Over-volted RAM will damage Core i7 CPUs

Intel states that going above 1.65 volts may damge your CPU. I'd say, "yea,... and maybe it wont" Above that, Intel also says that going above rated cpu volts may damge the CPU. Only there have been bilions of overvolts without effecting CPU operation on the short term. Why would it be so different for this vddr state ment. They make it look like a serious issue, but I would say its just crap, until proven otherwise.

Comment by Ohyes at 6:03pm 19th November 2008

It's ironic this talk of X58 not allowing higher voltages. I have just ditched my DDR2 mobo (after killing it accidentally) and upgraded to Asus Max Extreme with DDR3. The Cellshock 2gb 1600mhz ram has a voltage range of 1.7 - 1.9. It used to be with DDR2 that you could go past the stated volts but I don't know if that's possible with DDR3. The ram doesn't seem to overclock at all (can only get it to boot at 1593mhz) or less. It does have very tight timings though so it's not all bad. 7 7 7 14 @ 1600mhz and 6 6 6 14 @ 1333.

Comment by feathers633 at 10:53pm 7th October 2008

Why would we move to 128-bit? Do you know why they push for 64-bit in the first place? It's to handle additional address space. 32-bits has a max of 4GB of addressable memory (more with PAE), while 64-bit goes up to 2^64 (or 17179869184 GB). Unless we have an ENORMOUS breakthrough and get exponentially sloppier on our code, I highly doubt we will see that type of memory in a long long time..

Comment by Piranhaa at 10:22pm 7th October 2008

So at 1.65V MTBF is unaffected how does this scale? If 2.05V reduced MTBF to 1 year but 1.85V only reduced it to 7 years I'd be happy to run at 1.85V, but I doubt Intel would release this data if they have it. Alternatively board manufacturers could use voltage isolation techniques to insulate the CPU from VDDR at the cost of bandwidth (adds latency). I can see X48 and i790 chipsets staying popular (and hurting Intel in the enthusiast segment) for some time.

Comment by Initialised at 9:49pm 7th October 2008

This will get the Ram providers get their ass in gear and stop forcing the overvoltage to enhance speed. With so many components going for the best possible performance with the least amount of running cost, by lowering the bar they will just have to come under it. My Asus board I picked up earlier in the year was full of "Green" marketing. It all helps I suppose when justifying leaving your machine on. I wouldn't hold you breath either for a better AMD alternative. Second coming of Jesus would be more likely.

Comment by crazyceo at 9:11pm 7th October 2008

I think I was losing track of where I was going with that comment towards the end. It was near the end of my lunch and I rushed it a little. I don't think anyone here would complain that graphics are improving in games. However, many games come out with good graphics but poor gameplay. An example could be Assassin's Creed, which looks good and plays good to begin with, but gets repetitive and tedious very quickly. It's not that you can't get games with amazing graphics and gameplay that keeps you on the edge of your seat when playing, but that most developers don't offer this. If there's a trade off between good gameplay and good graphics, I'd usually go for the gameplay.

Comment by TWeaKoR at 8:07pm 7th October 2008

I don't get why people complain about nice graphics so much. Crysis looks great on medium to max and the gameplay is pretty good. Bioshock is also very good. I will also play games with less GPU demanding graphics if the gameplay is good but I never bitch about a game because it is too demanding on system. I have heard kiddies complain endlessly how they can't run crysis at max details without buying new hardware. How stupid is that? Crysis was designed to run on future hardware at max detail and the idea is that those without the aid of a time machine stick with present day hardware and run the game on lower settings (as I did). If gameplay is more important than graphics then why do so many kiddies complain they can't run the game on max detail? In my opinion, photorealism in games is a natural part of the evolution of computer technology. All those people who complain that graphics are becoming too pretty make me laugh. That seems to imply that you can't have good gameplay and good graphics. Re: my comparison of cpu v gpu rendering. I was simply trying to illustrate that actually the GPU is far from being a bottleneck. As I said, try playing crysis on a dual core cpu even running at 3.6ghz + Graphically it may run fine on a high end GPU buy the physics (CPU dependant) will only work at low to mid level on a dual core.

