It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > WebNews
Running high VDIMM & low VCORE you risk to killing your Athlon 64 CPU Running high VDIMM & low VCORE you risk to killing your Athlon 64 CPU
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Running high VDIMM & low VCORE you risk to killing your Athlon 64 CPU
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 22nd January 2006, 20:39   #1
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Overclockers attention! Running high VDIMM & low VCORE you risk to killing your CPU

Tony from OCZ has received some interesting inside information for the overclockers out there; he posted this at XtremeSystems forums

”What I will tell you is if AMD say this to me iI listen...and you should listen also:

If you run a high vdimm and a low vcore with E die (revE, aka venice, san diego, manchester, toledo, newark, lancaster, denmark, venus, ..) you are running the risk of killing the cpu's. So if you have OCZ VX (or others) and you are not raising the vcore on your cpu you stand a chance of pumping a lot of current into the memory controller and causing permenant damage.

Im seeing people running $1k cpu's at default vcore and BH5 at 3.4V, this is a sure way to kill the cpu and is NOTHING to do with an issue on the board. If you are going to run high vdimm run a higher vcore also, and keep your CPU's ok.

The newer CPUs run a much lower vcore, IE 1.4 or 1.35V. what you are looking at is the difference between the vcore and the VDD supplied to the memory controller from vdimm in bios. Now if the gap between the vcore and the VDD is huge you stand a chance of breaking down the diodes that protect the core from the high VDD.

All you have to do is strengthen the cpu's defences, you do this with a bump of vcore...thats all.”

Micutzu adds :

“The CPU doesn't have to do directly with the VDD, but with Vtt/Vref, wich should vary from 1.25 to 2V when you adjust the RAM from 2.5 to 4V. Maximum JEDEC Vdd voltage is 2.85V, and lowest voltage for A64 CPU's (CnQ activated) is 1.1V, so we know for sure that a difference of 0.325V between Vcore and Vtt is safe. This means that for a 1.35V Vcore voltage, we can have a safe Vdd of at least 3.35V, and for 1.5V Vcore -> 3.65V Vdd.

Probably the real danger is when those diodes go near the opening (conduction) voltage, wich should be ~0.6V for Si-based junction; if this is true, 1.35V Vcore and above 3.9V Vdd should kill the CPU instantly”

uOpt makes a nice reference table using the info provided by Micutzu :

“ETA: this is at default drive strength. Higher drive strength will require less differential for safety

Vdimm - Vcpu(min)
----------------------------
2.9 V --- 1.12 V (min)
3.0 V --- 1.17 V (min)
3.1 V --- 1.22 V (min)
3.2 V --- 1.28 V (min)
3.3 V --- 1.33 V (min)
3.4 V --- 1.37 V (min)
3.5 V --- 1.42 V (min)
3.6 V --- 1.47 V (min)
3.7 V --- 1.53 V (min)
3.8 V --- 1.58 V (min)
3.9 V --- 1.62 V (min)
4.0 V --- 1.67 V (min)

Absolutely NO WARRANTY for this.

And again, it is minimum safe CPU voltage based purely on the problem of voltage differential between CPU and RAM. The above table does not take any other voltage considerations into account. Or in other words: the voltage that is the minimum with regards to the Vdimm differential might already be over the upper limit of your CPU - and blow it up.”

You can read all about it here
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2006, 20:41   #2
kr15t0f
 
Posts: n/a
Default

good to know, but I started to panic for a sec when I first saw "vx", so I reread it
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2006, 20:46   #3
Rutar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

very, very important info


I guess another reason against cool and quiet.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2006, 20:49   #4
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 78,739
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

Using CnQ and Overclocking is not done btw
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2006, 20:50   #5
[M] Reviewer
 
easypanic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,823
easypanic Freshly Registered
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by kr15t0f
good to know, but I started to panic for a sec when I first saw "vx", so I reread it
You kill your VX instead of your cpu
__________________
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\||____
|....The BEER TRUCK.... ||||'""|""°\_,__
|___Just for You___l||__|__|___|) _____|
|(@)(@)""""""""""""**|(@)(@)****|(@)|
easypanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2006, 21:09   #6
[M] Reviewer
 
Sidney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,739
Sidney Freshly Registered
Default

I can't believe the number of scary people at that forum;
and, the questions they raise from a simple table. Use with Extreme caution; if you are a pro (extreme), you know everything you do is taking a high risk
__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II
Sidney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2006, 21:21   #7
kr15t0f
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by easypanic


You kill your VX instead of your cpu
still waiting for my new set, don't know what ppl who don't got some spare ram must do when they have to RMA there ram



BTW: that table is quite ridiculous. Look at the Vdimm vs Vcore and you'll notice that it's quite normale you gonna need a certain Vcore when you reached your max mem speed at a certain Vdimm

Not much processors will go 9x310 (for a 3000+) with 1.4Vcore and the only thing you'll have to do is raise the Vdimm to 3.9V.
Offcourse you can go memory only overclock
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2006, 21:29   #8
[M] Reviewer
 
Sidney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,739
Sidney Freshly Registered
Default

Read this again and have no worry -

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=325
__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II
Sidney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMD Athlon II X4 640 CPU jmke WebNews 0 22nd July 2010 18:35
Nexus launches low profile "LOW-7000 R2" CPU Cooler jmke WebNews 0 20th October 2009 14:48
Amd Athlon 2 X4 620 CPU jmke WebNews 0 13th October 2009 10:36
Athlon II X4 620: AMD's new Quad-Core CPU review jmke WebNews 0 20th September 2009 15:17
AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7GHz CPU Phenom goes Dual-Core jmke WebNews 0 16th December 2008 14:25
Scythe releases new low profile 120mm CPU cooler: Shuriken jmke WebNews 0 9th February 2008 17:42
6 High End CPU Water Blocks Tested and Compared jmke Articles & Howto's 6 2nd February 2008 15:42
[M] 6 High End CPU Water Blocks Tested and Compared jmke WebNews 1 1st February 2008 15:25
INFO: Reading the OPN code on your AMD Athlon 64 to find out what CPU you have jmke FAQ / INFO / HOW-TO 1 6th October 2004 15:35
AMD Sets Up Low-Power CPU Storm: Mobile Athlon 64 Roadmap Unveiled jmke WebNews 1 12th June 2004 08:13

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO