HAHA told ya it was safe intel 2400 ddr3 ram specs :)

[grkM3]

If OP is older than 13 I weep for humanity.

why dont you pick up the <useful> phone and call intel tech support and ask them for yourself.

heres the number

1-916-377-7000

No profanity please
-ViRGE

 

[Idontcare]

why dont you pick up the <useful> phone and call intel tech support and ask them for yourself.

heres the number

1-916-377-7000

Verbal communication is not contractual and is not binding, written communication is.

When your CPU dies all you will have is a "he said, she said" argument to present in small claims court after Intel rejects your warranty claim.

Think about it.

Also, clean up your language and your post. Profanity is a violation of our posting guidelines and you will get infracted for it.

 

[PreferLinux]

What does the "self-certified" mean? I'd take it to mean that it is the RAM manufacture is certifying it, not Intel.

 

[sangyup81]

I get it, you care very much about this subject. I suppose Intel can't prove you used 0.075v more than the 1.575v it recommends if it ever did lead to a warranty claim.

I gave you many examples

1 gskill says there ram is intel xmp ceritified for sandy

2 intel shows that ram as certified

3 kingston says it passed intel xmp for sandy

4 I called tech support and asked

5 intel has another spec sheet showing i5s supporting ddr 1600,1800 and 2133 all at 1.65 volts and even lists p67 and z68 boards and bios that support that ram.

Its pretty hard for intel to screw up the whole freaking spec sheet across the board and list bios and boards that support those speeds and even say rivised august compatibilty list.

when you put one of these sticks in and pick the intel xmp profile(something that intel certifies)why is there an option for it on a p67 board?

that xmp has to pass intel certification and all up until now they didnt have that cert and we were just using overclocking ram at are own risk.

here go on intel and see for your self.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/gaming-computers/intel-extreme-memory-profile-xmp.html

click the i5 and the i7s and see for your self.the list part numbers and boards with even bios versions.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Talk about pissing into the wind... I've never seen someone so worked up about such an inconsequential performance increase.

 

[AdamK47]

I've always found it funny when people would say not to use 1.65V on the memory. Groupthink usually does trump facts around here. It's the reason I don't put much credence in critiques to any build I do. It's usually much faster than anything they run anyways

 

[toyota]

I've always found it funny when people would say not to use 1.65V on the memory. Groupthink usually does trump facts around here. It's the reason I don't put much credence in critiques to any build I do. It's usually much faster than anything they run anyways

these "people" got their info from Intel.

 

[Diogenes2]

We keep hearing that, but there doesn't seem to be anything in writing, stating Intel's official position..
Same as with vcore..
Why's that ?

Any evidence that Intel has ever denied a warranty claim because someone used 1.65v ?

 

[toyota]

We keep hearing that, but there doesn't seem to be anything in writing, stating Intel's official position..
Same as with vcore..
Why's that ?

Any evidence that Intel has ever denied a warranty claim because someone used 1.65v ?

the 1.5 was in writing and I have seen it posted before. we have even heard that directly from those working at Intel including in this very thread.

if it changed then fine but lets not start acting ignorant and claiming that 1.5 was never an Intel recommendation.

 

[trollolo]

Verbal communication is not contractual and is not binding, written communication is.

actually, if some guy is laying in the street bleeding out, and he says "JOSE STABBED ME", and then he dies, that is legally binding. So OP just make sure to get a physically intimidating Mexican to stab you several times before you make an insurance claim.

 

[AdamK47]

Are there any website articles or forum posts where some has stated that their CPU has died and indicated that they were using 1.65V for the memory?

 

[toyota]

Are there any website articles or forum posts where some has stated that their CPU has died and indicated that they were using 1.65V for the memory?

right there on page 1 from the Intel guy. "I know of 2 cases where someone has run their memory above 1.5v and damaged the processor and tech support has stated that their warranty is void because they are running out of spec."

and people tear up stuff all the time and you never hear about. I mean think how few people are actually active in the forum. and then think of even how many of those few actually push their hardware to within an inch of its life.

