Bloomfield = Boomfield.



lol


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 3, 2008)

WTF is the point of this crap even comming out? wth... this is total garbage.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 3, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> WTF is the point of this crap even comming out? wth... this is total garbage.



What are you refering to?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 3, 2008)

why release a motherboard or better yet an entire platform when nothing that exists today will work with it? sure... maybe a few sets of ram will work, but why even have ddr3 when its gonna be running ddr1 and ddr2 speeds?

im sure memory companies will make ram that complies but jeeez.... it would be better for intel to unlock this BS voltage link.


----------



## razaron (Oct 3, 2008)

the soon-to-be released a-data tri-channel ddr3 is at 1.65-1.75v. so upcoming *Tri-Channel* kits should have the right voltage.


----------



## Poisonsnak (Oct 3, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> I find this odd -- how is it that AMD gets around having different voltages for their memory even though they're using the same kind of integrated memory controller?  Is this something unique to DDR3 ram?



Back when socket 939 was new and the DFI Lanparty nF4 Ultra-D was the best AMD motherboard around these same kinds of problems existed. The board had a jumper so you could pull RAM power from the +5V rail (max DIMM voltage 4V) as opposed to +3.3V rail (max DIMM voltage 3.1V).  Guys who were using the +5V jumper were frying CPUs if you had too big of a difference between Vcore and Vdimm.  Keep in mind these were the days of Winbond BH-5 DDR1 chips where they would take as much voltage as you could give them.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 3, 2008)

razaron said:


> the soon-to-be released a-data tri-channel ddr3 is at 1.65-1.75v. so upcoming *Tri-Channel* kits should have the right voltage.



yeah but that kit needs 1.65v to boot and nehalem is 1.65v MAX. that means that the ram will have to run as low as 1.0v


----------



## MrMilli (Oct 3, 2008)

You guys shouldn't worry too much:
http://www.techpowerup.com/72319/Elpida_Buffalo_Release_Prototype_DDR3_2400_MHz_Memory.html



> The module was tested stable at 2096 MHz, at amazingly low 1.5V, with much tighter timings of 9-10-9-24.


----------



## zithe (Oct 3, 2008)

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.)


----------



## MrMilli (Oct 3, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> why release a motherboard or better yet an entire platform when nothing that exists today will work with it? sure... maybe a few sets of ram will work, but why even have ddr3 when its gonna be running ddr1 and ddr2 speeds?
> 
> im sure memory companies will make ram that complies but jeeez.... it would be better for intel to unlock this BS voltage link.



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 ..._


----------



## btarunr (Oct 3, 2008)

zithe said:


> 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.)



The only thing is, it's your processor, and not motherboard or RAM that gets bricked. 'Tis a painful task...to RMA a processor.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 3, 2008)

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.


----------



## s3rv3r (Oct 3, 2008)

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*


----------



## btarunr (Oct 3, 2008)

MrMilli said:


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



At least going by the Newegg, a sizable number of DDR3-1333 (the standard Bloomfield IMC officially supports), are > 1.5V kits.







^ PC3-10600 kits http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&SpeTabStoreType=&Order=BESTMATCH&srchInDesc=






^The only PC3-10660 kit there






^ PC3-10666 kits http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...&SpeTabStoreType=&Order=BESTMATCH&srchInDesc=

Click on the links > advanced search > click on the "Voltage" drop-down, to see for yourself.

And please, don't call people stupid, we are t3h ov3rcl0ckers. We are worried because our overclocking gets into a mess, at least with the memory modules you get today.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 3, 2008)

no one is seeing my point at all.


----------



## PaulieG (Oct 3, 2008)

MrMilli said:


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



Let's keep things civil here.


----------



## hat (Oct 3, 2008)

I find it hilarious that Nehalem only officially supports 1333.


----------



## KBD (Oct 3, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> no one is seeing my point at all.



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?


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 3, 2008)

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.


