Please help with new parts.

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:24

stulid said:
I have been told by some serious peeps that just giving the RAM what they require at the speed and timings to suit is absolutely fine

And the vast majority of the 1600MHz RAM sold by OcUK only requires ~1.5V

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:25

Product Description

8GB XMS Memory kit for dual channel systems, 1600MHz, 9-9-9-24, 1.65V
Key Features
Maximize your system memory capacity for ultimate performance
Guaranteed to work on all dual channel Intel and AMD platforms
XMS heat spreader
World famous Corsair reliability and performance
Package Contents

Two 4GB memory modules
System Requirements

Designed for use with all DDR3 motherboards with two memory channels

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:27

Surveyor said:
And the vast majority of the 1600MHz RAM sold by OcUK only requires ~1.5V

Sure? Im seeing a lot of 1.5-1.65v sets

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:30

stulid said:
Product Description

8GB XMS Memory kit for dual channel systems, 1600MHz, 9-9-9-24, 1.65V
Key Features
Maximize your system memory capacity for ultimate performance
Guaranteed to work on all dual channel Intel and AMD platforms
XMS heat spreader
World famous Corsair reliability and performance
Package Contents

Two 4GB memory modules
System Requirements

Designed for use with all DDR3 motherboards with two memory channels

And that RAM only requires ~1.5V to run at that speed and with those timings.

I know, I have 16GB of it in one of my PC's.

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:32

stulid said:
Sure? Im seeing a lot of 1.5-1.65v sets

There are.

But virtually every one of them only requires ~1.5V to run at their rated speed and timings

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:33

A quick count of the RAM at OCUK shows that 16 of the 32 1600MHz kits are 1.5v-1.65v

I'm sure the manufacturers of the RAM know what they are doing.

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:39

stulid said:
A quick count of the RAM at OCUK shows that 16 of the 32 1600MHz kits are 1.5v-1.65v

I'm sure the manufacturers of the RAM know what they are doing.

I'm sure they do.

And if the RAM will run at the lower end of the specified range then there's absolutely no reason not to do it.

Do you give your CPU 10% more voltage than it requires to work at the speed you're using it at? I doubt it.

Why should the RAM be any different, especially when it can also have a detrimental effect on the processor?

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:45

I give my CPU as much voltage as it needs to remain stable and to keep temperatures within check, this isnt related to RAM timings etc and so I always trust the RAM manufacturer first and other long time OC experts.

CPU still going fine thanks and is solid as a rock.

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 00:56

stulid said:
I give my CPU as much voltage as it needs to remain stable and to keep temperatures within check, this isnt related to RAM timings etc and so I always trust the RAM manufacturer first and other long time OC experts.

CPU still going fine thanks and is solid as a rock.

I can see I'm getting nowhere.

You've dug in and I haven't got the energy so near to bed time to dig you out.

I assume you'll be advising OcUK that that their guidance is wrong?

Anyway...

To anyone reading this thread I'll refer you to the Intel and OcUK recommendations.

Try and run your RAM at ~1.5V unless it's one of the ultra low voltage kits in which case you can go even lower.

Virtually every 1600MHz kit OcUK sell will run at ~1.5V.

Why risk running the RAM at voltages beyond what Intel and OcUK recommend when it serves no purpose whatsoever and it risks limiting the lifespan of your CPU.

Night, night all

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 01:08

I have tried my RAM at 1.5V@1600MHz ages ago when I had the ASrock, refused to boot up, positive the same was true for this Gigabyte board.

You also have to wonder why some manufacturers make "Designed For 2nd Generation Intel® Core™ Processors" RAM rated at 1.65v
http://www.gskill.com/products.php?index=403

Also the actual intel specs say ±5%

Also plenty of threads from various forums have discussed this to death also and the overriding conclusion is 1.65V is fine.

For anyone who wants a read,

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/07/how-to-overclock-the-intel-core-i5-2500k/2

Memory Voltage: As with LGA1366 and LGA1156 CPUs, keep this value to within 0.5V of the VCCIO voltage to prevent long term damage to the CPU. By default, this is 1.1V, which means the 1.65V used by previous Intel DDR3 memory is still acceptable. However, more recent memory will be rated at 1.5V (or even 1.35V if you choose a low-voltage kit). Increasing the VCCIO voltage obviously gives you more overhead on your memory voltage (remember, add +0.5V at most or risk damaging your CPU).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-vengeance-crucial-ballistix-kingston-hyperX,2907.html

with the same wink-and-a-nod from engineers that up to 1.65 V is safe

From the OCUK SANDYBRIDGE OC INFO: Voltages & OC Guide!,
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=18190492&postcount=1

Memory - Intel recommend 1.50v plus/minus 5% which means 1.60v is the ideal safe maximum, but we have found in our testing all 1.65v memory is fine. We have also found most new 1.65v like Corsair XMS3 will run at its rated timings with just 1.50-1.55v which is well within Intel specifications. So people upgrading to Sandybridge you can still use your old DDR3, but we do recommend you run it at 1.60v or less. We are shipping most of our bundles which feature Corsair XMS at 1.50v-1.55v at rated timings. We've also discussed with Asus and MSI regarding voltages for memory and they also confirm in their testing 1.65v caused no issues with reliability.

Surveyor said:
I assume you'll be advising OcUK that that their guidance is wrong?

As you can see from above, no I wont be.

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 06:59

Ah, stulid, you should keep up with the times.

Quoting from articles up to a year old and ignoring the advice currently posted on the OcUK shop site.

I'm aware that the Intel specs say ±5%, I've quoted it many times, but for the purposes of this discussion have accepted that OcUK have discussed this with Intel which has resulted in the advice currently posted on the shop site.