Comment by feathers633 at 3:50pm 7th October 2008

While I do agree with you in part I feel I should point out a few things I think you got wrong. First, the CPU isn't designed to render graphics, so directly comparing it with a GPU in this process is almost pointless. Also, in regard to F@H, the work units that GPUs do are meant to be shorter, as the GPU client is still in beta, and the points scoring is weighted towards them to attract more people to use it. GPUs are probably better at F@H, but not by the margins suggested by the figures the folder gets. Nvidia have definately shown us that GPUs are better than current CPUs at rendering physics, but then this could also be due the CPU architecture not really being designed for this. At the end of the day, if GPUs were better at every task you wouldn't use a CPU. A CPU is designed to make a computer run, and a GPU is there to make it look pretty. Which is more important for a game depends on the game, but as people have said too much emphasis is placed on good graphics and not enough on gameplay and storyline.

Comment by TWeaKoR at 12:37pm 7th October 2008

"Every other aspect of a PC can handle high end games with no problem." - That depends on the specification of the PC. I have just upgraded my old E6300 1.86ghz core 2 duo to a Q6600. My E6300 was overclocked to 3.62ghz (1800mhz overclock). Even with that overclock, the CPU could not handle Crysis Physics set to high (I ran the crysis physics benchmark). It's ironic that you say the graphics hardware is the weakest part of a PC. Actually the reverse is true. Even a quad core cpu can't match the stream processing power of a modern GPU. This is why Nvidia has acquired Phys-X and the software demos prove that once you take physics off the cpu and move it onto a stream processor, you have a lot greater performance. I suggest you run 3d mark 06 and watch the CPU specific tests. You will get 0 - 1 FPS with a dual core and no more than 3 FPS with a quad core overclocked to 3.8ghz. The same test rendered on a GPU would run smoothly. The GPU has evolved enormously and to the point where it is becoming a general purpose super-computing tool. When I run folding at home on a dual or quad core, it may take several days to complete a work unit. An 8800gt can perform the same task in minutes. Most games run very well on a standard mid-priced GPU. Crysis is perhaps the one exception since that was designed to run on future hardware. Graphics hardware has now progressed to the point where it can run crysis on max detail. That kind of graphics hardware isn't cheap, but then neither was a quad core cpu a few years ago.

Comment by feathers633 at 9:16am 7th October 2008

Overclocking wouldn't matter so much if all software was written to run on parralle processors and to run on 64-bit platforms. For a windows desktop enviroment is there much more than windows itself that is 64-bit still? And how long will it be before mainstream processors become 128-bit? My Guess is less than 5 Years and we we'll have the 128-bit CPU and still be using mainly 32-bit software if things don't start moving soon. hardware always will be and has to be ahead of software - without the hardware how can you create the software for the non-existant hardware - but surely the gap shouldn't be this much?!

Comment by rlsdaveas2000 at 8:25am 7th October 2008

Not sure if your comment was directed at me or not... My comment about graphics is more about the system as a whole and that todays graphics cards are the major culpritt for system slow down while playing. Every other aspect of a PC can handle high end games with no problem. As for making a good game... there seems to be a general lack of people out there with a good imagination and the intelligence to make a story line make sense. Just look at the current Heroes storyline for an example. Nearly all games follow the same set out paths that have been around for far too long (COD5 for another example). Now, just one thing left... lol. Who can blame the gaming industry for racking out game after game with 90% focus on graphics when that is the mark of our general society? Todays culture is all about bling and no substance. People don't want to think, they just want to play and win. This then comes back to the comments about OCing memory... Why? Why do you want or need to? Just to get a higher score in some benchmark? They is just no real world need for it.

Comment by PokerMuppet at 1:04am 7th October 2008

pah, its like everyone is waiting for graphics to be more-than-real, before making a good game... wonder what excuse they will use for not developing a decent plot, characters and atmosphere?

Comment by NewParadigm at 11:57pm 6th October 2008

People are already complaining about a platform that we haven't even had benchmarked yet. Ci7 could be so march faster than anything we have today that there is just no need to worry about OC right now. Lets not forget the tripple channel requirements too, they may well have a part to play in this. But to be honest, in my opinion, graphics is way behind the rest of the system tech these days and seems to be the main bottle neck.

