Overclocked Memory Breaks Core i7 CPUs 267
arcticstoat writes "Overclockers looking to bolster their new Nehalem CPUs with overclocked memory may be disappointed. Intel is telling motherboard manufacturers not to encourage people to push the voltage of their DIMMs beyond 1.65V, as anything higher could damage the CPU. This will come as a blow to owners of enthusiast memory, such as Corsair's 2.133MHz DDR3 Dominator RAM, which needs 2V to run at its full speed with 9-9-9-24 timings."
About overclockers: (Score:1, Insightful)
They deserve busted components. If you push the limits of a device, you deserve what you get. Maybe good and cool, maybe broken shit.
Out of Spec (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that so many memory modules require running out of spec voltages to operate properly, while the Intel CPU requires voltages within spec, it would appear to me that the memory makers are turning out bad memory.
Maybe instead of requiring users ramp voltages up to CPU damaging levels, they should fix their chips? Now that Intel has brought the memory controller into the CPU, that they have tighter tolerances for the voltages does not surprise me.
Integrated memory controller. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the boost that on-die memory controllers gave to AMD, back when they adopted them, I suspect that the tradeoff will still be worth it. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that there are going to be some very unhappy cries of "WTF! How could RAM voltage kill my CPU?" from adventuresome kiddies unfamiliar with the implications of this change. Warning stickers aren't going to deter them.
Re:About overclockers: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About overclockers: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you push the limits of a device, you deserve what you get. Maybe good and cool, maybe broken shit.
Considering an entire subset of the industry exists dealing exclusively with parts designed to run 'faster-than-spec' I'm more inclined to lay the blame on Intel. They should know full well by now that the enthusiast market drives a lot of personal buying decisions further down the food chain...
Remember when Tom's Hardware broke this story? [zdnet.com]
If you can't release components that will run with existing kit, well someone is going to get the short end of that stick... And when it's the high end consumers, well Oops!
Re:About overclockers: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really know why there's a sudden flood of people trolling overclockers. Overclocking is a legitimate way to gain more frame rates. For my job I often adjust clock settings on CPUs for benchmark tests, and it's not as if the CPUs that are overclocked weren't designed to do so.
The reason AMD processors used to be popular was that they appealed to enthusiasts and they had the ability for overclocking more so than Intel.
For a company that sits in the lead of the processor market, putting out a high-end CPU that does not allow for enthusiasts to have their way, is kind of lazy in my opinion. Maybe that's a bit much, but they could at least try to cater to the kind of customer that would purchase a high-end part.
Re:About overclockers: (Score:3, Insightful)
and it's not as if the CPUs that are overclocked weren't designed to do so.
I can remember a time when connecting nodes on circuit boards with a graphite pencil was a good way to increase multipliers and voltages. And it wasn't that long ago, these new fangled extreme processors and enthusiast motherboards are a pretty new thing. So I guess this doesn't surprise me too greatly, I'm sure a lot of minds at Intel Corp. remember the good old days when they were the ones OC'ing chips straight off the assembly line to sell as premium stock and motherboard settings were locked down like Guantanamo. To them it's like, if it runs at it's rated speed with recommended board settings its good enough to sell. To us it's like, the last three processors I bought overclocked by .2-.3Ghz ATLEAST... and ran with my enthusiast memory...
Re:About overclockers: (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not pushing a cpu, it was designed to run faster! Just bined lower.
This is a brand new CPU. I don't think they're worried about the low-end market just yet, and are labeling them as high as they can.
Intel can't do split volts on the cpu and ram like (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel can't do split volts on the cpu and ram like amd boards and older Intel boards can do??
Will any other stuff like this show up in QPI 2+ systems with the QPI bus?
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
They deserve to live with their results, be those increased performance or broken components. Saying they deserve busted components is like saying someone who soups up their car deserves a blown motor. Both endeavors, done correctly, can boost the performance of the tool in question. It's not hurting anyone, so why the sour grapes? Never were quite able to get the CPU overclocked so you want everyone who tries to fail?
Re:About overclockers: (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point here. If there are RAM chips out there that are designed to run with more voltage than 1.65v then those RAM chips are not designed to the JEDEC standard. Legally, they probably shouldn't even be able to sell them as DDR3 since DDR3 is a JEDEC standard and the parts on non-compliant. Of course, most of the memory manufacturers do this anyway, and since they are part of JEDEC nobody complains too loudly...except when things don't work, of course.
OCZ Platinum 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 is a 1.8v standard. that's NOT overclocking
But it is over-volted.
Re:About overclockers: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not pushing a cpu, it was designed to run faster! Just bined lower.
