Hello Jaskis and Alan Scott,

Answering your question, Jaskis: Quote" Why you didnt read those Intel spec links I provided?"

Because English is not my main language.

Thank you both for clarify about the z68 speed limit.

Now I understand that the Z68 works a maximum @ 1333Mhz.

I now have one last question to ask.

Since the Z68 works MAX @ 1333MHZ, Why intel page sugest memories @ 1600Mhz ?

And now checking the page ( the site was updated) Intel sugest memories @

This is will not demage my system?

The Z68 works @1333Mhz, so the value that excede is considered the overclocking. So this is may cause damage for the lifetime of intel motherboard or processor? It will cause some damage or shorten the life? I do not like to overclock anything I build. Now I am really worried and do not wish to force the system. Can I rest assured that my system will have the same life of life without problems? I meant:: the same life time as if I was using memories @ 1333Mhz ?

THank you all and sorry for my bad English.

In my country I don't have detailed information in my language.

Best Regards,

Edde

Hello Edde -

I agree with Jaskis' very well written answer above.  As he covered there, the real danger in overclocking is heat.   Overclocking memory alone from 1333 to 1600, especially when the memory itself runs 1600 at the stock voltage (1.5v), is NOT going to generate any significant amount of additional heat from the board, chipset, or CPU. 

The only other concern is with BIOS 0035.  Since it exhibits instability with overclocking, it is likely to cause problems if used with your Kingston memory -- since your Kingston memory interacts with the BIOS to automatically invoke a form of overclocking.  As long as you stay with BIOS 0027 or 0028 you should not have any trouble.  And hopefully future BIOS releases will fix the problems 0035 introduced, but that is yet to be seen.

I haven't seen this mentioned but it should also help Edde.  The memory controller (aka what controls the RAM) is located in the CPU.  AMD has had this design a long time and it's a pretty recent addition to Intel.  Natively the CPU supports DDR3 1333.  Since back in the day (think SDRAM or early DDR) people bought "overclocker friendly" RAM.  Meaning you could buy a stick of DDR 400 and get lucky and overclock it to DDR 450!  The performance increase really hasn't been there (except AMD Llano and Trinity for whatever reason).  Day-to-day you would never notice the difference between DDR3 1333 and DDR3 1600.  The only time you'd see a difference would be running synthetic RAM benchmarks (SANDRA, AIDA64, HWiNFO32, etc...).  Hope that helps.

Thanks for the replies.
Jaskis, as you know I bought this memory after read the Intel list of  the tested and suggested memories by own intel.

So, I´ve been trying hard to find this one but It was impossible to find this memory. I searched all the shops and I not found the one with the letter "H" at the end, I called to Kinston Suport before buying and they said only with the letter "H" in the ends works on Intel, I can't buy the one with "9" in the end, so I bought another one.:

Kingston:4GB Module - DDR3 1333MHz

Part Number: KVR1333D3N9H/4G

Specs: DDR3, 1333MHz, Non-ECC, CL9, 1.5V, Unbuffered, DIMM, 240-pin,

But I not found it on the stores.

So, I get the other one sugested on Intel page:

PnP - 8GB Kit (2x4GB) - DDR3 1600MHz CL9 DIMM

Part Number: KHX1600C9D3P1K2/8G

Specs: , DDR3, 1600MHz, CL9, 1.5V, Unbuffered,

Memory Search | Kingston

It works @ 1600MHz with 1.5volts, It is Plug and Play.

It would be better if I downclock/underclock ( I don't know the name in English) on this memory to ensure a longer lifespan for the system?

It would be better? Or I should not worry about nothing more?

Thank you

Don't worry about it.  Some memory modules work at (say 1866) but to get there require additional voltage (say 1.65V).

Since you RAM has an XMP profile built-in it will work at 16000 with 1.5V.

Bottom line, you're fine so don't worry about it.

Thank you, Major_A.

Yes, this memory works in 1600MHz in 1.5 volts.