I still don't see why you won't be informing OcUK that the information on the shop site is wrong?

Your argument is that there are no issues using 1.65V which contradicts what is stated on the OcUK shop site for Sandy Bridge processors.

Either you're right or OcUK and Intel are.

I'll take the information stated by OcUK who have discussed this with Intel and I would recommend anyone else with a Sandy Bridge processor to do the same.

Even if you can't be shifted from your opinion that 1.65V is safe you should accept that the lower the DRAM voltage the better.

That's exactly what I said at the beginning and it's still true.

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 09:08

I still happy to go by what it says in the the articles above, they won't be based on made up facts and must be checked out with industry experts before publishing.

it's also just a small number of the amount of articles that all say the same thing,

1.65v for your ram is fine and safe.

Remember you are saying to undervolt the RAM so they may not run at their rated speeds as stated by the manufacturers of the DIMMS if they say 1.65V which sets like he Gskill I linked above say to do.

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 09:34

stulid said:
Your scaremongering won't change this.

I've quoted the advice given by OcUK so if you consider there's any scaremongering I suggest you speak to them about it.

Here's their advice again for you:

- Do not exceed 1.425v core voltage, doing so could limit lifespan of the CPU
- Aim to keep temperatures below 70c underload if at all possible
- Do not overclock with BCLK, again doing so could limit lifespan of the CPU
- Recommended memory voltage is 1.50v, so make sure to run your memory at 1.50v, higher than 1.60v could limit lifespan of the CPU
- These recommendations come from OcUK and Intel, your warranty is un-affected but we highly recommend you adhere to the above to make sure your CPU lifespan is un-affected
- All Sandybridge CPU's worldwide should be run at the above or lower voltages, no higher!

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 09:39

And I will quote the Sandybridge OC guides again.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/07/how-to-overclock-the-intel-core-i5-2500k/2

Memory Voltage: As with LGA1366 and LGA1156 CPUs, keep this value to within 0.5V of the VCCIO voltage to prevent long term damage to the CPU. By default, this is 1.1V, which means the 1.65V used by previous Intel DDR3 memory is still acceptable. However, more recent memory will be rated at 1.5V (or even 1.35V if you choose a low-voltage kit). Increasing the VCCIO voltage obviously gives you more overhead on your memory voltage (remember, add +0.5V at most or risk damaging your CPU).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-vengeance-crucial-ballistix-kingston-hyperX,2907.html

with the same wink-and-a-nod from engineers that up to 1.65 V is safe

From the OCUK SANDYBRIDGE OC INFO: Voltages & OC Guide!,
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=18190492&postcount=1

Memory - Intel recommend 1.50v plus/minus 5% which means 1.60v is the ideal safe maximum, but we have found in our testing all 1.65v memory is fine. We have also found most new 1.65v like Corsair XMS3 will run at its rated timings with just 1.50-1.55v which is well within Intel specifications. So people upgrading to Sandybridge you can still use your old DDR3, but we do recommend you run it at 1.60v or less. We are shipping most of our bundles which feature Corsair XMS at 1.50v-1.55v at rated timings. We've also discussed with Asus and MSI regarding voltages for memory and they also confirm in their testing 1.65v caused no issues with reliability.

http://www.techreaction.net/2011/01/04/3-step-overclocking-guide-–-sandy-bridge-v0-1beta/

DRAM voltage – This is directly related to your RAM modules and increases will allow increase in MEM speeds. There has been a lot of debate as to the limitation 1.65V limitation Intel has published. With the older platforms, the rules no longer apply. With a few months past now, it seems safe to say that this platform is robust enought to handle running memory at higher voltages, at least for the short term. Many overclockers still want to push the limits, but since all the current memory seems to scale less with voltage than older stuff, this is becoming a moot point. I’d still suggest staying at 1.65V or below for a regular daily system,[/B[ but I’ve pushed up to 1.85V for short benching sessions without any adverse effects.

http://www.clunk.org.uk/forums/overclocking/39184-p67-sandy-bridge-overclocking-guide-beginners.html

My Modules are rated for 1.8v, can I use them? - 1.8v modules are not suitable for use in P67 boards unless you run them at 1.65v or less - Keep in mind that as you are under-volting the modules, they will probably not run at their rated speeds, so doing this isn't recommended unless you know what you are doing.

Click to expand...

You can reply back if you want, but the facts remain that there are a huge amount of Sandybridge OC guides and forum threads from multiple forums (just simply Google "Safe RAM voltage for Sandybridge" or similar) that all say different to you.

Surveyor · 10 Feb 2012 at 10:48

stulid said:
You can reply back if you want, but the facts remain that there are a huge amount of Sandybridge OC guides and forum threads from multiple forums (just simply Google "Safe RAM voltage for Sandybridge" or similar) that all say different to you.

It's very kind of you to allow me a right of reply.

OC guides and forum threads, or the recommendation from OcUK and Intel, which to choose?

stulid said:
And I will quote the Sandybridge OC guides again.

Quote as much as you like.

That is not the current advice from OcUK and Intel shown on the product page of all the Sandy Bridge processors at OcUK.

Whatever your personal opinion, based on old advice, you should now be advising people to follow the recommendations given by OcUK/Intel for safe operation of Sandy Bridge processors.

There's absolutely no reason for the vast majority of Sandy Bridge users to use RAM which requires more than ~1.5V and that's what you should be recommending rather than giving advice which could lead to a damaged processor.

stulid · 10 Feb 2012 at 10:55

Then we must agree to disagree, I never said 1.5v isnt preferable to 1.65v,

But the facts remain from around the WEB (multiple sources, multiple guides from forums and board/RAM manufactures) that 1.65V RAM doesn't hurt Sandybridge processors.