----------



## pjladyfox (Oct 3, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> why release a motherboard or better yet an entire platform when nothing that exists today will work with it? sure... maybe a few sets of ram will work, but why even have ddr3 when its gonna be running ddr1 and ddr2 speeds?
> 
> im sure memory companies will make ram that complies but jeeez.... it would be better for intel to unlock this BS voltage link.



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.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 3, 2008)

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.


----------



## robal (Oct 3, 2008)

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..


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 3, 2008)

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


----------



## robal (Oct 3, 2008)

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.


----------



## tkpenalty (Oct 3, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> what im saying is this...
> 
> nehalem operates at ~1.0v STOCK CLOCKS
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Oct 3, 2008)

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....


----------



## Poisonsnak (Oct 3, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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?


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 3, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> 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.



I agree. .  Nvidia chipsets FTW!


----------



## Scrizz (Oct 3, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> I agree. .  Nvidia chipsets FTW!



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


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 4, 2008)

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


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 4, 2008)

Scrizz said:


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



lol

But i do believe, Nvidia chipset FTW.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 4, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


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



What part looks like a virus? Is your AV program showing up something? If so, I'll rehost the images for you. If you're refering to the site text looking garbled, you need the Chinese font installed to display as well....Chinese.


----------



## Frogger (Oct 4, 2008)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> 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....


 Very close to the TRUTH


----------



## Mussels (Oct 4, 2008)

This is a good way to stop OCing based on FSB. It will make OC'ers need to use multipliers on extreme/unlocked CPU's.

(not that i LIKE this idea)


----------



## Wile E (Oct 4, 2008)

This doesn't mean Vdimm and Vcore are the same. I mean think about it. DDR3 Jedec calls for 1.5V. There's no way Intel is gonna run these new cpus at a minimum of 1.5V.

It's just like AMD cpus, if you crank too much vdimm on an AMD setup, you can damage the cpu. And it's not just 939, It will still happen on an AM2 cpu. It's just that DDR2 runs on much lower voltages than DDR1, and gave us much more headroom.

While 1.65V is not the optimal voltage for this to occur for an overclocker, the whole issue is still being blown out of proportion.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 4, 2008)

Wile E said:


> While 1.65V is not the optimal voltage for this to occur for an overclocker, the whole issue is still being blown out of proportion.



Yeah i think you have it right.

The CPU voltage and ram voltage arent hte same, the ram CONTROLLER voltage and ram voltage are. That just means theres a max safe ram voltage of 1.65v - it doesnt mean the CPU will be stuck there.

1.65V aint so bad, new, lower voltage ram will come out. To those who complain that their already bought DDR3 is useless... suck it up. you chose to blow your money on an unknown variable, it was your own decision to buy that ram.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 4, 2008)

That's an overclocker-grade motherboard, and it says >1.65V for the DIMMs = CPU "permanent damage". Asus doesn't usually sound this stern on any of their high-end motherboard labels or manuals. At most they go on with the usual "will void warranties, will damage hardware" drill.


----------



## Laurijan (Oct 4, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> I agree. .  Nvidia chipsets FTW!



Not FTW if Nvidia stops making chipsets: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/02/1749213


----------



## REVHEAD (Oct 4, 2008)

This is were I think AMD are going to comeback, they are the kings of the onboard memory controller and have been for a few years now, Intel are going to have to fight hard to overcome there own implimentation of this and this seems to be one of the early roadblocks, and I am sure there are going to be a few more.

 I am not a AMD fanboy I just like to run whatever is best bang for buck at the time, I have a Intel setup at the moment and have had so for a year or so now, but I do feel when AMD move to DDR3 AM3+  they will be level pegging with Intel once again, its been a longtime comming, but non the less its heading this way..


----------



## btarunr (Oct 4, 2008)

This is where I think Intel makes real sure that the Yorkfield stocks that are left, are properly milked. AMD doesn't even have an iota of chance against Bloomfield as of today.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 4, 2008)

you know i have to agree with how stupid this is but at the same time i just want to let everyone know that i think its all hype.....i think in all honesty they are just making this a big deal to stop OC'ing. Im saying this because my M2n32 SLI deluxe and my NF4 Ultra II M2 said the same thing....when you went into the bios and went to change the ram voltage on the right hand side in the little panel it would say adjusting ram voltage over default settings could lead to severe damage to your processor and memory!....and you whant to know what? nothing ever happened i think the chance has always been their intel is just sizing it up for some reason i honestly dont think it will be anything to worry about.