 

[notty22]

This reminds me of this, i5/i7 Lynnfield QPI/VTT voltage

At first, Intel had published a spec ,somewhere that max was 1.21v. Constantly heard, you are going to blow up, thats way over spec etc.
The thing is, almost everyone knew, you needed more than this, even for small overclocks, and were running more than this amount.
Then suddenly Intel released a new data sheet, probably after monitoring the cpu's out in the wild, that 1.4v -VTT was the max.

What are people running this setting at with their 1155 boards and 2500k's ?

 

[AdamK47]

right there on page 1 from the Intel guy. "I know of 2 cases where someone has run their memory above 1.5v and damaged the processor and tech support has stated that their warranty is void because they are running out of spec."

and people tear up stuff all the time and you never hear about. I mean think how few people are actually active in the forum. and then think of even how many of those few actually push their hardware to within an inch of its life.

He's noted it indirectly. I'm sure his perspective on it carries a lot of weight for people here since he does work for Intel® and posts on enthusiast forums where Intel® Core™ processors are being discussed.

 

[apoppin]

Verbal communication is not contractual and is not binding, written communication is.

When your CPU dies all you will have is a "he said, she said" argument to present in small claims court after Intel rejects your warranty claim.

Think about it.

Also, clean up your language and your post. Profanity is a violation of our posting guidelines and you will get infracted for it.

If it ever comes to a small claims court, Intel will lose by default. They will not even show up.

Has our Intel rep shown written published data from Intel saying that a certain voltage is max? It must be published clearly where the CPU is sold to enthusiasts and also be stated in no uncertain terms on their website, clearly and visibly.

In a he said, she said - the benefit is always given to the consumer; the burden of proof is always on the business. All the consumer does is need to present that he had a "reasonable doubt".

 

[Rvenger]

Here is a newegg review I posted after I was looking at a shellshocker ram deal. Funny thing is that G.Skill said something different about 2 weeks ago in the comments... They must of found someone a little more technical to revise the comments on my review. lol




Rating: 1/5 I wouldn't say its fully compatible
Pros: None

Cons: See Below

Other Thoughts: Gskill should know better than to make 1.6v memory for Sandybridge because it could risk frying the memory controller. Please refer to Intel specifications for proof.

Manufacturer Response:
.
Dear Customer

The RipJaws X series is specifically designed for Intel Sandybridge platforms. 1.60V and even 1.65V is perfectly fine for this platform. Understand that Intel only supports DDR3-1333 CL9 1.50V max, so they absolutely do not support any type of overclocking. Consequently, you can not reference performance memory to Intel specifications. If you haven't noticed, this limitation has been exactly the same for all previous platforms as well, so this is nothing different. But due to technology enhancements, we now do have performance 1.50V modules, so you may want to look into one of those if you have a problem with 1.60V.

We have fully tested the RipJaws X series on basically all Sandybridge platforms, so you can rest assured that ANY kit will work just fine. The Intel warning is to prevent reckless overclockers, but on our world record test benches we have taken DRAM voltages much higher, so as long as the memory is overclocked correctly, there is absolutely not harm or damage done to the CPU memory controller. For any further questions, please feel free to contact us directly.

Thank you
GSKILL SUPPORT

Quality and customer service are our top priorities.

Tech Support Email: ustech@gskillusa.com
RMA Dept Email: rma@gskillusa.com
G.Skill Forum: http://www.gskill.us/forum/



With this being said - Don't go crying to Intel that your CPU is bad after using anything above 1.5v memory. Go to the RAM manufacturer since they stand behind their product. End of story thanks and gl

 

[exar333]

Show me any benchmarks that prove anything over DDR3 1600 is worth it at all. To be honest, most benchmarks for triple (and likely the new quad-channel SB-E as well) channel show negligable performance above 1333.

When you can get 16GB 1333 for $60-75, and 16GB 1600 for slightly more, it's tough to justify spending more for little or no performance difference.

