Xmp bsod

[Tradesman]

Actually 2T or 2N is more the standard according to JEDEC, and no Intel doesn't prefer bandwidth over timings, Intel has stronger MCs (Memory Controllers) than AMD which is notorious for it's weak MCs, (it's one of the ways they keep costs down and therefore prices, they use less R&D). As far as timings go there are basic 'standard' timings for frequencies as published by JEDEC and again Intel leads the way here also, their CPUs consistently can handle the tighter timings (thus higher performance) much better than AMD. As an example I tried a Dozer FX-8150 with stock 2133 CL9 sticks that ran fine with either a 2500K (16 GB) and with the AMD to run the 16 I had to raise the CL to a loose 11 and still had problems, it could sorta handle 8GB at CL10.....

[jhuk]

I never meant the Jedec standard as if all vendors went by them we would be going backwards!

All DDR3 I have seen is T1 (N1) like example, Corsair!

[Tradesman]

Have to check that out, though I don't remember seeing where Corsair has listed specs for CR, they used to pick up on the mobos default, though basically ally their 1600 and up sticks I've seen recently have had XMP and (Intel design feature) and generally came up with 2.....to a degree it's really here nor there as the diff between 1 and 2 isn't something you would really 'see', except in benchmarks, but with higher end sticks in particular, being at 1 can often cause instability where 2 can be rock solid.

[jhuk]

Remember back in the golden days of AMD?

A far lower clocked Athlon or Barton beat a P4 3.2GHZ in games etc!

That was because AMD did more commands per clock than Intel.

AMD were set to CPC-ON (1T), you could get modded Bioses to use CPC-OFF (2T) to try get higher FSB clocks but you needed to get at least 10mhz higher to break even or 15mhz to beat CPC-ON )1T) bandwidth!

AFAIK newer set ups with DDR2 were by default 2T and DDR3 is supposed to be 1T!

[Tradesman]

Sadly those days are long gone, I went a couple years building a bunch of AMD boxes, alsmost as many as Intel, but when they cut their R&D and quickly fell behind I basically dropped building them, got to be ridiculous (for me anyway) when they kept using inferior MCs and all of a sudden you had CPUs that could only run 800 sticks, then they hit with 1066 (but only 1 stick per channel, then 4 sticks, then 133 but only a stick per channel), for me it all rather vexing, for I've long been a proponent of the 64 bit OS's after doing beta work for MS on the Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition for Itanium and XP Pro x64 Edition, so AMD could run them, but the MC limited the amount of DRAM they could actually run.

Anyway, today basically all DRAM (DDR3/1333 and up) today adheres to XMP and therefore the intended default CT is 2T/2N most all can run at 1T/N whether at spec freq or slightly slower, but 2 is intended for stability, On my P67, 2500K (4.93GHz) I'm running 16GB od 1866 snipers at 9-9-9-26 1T @ 1896 24/7, but at times take it over 5GHZ and the DRAM up to 2133 or so at CL10, but have to drop to 2T for stability or raise VCCIO and DRAM voltages to run 1T, whichi is more heat for basically no gain in performance

[vincent]

and no Intel doesn't prefer bandwidth over timings, Intel has stronger MCs (Memory Controllers) than AMD which is notorious for it's weak MCs, (it's one of the ways they keep costs down and therefore prices, they use less R&D). As far as timings go there are basic 'standard' timings for frequencies as published by JEDEC and again Intel leads the way here also, their CPUs consistently can handle the tighter timings (thus higher performance) much better than AMD.

I have been struggling over a week with this 'stronger memory controllers', obviously they are not as it is not working. Read the reviews at Newegg.com, many (Intel) users had problems with this memory.

Meanwhile I have installed F3-14900CL9Q-16GBXL without any problems. I let you know as requested.

[Tradesman]

Glad to hear it