----------



## Laurijan (Oct 4, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> you know i have to agree with how stupid this is but at the same time i just want to let everyone know that i think its all hype.....i think in all honesty they are just making this a big deal to stop OC'ing. Im saying this because my M2n32 SLI deluxe and my NF4 Ultra II M2 said the same thing....when you went into the bios and went to change the ram voltage on the right hand side in the little panel it would say adjusting ram voltage over default settings could lead to severe damage to your processor and memory!....and you whant to know what? nothing ever happened i think the chance has always been their intel is just sizing it up for some reason i honestly dont think it will be anything to worry about.



Soon we will know if thats true..


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 4, 2008)

Scrizz said:


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



since the the MB controls the voltage...  Im pretty sure theyre linked artificially, CPU and memcontroller are not relevant to ram voltage from what ive read.

If a Mobo maker wanted to, they could design their board with unlinked voltages.  I think "chipset" was the wrong word to use there. But someone like Nvidia or Ati could make a nehalem board that uses whatever trichannel ram fits in the slots.

thats what i meant by "nvidia chipsets FTW" - not that theyre great MBs, but rather that alternative companies making mobos will put an end to intel's bullS%^ pretty quick.

EDIT: yeah i read that their division was one the way out.  Which sucks... because i think the ddr3 linkage is in the inherent design of the X58 (if it is true) and that intel will continue to put limitations on the OCability of the cheper processors to make us splurge on the higher end models. bastards.  My next build will be AMD out of sheer priciple if that happens.


----------



## npp (Oct 4, 2008)

REVHEAD said:


> This is were I think AMD are going to comeback, they are the kings of the onboard memory controller and have been for a few years now, Intel are going to have to fight hard to overcome there own implimentation of this and this seems to be one of the early roadblocks, and I am sure there are going to be a few more.
> 
> I am not a AMD fanboy I just like to run whatever is best bang for buck at the time, I have a Intel setup at the moment and have had so for a year or so now, but I do feel when AMD move to DDR3 AM3+  they will be level pegging with Intel once again, its been a longtime comming, but non the less its heading this way..



How do 27,4ns latency and 19000MB/s sound to you? I don't think that AMD's memory controller is capable of that right now. And this is what you get with a Q965, check it out for yourself @ ocxextreme.org. By the way, the guy was running DDR3-1600Mhz and almost 2V voltage, so all this hype about some linkage between RAM and CPU voltage is pure BS.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 4, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Yeah i think you have it right.
> 
> The CPU voltage and ram voltage arent hte same, the ram CONTROLLER voltage and ram voltage are. That just means theres a max safe ram voltage of 1.65v - it doesnt mean the CPU will be stuck there.
> 
> 1.65V aint so bad, new, lower voltage ram will come out. To those who complain that their already bought DDR3 is useless... suck it up. you chose to blow your money on an unknown variable, it was your own decision to buy that ram.



why can't they put a resistor(or something) between the ram and the cpu mem controller that will lower the Vdimm for the controller?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 4, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> Not FTW if Nvidia stops making chipsets: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/02/1749213



They will never stop making chipsets.(but then again the Core i7 boards are saying otherwise)


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 5, 2008)

Wile E said:


> This doesn't mean Vdimm and Vcore are the same. I mean think about it. DDR3 Jedec calls for 1.5V. There's no way Intel is gonna run these new cpus at a minimum of 1.5V.
> 
> It's just like AMD cpus, if you crank too much vdimm on an AMD setup, you can damage the cpu. And it's not just 939, It will still happen on an AM2 cpu. It's just that DDR2 runs on much lower voltages than DDR1, and gave us much more headroom.
> 
> While 1.65V is not the optimal voltage for this to occur for an overclocker, the whole issue is still being blown out of proportion.