 

[Diogenes2]

Post after post saying - " someone said, Intel said, trusted source said - blah, blah blah ... Still, nothing officially documented by Intel .. No claims of damage ..

Show me any benchmarks that prove anything over DDR3 1600 is worth it at all.

That point has been made time and time again, but the OP ( not to mention RAM makers, who push the stuff ) seems oblivious to this...

 

[Idontcare]

If it ever comes to a small claims court, Intel will lose by default. They will not even show up.

Has our Intel rep shown written published data from Intel saying that a certain voltage is max? It must be published clearly where the CPU is sold to enthusiasts and also be stated in no uncertain terms on their website, clearly and visibly.

In a he said, she said - the benefit is always given to the consumer; the burden of proof is always on the business. All the consumer does is need to present that he had a "reasonable doubt".

apoppin, I think you may not be fully absorbing the background that was behind my post.

Intel has a published spec that says absolute max allowed Vdimm is 1.5725 volts.

Intel has a rep on this board, IntelEnthusiast, who has stated that he knows of two cases already inside Intel where Intel denied warranty claims of customers who overvoltaged their Vdimm.

The question here is "a reasonable doubt" of what? He had a reasonable doubt that Newegg's specs were wrong or right? That G.Skill was wrong or right?

I fail to see how anything Newegg publishes, or anything a G.Skill rep might have to say, would be viewed by the law as invalidating Intel's published specs.

What am I missing?

 

[blackened23]

Post after post saying - " someone said, Intel said, trusted source said - blah, blah blah ... Still, nothing officially documented by Intel .. No claims of damage ..

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/CoreTechnicalResources.html

section 1.2.1

"DDR 3 memory 1.5V required for I/O"

There you have it, the official source documents 1.5V memory being required. That said, you can get away with 1.65V likely but it is not officially supported by intel, and obviously overvolting your RAM will over volt the CPU - generating more heat, higher temps, etc etc etc etc you get the picture. This shouldn't be shocking news, intel also doesn't support out of spec vcores on their CPU's either, but many people do it. Anyway, we all know that numerous overclocks have used 1.65, some successfully and some not. We all know that there are some (nutjobs) that also run CPU vcore at 1.45+ with no problems (for now)

So I wouldn't worry about the warranty issue brought up earlier, its just legal mumbo jumbo to cover intels behind--and to discourage users from overclocking.

 

[apoppin]

apoppin, I think you may not be fully absorbing the background that was behind my post.

Intel has a published spec that says absolute max allowed Vdimm is 1.5725 volts.

Intel has a rep on this board, IntelEnthusiast, who has stated that he knows of two cases already inside Intel where Intel denied warranty claims of customers who overvoltaged their Vdimm.

The question here is "a reasonable doubt" of what? He had a reasonable doubt that Newegg's specs were wrong or right? That G.Skill was wrong or right?

I fail to see how anything Newegg publishes, or anything a G.Skill rep might have to say, would be viewed by the law as invalidating Intel's published specs.

What am I missing?

How obvious is the spec? Where is it published and does the end user have to "search" for it?

It is pretty clear that Intel does not allow overclocking. Is it just as obvious to the consumer that 1.5725 is the absolute maximum?

If not, then Intel is at fault. If so, then why is any reasonable person disputing it?

As to an Intel RMA specialist denying a claim; they denied mine once. Some of them are pretty dim and overzealous for their company. On appeal, i not only got my CPU replaced, i got an extra one from Intel,

 

[Diogenes2]

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/CoreTechnicalResources.html

section 1.2.1

"DDR 3 memory 1.5V required for I/O"

There you have it, the official source documents 1.5V memory being required. That said, you can get away with 1.65V likely but it is not officially supported by intel, and obviously overvolting your RAM will over volt the CPU - generating more heat, higher temps, etc etc etc etc you get the picture. This shouldn't be shocking news, intel also doesn't support out of spec vcores on their CPU's either, but many people do it. Anyway, we all know that numerous overclocks have used 1.65, some successfully and some not. We all know that there are some (nutjobs) that also run CPU vcore at 1.45+ with no problems (for now)

So I wouldn't worry about the warranty issue brought up earlier, its just legal mumbo jumbo to cover intels behind--and to discourage users from overclocking.

