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 @
Kingston* KHX1866C9D3T1K3/3GX 1 GB 1866 Kingston KHX1600C9D3 2 GB 1600 Kingston KHX2133C9AD3T1K2 2 GB 2133
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.
The reason why Intel is suggesting several memories with different speeds goes something like this:
When you buy a motherboard it inculdes also other stuff than just the board eg.:
-tech support (for specified period)
-QVL (qualified vendor list)
QVL can be considered as some sort of service that gives information which memory modules the manufacturer has tested and found working well with the board. This way the customer has easy way to pick up DIMMs that will definitely work (assuming that they are not defective) with the board.
Usually higher end boards can stand for higher clocks than the native speed of components. This is the case with DZ68BC board, as it is intended for gamers and overclockers.
Now, the sad situation is that something went wrong with BIOS rev.0035. Overclocking with this BIOS in some cases is impossible and in other cases even mild overclocking will cause instability. Intel really needs to fix this.
To your second question about damage / lifetime of a computer when overclocked.
Overclocking will usually raise the temperature and higher temperature will shorten the lifetime of components.
However, DZ68BC is designed to take some overclocking (not very high clocks though). If your case ventilation is sufficient and room ambient temperature around 20C, there is pretty much nothing to fear.
1600MHz is still considered as very mild overclock in this case, so you dont need to worry about that.
It is hard to say which speed will give to your system longer lifespan. Nowadays people are upgrading their systems between 3 to 5 years. My guess is that you wont use your rig any longer than that. When we speak this short lifespan it really doesnt matter which clock you will apply, 1333 or 1600.
It also matters what is the main use of the computer - is something "considered normal" or 24/7 heavy computing. This will make a difference, of course.
Hope you find this helpful,
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.
Papagym dont come here to give falsified information to inexperienced users. I just filed abuse report about you with these grounds.
Your post above shows how misinformed you are and how difficult for you it is to understand Intel technical documents.
Off course Intel DZ68BC supports other speeds than 1333MHz that is not the point. It is indeed mobo designed for overclockers and gamers as mentioned here.
That doesnt have anything to do with the technical FACT, that native speed of Sandy Bridge memory controller and Z68 chipset combo IS 1333MHz as DOCUMENTED in Intel Technical sheets.
I feel sorry that I saw some effort to make tha XMP profile guide for you, when you come here to give such claims like the one above.
Shame on you man and please edit you misinforming post.
P.S. I really hope some Intel staff will comment on this thread that these low-end users will get "heavenly truth" from your side.
P.P.S. Mods please feel free to permaban my account, I got tired in helping people because some people are coming here to ruin the work. Really fruitless.
"I'm not an overclocked but I think you have to vary the voltage to the chip to do that."
This comment is hilarious and dangerous. First of all you are telling that you as a human being are not overclocked.
Adjusting memory voltage in Sandy Bridge system to anything else than 1.5 Volts is very dangerous and NOT RECOMMENDED by Intel as it may greatly shorten the lifetime of your CPU.
This is reply from Intel staff:
This Processor requires memory designed at 1066 or 1333 Mhz and 1.5 volts. Working out of these specifications will be forcing the CPU memory controller to downgrade the speed and voltage causing different issues affecting the system performance and also may damage the Processor.
This overvolting generally involves running a processor out of its specifications, which may damage it or shorten CPU life.
Read that link Papagym.
And this one too:
How someone anymore dares to come here and tell something else? Now we have the same truth as written in Intel tech sheets in a forum posting from Intel staff as well.
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,
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, Major_A.
Yes, this memory works in 1600MHz in 1.5 volts.
Please, read this PDF: http://www.kingston.com/dataSheets/KHX1600C9D3P1K2_8G.pdf
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.
• 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
• 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.
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.