1.5V vs 1.65V

casual_eze · 20 May 2013 at 13:04

As per the title. What is the difference between the 2 and why should i care? Im looking at this from an intel build perspective.

Having looked into this is a little more detail it seems its always better to go for 1.5V but im not sure why. Something to do with the Intel memory controller running at 1.5V or something? Some people say 1.65V is fine too - more confusion! Does 1600MHz only happen at 1.65V?

What is the definitive conclusion here? I'm planning my haswell build and would prefer some 1600MHz memory that runs at 1.5V natively - i think!

thoughts/comments welcome!

Jeps · 20 May 2013 at 16:53

If I remember right, Intels max safe voltage was 1.65v until they released sandybridge and changed it to 1.5v. After that the ram manufactures started releasing ram rated for 1.5v to stay within spec.

8 Pack · 21 May 2013 at 10:19

Its just to use less energy to be honest. I have used RAM volts upto 2.1 and above and experienced no problems with IMC on the CPU. For everyday use 1.65-1.75 is fine. Pick the RAM you like best and performs as you require.

casual_eze · 21 May 2013 at 13:51

thanks guys, appreciate the feedback

horrorwood · 24 May 2013 at 14:30

Jeps said:
If I remember right, Intels max safe voltage was 1.65v until they released sandybridge and changed it to 1.5v. After that the ram manufactures started releasing ram rated for 1.5v to stay within spec.

There is no max safe voltage for sandybridge, it is a myth. The info on the sandybridge cpu's on OCUK's site is wrong.

Feel free to click my sig