I was just editing my post to acknowledge what you just posted..

P.S.
For what it's worth, the Intel Data sheets dated Sept 2011 show max 1.575
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/2nd-gen-core-desktop-vol-1-datasheet.html
Page 81

So, I would agree that 1.65 does not seem like a good idea ..

_______________________________________

Now, what about that 1.52 VID ? :biggrin:

 

[Idontcare]

So I wouldn't worry about the warranty issue brought up earlier, its just legal mumbo jumbo to cover intels behind--and to discourage users from overclocking.

Legal mumbo jumbo?

With the 2nd generation Intel® Core™ processors like the Intel Core i5-2500K and Intel Core i7-2600K if you use memory at 1.65v you can damage the processor and void the warranty. Back in May I was asked about running memory at 1.65v on the 2nd generation processors and was told that doing so is pushing the tolerance on the memory controller and can damage the processor and void the warranty. The engineer say if you already have memory running at 1.65v as soon as you turn the system on, to go into the Bios and change the setting to 1.5v (which most good memory should have multiple profiles allow it to run at the lower voltage). If you are buying new RAM stay away from anything higher than the 1.5v. I know of 2 cases where someone has run their memory above 1.5v and damaged the processor and tech support has stated that their warranty is void because they are running out of spec.
In the end save yourself the headache; just pick up memory at the supported voltage.
Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

Uh...sounds like people ARE burning up their CPU's doing this and Intel IS invalidating their warranties for having done so.

 

[happy medium]

Here is a newegg review I posted after I was looking at a shellshocker ram deal. Funny thing is that G.Skill said something different about 2 weeks ago in the comments... They must of found someone a little more technical to revise the comments on my review. lol




Rating: 1/5 I wouldn't say its fully compatible
Pros: None

Cons: See Below

Other Thoughts: Gskill should know better than to make 1.6v memory for Sandybridge because it could risk frying the memory controller. Please refer to Intel specifications for proof.

Manufacturer Response:
.
Dear Customer

The RipJaws X series is specifically designed for Intel Sandybridge platforms. 1.60V and even 1.65V is perfectly fine for this platform. Understand that Intel only supports DDR3-1333 CL9 1.50V max, so they absolutely do not support any type of overclocking. Consequently, you can not reference performance memory to Intel specifications. If you haven't noticed, this limitation has been exactly the same for all previous platforms as well, so this is nothing different. But due to technology enhancements, we now do have performance 1.50V modules, so you may want to look into one of those if you have a problem with 1.60V.

We have fully tested the RipJaws X series on basically all Sandybridge platforms, so you can rest assured that ANY kit will work just fine. The Intel warning is to prevent reckless overclockers, but on our world record test benches we have taken DRAM voltages much higher, so as long as the memory is overclocked correctly, there is absolutely not harm or damage done to the CPU memory controller. For any further questions, please feel free to contact us directly.

Thank you
GSKILL SUPPORT

Quality and customer service are our top priorities.

Tech Support Email: ustech@gskillusa.com
RMA Dept Email: rma@gskillusa.com
G.Skill Forum: http://www.gskill.us/forum/



With this being said - Don't go crying to Intel that your CPU is bad after using anything above 1.5v memory. Go to the RAM manufacturer since they stand behind their product. End of story thanks and gl

Would a statement like this make G-skill responsible?

 

[Rvenger]

Yes exactly, Happy medium.

If you are running your memory more than 1.575v lets say. And the memory spec calls for 1.6 or 1.65v, and is "approved" for sandybridge by the memory manufacturer. Then that would mean the memory manufacturer would have to be responsible for the fault. How they would test that?? I don't know but someone would have to figure it out. I guess send it back to Intel to deny your warranty claim, then hit the memory manufacturer up for the blame.