Please, read this PDF:  http://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/KHX1600C9D3P1K2_8G.pdf

SPECIFICATIONS

Kingston KHX1600C9D3P1K2/8G

CL(IDD) 9 cycles

Row Cycle Time (tRCmin) 48.125ns (min.)

Refresh to Active/Refresh 160ns (min.)

Command Time (tRFCmin)

Row Active Time (tRASmin) 33.75ns (min.)

Power (Operating) TBD* (per module)

UL Rating 94 V - 0

Operating Temperature 0o C to 85o C

Storage Temperature -55o C to +100o C

*Power will vary depending on the SDRAM used.

FEATURES

• JEDEC standard 1.5V (1.425V ~ 1.575V) Power Supply

• VDDQ = 1.5V (1.425V ~ 1.575V)

• 800MHz fCK for 1600Mb/sec/pin

• 8 independent internal bank

• Programmable CAS Latency: 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5

• Posted CAS

• Programmable Additive Latency: 0, CL - 2, or CL - 1 clock

• Programmable CAS Write Latency(CWL) = 8 (DDR3-1600)

• 8-bit pre-fetch

• Burst Length: 8 (Interleave without any limit, sequential with

starting address “000” only), 4 with tCCD = 4 which does not

allow seamless read or write [either on the fly using A12 or

MRS]

• Bi-directional Differential Data Strobe

• Internal(self) calibration : Internal self calibration through ZQ

pin (RZQ : 240 ohm ± 1%)

• On Die Termination using ODT pin

• Average Refresh Period 7.8us at lower than TCASE 85°C,

3.9us at 85°C < TCASE < 95°C

• Asynchronous Reset

• PCB : Height 1.180” (30.00mm), double sided component

if you tell to not worry about it, ok.

Thank you,

Edde

You're golden, so no worries.  Now if we can get a proper BIOS update preferably with a UEFI layout that would be nice.

Thank you Major_A , now I am easy.

Yes, let's wait if Intel will make a new decent BIOS.

I also upgraded my board to 0035 BIOS version with the intent to buy a new i5 3570k processor (to replace my i5 2500k processor). I was lucky (than others): the new BIOS did not turned my board into a brick, but I lost the TurboBoost capabilities (and thus any overclockig involved) and every XMP profile for my 8 GB Corsair Vengeance memory modules.

The last part was not so bad, my memory is able to run at 1600 MHz with manual settings with no issues.

However, due to the problems created by the 0035 BIOS (c'mon, a BIOS that is not able to fully recognize the previous generation of CPU's ??? ..... and .....it's a program ..... like any other program, I don't understand why it can't be replaced by an other program, in our case the previous BIOS version ? I understand that it made structural changes, but they are not physical changes......) my upgrade to i5 3570k it's on hold right now, because I no longer trust this board to be able to run the new CPU without issues. There's been over two months since the 0035 release, and still no fix is available, incomprehensible for a desktop boards manufacturer. I trully belive that this will be my last Intel board (and it was a flagship too.....an Extreme Series one ) and I will turn to a more reliable manufacturer, like ECS - I'm sure that even they have better support than Intel.

Just trying to extrapolate a bit:

It looks like BIOS 0040 for the DZ68DB came out around Apr 12, with its 0042 fix coming around Jun 2.

DZ68BC 0035 was around Apr 19, so by that measure we would have seen the update a couple weeks ago.

I've come to a conclusion with this board.  Don't try new products, just stick with what is tried and true, ASUS and Gigabyte.  Once ECS takes over ASUS' motherboard production it might be only a Gigabyte option.

I've reached a point where I'm visiting Intel's update page 2-3 times a day, every day, looking for a fix. But still nothing. If they can't fix the problem, then at least they should let us know....or try to find a solution to revert to the previous BIOS, the 0028.

I swear that, if there is no fix within a week from now, I'll order an AMD FX 8150......It's cheaper and BIOS-problems free......and it also support SLI and Crossfire (16x @ 16x, not 8x @ 8x, as with most Intel boards, DZ68BC included......)