I agreed. 
AMD cpu has memory controller, and they still not support DDR3 yet. (Only In the future with AM3 CPU)
Intel cpu has memory controller too, but It already support DDR3.
I think both of them is pretty much the same, It just Intel is ahead of AMD about this.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 5, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> why can't they put a resistor(or something) between the ram and the cpu mem controller that will lower the Vdimm for the controller?



they could.  lets hope they do.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 5, 2008)

Mussels said:


> they could.  lets hope they do.



Those thieving bastards.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 5, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> Those thieving bastards.



wait, what


----------



## buggalugs (Oct 5, 2008)

I think people are getting their knickers in a twist for nothing. It just means the memory makers are gonna have to develop ram that runs at lower voltages than what we have today. Although if you already spent a boatload of cash on some DDR3 sticks hoping to use them with i7, that could suck a little.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 5, 2008)

Let's also not forget that Elpida has already developed chips with Buffalo that will do 2000Mhz CAS9 on just 1.5V.

As I said, I really don't think this is anything to worry about.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 6, 2008)

whats the mem voltage...







thats an intel board that INTEL was displaying for demo's. im beginning to doubt...


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 6, 2008)

that's mean lower overclock for ram's, dummm


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 6, 2008)

2volts is still too high for me. I'll be happy with 1333MHz modules at 1.5volts, I want to see 1600MHz at 1.65 at the very most. All this 2+ volts pisses me off, doesn't it defeat the point of DDR3?


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 6, 2008)

The trick will be balance. You need to have plenty of cpu voltage going on before you pump up the memory voltage.

Other wise you could have a dead cpu/or/defective cpu that kills ram
or just dead ram.

What sucks is the DDR3 that they have been selling that is 2ghz requires 2v.

Then this new Intel system is triple channel not dual channel. So I don't know yet if it will even work in dual channel mode. And if they put 6 slots on the motherboard if you install 4 chips will that take it back down to single channel/dual channel mode that's something that could really be interesting. That's the information that I would like to learn.



InnocentCriminal said:


> 2volts is still too high for me. I'll be happy with 1333MHz modules at 1.5volts, I want to see 1600MHz at 1.65 at the very most. All this 2+ volts pisses me off, doesn't it defeat the point of DDR3?



What about people with a 500usd set of ddr3 that runs on 1.9v 2.0v already in their machine?? Because Intel wanted to have the latest and greatest memory speeds with current chips......
<---system specs


----------



## Mussels (Oct 6, 2008)

i've seen it confirmed, and i can answer your channel questions.

2 sticks WILL run in dual channel.

4 sticks could either run triple channel for the first 3, or dual for all 4. I would assume intel would choose dual channel, due to the balanced performance. (current 775 chipsets can run 3 sticks, where only two are dual channel and the third runs slower, so its easy to assume the same tech could exist in core i7)


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 6, 2008)

Do you have any links or did you talk/see with someone that has one.



And are you sure about 3 chips in current 775 chips?


----------



## Morgoth (Oct 6, 2008)

Nehalem supports single, dual, triple


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 6, 2008)

\m/

Triple w00!



That is all... for now.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 6, 2008)

So for chips is dual then?  And 5 sticks will be still dual channel maybe.

I'm just wonder I can't find any links yet about it.

Also been looking for what happens when you stick 3 sticks in on current motherboards. But I think that he is right that one stick will not be in dual channel. AMD XP chips had motherboards with 3 slots and it would run in dual channel mode.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 6, 2008)

While doing my digging I found this about the old nforce2 and it using 3 chips for dual channel. I'm guessing 5 could do the same thing.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1719&p=4