This isn't an overclocking issue, its a design flaw by Intel.
Wow. Did you not notice the contradiction of those two statements?
Re:About overclockers: (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks someone doesn't know what DDR stands for...
Re:About overclockers: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then how is it proven that ANY processor can be run reliably at its binned speed? You can NEVER prove that it is reliable except by running limitless operations and checking the result of each one.
Re:About overclockers: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:About overclockers: (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, this is still logically intractable. The best you can do is run it and wait for it to fail. If it doesn't fail, all you've shown is that...it didn't happen to fail. That isn't to say that it WOULDN'T have failed if you had run it for one more cycle, just that in your test space, you didn't get it to fail.
Short form: try to prove that something DOESN'T fail is trying to prove a negative, which doesn't work.
This is what you were getting at, obviously. I just wanted to clear it up for other people. :)
Re:Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me say this slowly:
If the factory makes it that way, it is not overclocked.
Re:About overclockers: (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:About overclockers: (Score:5, Insightful)
That extra 20fps won't make your penis any larger.
Sorry..
Re:About overclockers: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Among other things"?
Other things like the fucking initial design and engineering process? The processes, parts, and materials we use all have known physical limitations.
We know what the theoretical top speeds are when we design processors. We know that variations in the manufacturing process often alters the capabilities of a design in the real world.
It's not like baking a fucking cake and then being surprised at how delicious it is. We design, manufacture, and test to make sure we get our expected deliciousness. We don't get surprised and say "hey John did you add crack to this cake? It's more delicious than should be possible!".
Speeds can go up as the manufacturing process improves, or as you sell your chips to others who then strap on extra cooling and better power control. Speeds do not go up past the theoretical maximum (unless you've done something really, really wrong). You may get a good group of chips from the center of the wafer (the "golden sample", they call it) that beats your expectations of tolerances in real-world applications, though.
The stress testing chip manufacturers do is much more level than what a nerd with a desktop and the power of the internet can do. Manufacturers can physically inspect a processor, as well as run low-level logical tests on it. Nerds on the internet run 3dMark, SuperPi, Folding @ Home, etc.
Re:About overclockers: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't an overclocking issue, its a designed flaw by Intel.
Fixed that for ya
Re:About overclockers: (Score:3, Insightful)
...
The stress of overclocking / overvolting reduces the lifespan of the processor.
The damages and errors may show up sporadically, unter certain environmental / power conditions, or after a period of time.
Even if you had software that could check every fucking part of your processor, and it returned a clean bill of health today, that would mean nothing tomorrow.
Beyond that, no piece of software exists that completely or thoroughly tests a CPU. Stuff overclockers use is basically "throttle it to 100% usage overnight, and hope it doesn't crash/throw errors" type shit. It can only tell you when you're fucked, it can't tell when you're safe.
People assume that if they can run for 24 hours fully stressed and not get any errors, then they're "stable", but the fact of the matter is, their processor is likely being slowly damaged.
I mean, who the fuck should we trust? Engineers and manufacturers? Nah, fuck that, this forum has some guy who says he got his CPU to 8 GHz on liquid nitrogen and it's totally stable!
Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
A few months after the initial release of desktop i7 chips, they'll release a chip that can handle up to 2.0V DDR3 running at up to 2.4 GHz. The CPU will cost $1500, have an unlocked multiplier, and require a $300 motherboard, a $200 power supply, and a $100 cooling device to function with the out-of-spec enthusiast RAM. Gamers with more money than sense will eagerly shell out for it, and blame Nvidia's drivers when they only get an extra 1.3 FPS over JEDEC-compliant mainstream CPU/RAM configurations.
Re:The What of the What? (Score:3, Insightful)
[quote]such as Corsair's 2.133MHz DDR3 Dominator RAM, which needs 2V to run at its full speed with 9-9-9-24 timings."[/quote]
Please forgive me if I'm missing something...but isn't that RAM well, not great?
Various benchmark tests on the web show that RAM running at anything more than a 1:1 ratio (well, 2:1 if you consider that it's Double Data *Rate*) with the FSB doesn't increase performance at all. At this point, timings become important.
But 9-9-9-24 is pretty bad right? Lower is better right? For $90AUD I've got semi-budget performance RAM that has 4-4-4-12 timings. That's over double the latency timings.
So for the Corsair Dominator RAM to be worth it...you'd need to be running an FSB of 1.0665GHz. Meaning you'd need to have your CPU running at 4.266GHz FSB for it to be better than a slower RAM with better timings. Unless you're lowering your multiplier considerably, I don't see that as hugely attainable. And the loss of performance in timings is just too great.
Or am I missing something fundamental?
~Jarik