Comment by PokerMuppet at 6:25pm 6th October 2008

If you know what your doing you might get away with it anyway i imagine the extra voltage will screw up the onboard mem controller and that the already ludicrous heat density will cause all sorts of interesting failures with a phase change i think such problems may be ok but we will have to see (bet custom pc go for the 1.9v anyway just to see what happens.)

Comment by Cool_CR at 6:29pm 6th October 2008

Doesn't sound promising but I'm looking forward to seeing some extensive reviews.

Comment by _fac51_ at 6:29pm 6th October 2008

i can see why there is overclocking concerns here, but if its just restrictions to the memory i dont think theres any need to be unduly worried just yet. i know its kinda beside the point, but having ultra fast memory isnt really required with core i7. its memory controller appears to be so good the bandwidth it offers is insane with just 'low speed' ddr3 1333. still looking forward to the launch. memory manufacturers will just have to focus on reducing latency, instead of pushing clockspeed, which i think personally is no bad thing seeing as how the FSB has been abolished

Comment by vulcanproject at 5:29pm 6th October 2008

if intel lets us down for overclocking with there coreI7 systems maybe amd might decide to get its act together and steal the overclokcers market :P i need to build new pc soon this one is an aging old thing but im now further off put gues il wait till next year to find out...

Comment by whereisbob at 3:47pm 6th October 2008

All we need now is some rich bugger to test overvolting!

Comment by KxKuK at 2:51pm 6th October 2008

I got 1800Mhz OCZ's with the intention of transferring them over to a Nehalem rig in the future, as they need 1.9v theres absolutely no use in them. I'd be better off selling them and buying a cheap 1333Mhz kit rather than downclocking/undervolting and wasting them :/

Comment by D_Cypher at 2:03pm 6th October 2008

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20080619131256_JEDEC_Lowers_the_Power_for_DDR3.html Basically the JEDEC DDR3 standard will drop the voltage to 1.35V if/when we see some of these DIMMs... hopefully that'll make a difference... ...though it's harsh on people who've already invested in DDR3 in preparation for overclocking Nehalem, effectively rules out my 4 DIMMs from overvolting if I upgrade. Guess I'll be waiting for a while to see the results...

Comment by thewelshbrummie at 1:11pm 6th October 2008

it must be the integrated memory controller that has forced them in2 this so no more mega overclocks no more:( but a small part of me thinks intel might have done this 2 try and get us 2 buy extreme edition i wonder if marketing men from the bad old days of presscot are back in control

Comment by GUMBANATOR at 12:34pm 6th October 2008

Theres no doubting that a Nehalem platform will be very fast, but with Intel still being very shadowy over exactly how overclocking is going to work with mainstream Core i7's (it's already been said that the reference clock causes instability when tampered with) and now this rather low RAM voltage ceiling it's starting to look like Nehalem wont be good for us overclockers and tinkerers.... well, unless you got the moolah for an extreme edition :p

Comment by D_Cypher at 12:14pm 6th October 2008

• One top four motherboard maker will die, says MSI
• AMD plans supercomputer with 1,000 GPUs
• Nvidia announces GeForce GTX 285
• Creative takes wraps off Zii processor architecture
• Nvidia announces stereoscopic 3D glasses
• BFG unveils hand built Phobos gaming PCs
• UPDATED: LiveJournal announces mass layoffs
• Top 10 PC games chart
• Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 gets 500GB on single platter
• Creative reveals new Zii processor

These are the most popular news articles over the past seven days.

• Phenom II overclocked to 6GHz
• GeIL unveils Cyclone RAM cooler
• Rumour control: GeForce GTX 260 GX2 in January
• Nvidia cuts price of 216 SP GeForce GTX 260
• VIDEO: PC version of Mirror’s Edge features hardware PhysX
• Get Half-Life for less than a dollar on Steam
• IBM plans to build virtual human brain
• RivaTuner 2.20 adds SLI and CrossFire support
• VIDEO: ArmA II trailer released