This is the new Intel
http://www.sysopt.com/features/cpu/article.php/3775041


> The onboard memory controller of the Core i7 platform *supports the de facto single and dual-channel DDR3 architecture*, but adds a new wrinkle: triple-channel memory. This announcement lit up some eyes in the enthusiast community, and although Intel has been quiet in terms of performance results, demo sessions have yielded some very impressive visual scores.
> 
> The first Nehalem iteration is rumored to implement a triple-channel DDR3 architecture, and now that the CPU determines the memory type, speed, capacity, and number of modules, this is going to put some limitations on both motherboard vendors and end users. For example, existing DDR3 memory kits are sold in a dual-channel format, with two modules. The Intel X58 requires three modules for top performance, and many potential upgraders are waiting for memory manufacturers to introduce their triple-channel kits, featuring a trio of fully matched and guaranteed DDR3 sticks.
> 
> The presence of an integrated memory controller also means that the Northbridge components of the X58 chipset will be greatly simplified. Intel will even release a Core i7 processor with an integrated graphic core, further limiting the role of the chipset in this new architecture. The Nehalem also marks the debut of Intel's QuickPath Interconnect, with each bidirectional link supplying up to 12.8GB/sec of bandwidth each way for a total bandwidth of 25.6GB/sec per link -- that's over 50GB/sec for the top-end models that will have two QuickPath links.



cool, you never know they could of taken out dual, but that would be a crazy thing to do.




Edited:thought about what it said.
I feel like an idiot wondering about these things, lol So it does have dual channel support . I was talking to someone else that wondered the same thing. So if you put 4 chips in that triple channel motherboard what happens. I wonder if you put 4 in will it still be in triple mode like it was dual mode for 3 chips on the older nforce2.

I think it's rambus ram that made me think it. Because in that system you had to have 2 chips. If you didn't it didn't work, but of course DDR is different.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 6, 2008)

Am I going to far with this lol.

I could test the 3 sticks in my machine tonight sometime.


----------



## Morgoth (Oct 6, 2008)

i can also test it on my i got 4 gigs in my p4
if you like to


----------



## Wile E (Oct 6, 2008)

Here ya go D. 3 sticks in an X38 board.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 6, 2008)

BTW if anyone was wondering his SS is of DDR2 not DDR3.



Cool, so with the new Intel it should be triple channel if you just bought two sets 2 DDR3 chips.


----------



## spud107 (Oct 6, 2008)

could have one stick as backup lol.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 6, 2008)

spud107 said:


> could have one stick as backup lol.



What would be the point if it's still running in triple channel?


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 7, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Here ya go D. 3 sticks in an X38 board.



Is that your board and memory? I think It might be 2x1GB and 2x512MB...


----------



## Wile E (Oct 7, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> Is that your board and memory? I think It might be 2x1GB and 2x512MB...



Yes, it's my board and memory. It's 2x1GB Transcend aXeRam 1200 and 1x1GB Crucial Ballistix 800, for a total of 3x1GB sticks.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Nov 8, 2008)

remember that garbage that the core voltage is directly linked to the ram voltage?

myth dispelled....








give me a min to explain.....

QPI/dram voltage is related to the path between the memory controller and the actual ram itself. this needs to be within .5v of the vcore to prevent damage to the memory controller.
Dram bus voltage is the actual voltage that the ram is running at.... IE: Vdimm, Vram, Vmem, etc. this should be as close as possible to within .5v from the qpi/dram voltage.



			
				bit-tech said:
			
		

> While Asus and Intel (rightly) scare everyone (read: uneducated) into thinking that 1.65V on the DRAM voltage should be the absolute limit before you reach for the fire-blanket, all that's really needed it to obey this: keep the CPU uncore voltage within 0.5V difference of the DRAM voltage and there's no problem. Over this potential difference and you’ll greatly increase the chance of CPU death, but it certainly won't happen instantly in a big ball of fail fire if you make a mistake.



source.... http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/06/overclocking-intel-core-i7-920/3

and if you think 2000mhz isnt possible on x58....

here ya go.........

2XXXmhz ram on x58 in tripple channel.


----------



## Scrizz (Nov 9, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> remember that garbage that the core voltage is directly linked to the ram voltage?
> 
> myth dispelled....
> 
> ...



thx


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 10, 2008)

^ ditto - real screenies excite me, specially *over 4GHZ!!!!*


----------

