bit-tech.net

Kingston LoVo: Power saving 1.25V DDR3 RAM

Comments 1 to 25 of 25

Reply
Pete J 18th March 2010, 12:24 Quote
Would you be able to run this RAM at 1.65V with a good overclock or will it just fry it?
Jack_Pepsi 18th March 2010, 13:42 Quote
:droool:

I'd love to have 8GBs running at 1.2(5) instead of 1.65. I wonder what GeIL's offerings are going to be like in comparison to these.
Skiddywinks 18th March 2010, 14:55 Quote
So are there any actual investigations in to how much of a difference low voltage RAM has on overclocking IMC CPUs?
Gazbarber 18th March 2010, 15:19 Quote
What affect does this have on anything though? Overclocked ram (never mind lower timings for twice the price) always seemed like a scam to me (What effect if any does it have on fps?), and what sort of energy is saved in units/£'s by using this over the lifetime of a system even on 24/7 for say a generous 3 years, would be what?

If theres not much difference in price I got no complaints though, if its simply more marketing then I smell scam (not that i'm cynical or anything).
Gazbarber 18th March 2010, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazbarber
What affect does this have on anything though? Overclocked ram (never mind lower timings for twice the price) always seemed like a scam to me (What effect if any does it have on fps?), and what sort of energy is saved in units/£'s by using this over the lifetime of a system even on 24/7 for say a generous 3 years, would be what?

If theres not much difference in price I got no complaints though, if its simply more marketing then I smell scam (not that i'm cynical or anything).


OK just worked out soem rough figures what it would be for the above on say a saving of 28W, at an average 8p per unit (a bit generous again) for 24/7 over 3 years would be the region of a not too insubstantial £44. Thats not too bad really, although energy is cheaper at night, most people here are unlikely to be using the ram for 3 years nor 24/7. For a NAS/networked RAID server though it could be a nice saving over the years.
javaman 18th March 2010, 15:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazbarber

OK just worked out soem rough figures what it would be for the above on say a saving of 28W, at an average 8p per unit (a bit generous again) for 24/7 over 3 years would be the region of a not too insubstantial £44. Thats not too bad really, although energy is cheaper at night, most people here are unlikely to be using the ram for 3 years nor 24/7. For a NAS/networked RAID server though it could be a nice saving over the years.

Thats a good saving for folders and a saving is still a saving. As for your comment on faster ram, in games you mightn't see a huge performance difference but come memory intensive tasks such as some music production or video editing then thats where youll see your biggest benefit.
Icy EyeG 18th March 2010, 16:53 Quote
Is it possible to use these low voltage kits with Atom-ION boards that have DDR3 slots?
Claave 18th March 2010, 17:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy EyeG
Is it possible to use these low voltage kits with Atom-ION boards that have DDR3 slots?

Probably, but you'll need to check compatibility (to see if the memory will work at all) and whether the board supports such low memory voltages (to see if you can run at it 1.25V). This is less than straightforward though, as Rich pointed out in the Final Thoughts section.
Icy EyeG 18th March 2010, 18:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
Probably, but you'll need to check compatibility (to see if the memory will work at all) and whether the board supports such low memory voltages (to see if you can run at it 1.25V). This is less than straightforward though, as Rich pointed out in the Final Thoughts section.

I see... I remembered this because it'd be interesting to see if they would cause any power saving on an already low powered system. I suspect that in this case we would notice any increase of efficiency though, but I'm just speculating.

EDIT: The lowest voltage in the Memory QVL of Asus AT3IONT-I is 1.35 volts.
Matticus 18th March 2010, 18:48 Quote
If the cost is the same as a similarly performing kit then it would be something I would look into buying. Energy saving is something I like the idea of, but not at the cost of a huge performance drop and a price hike.

It may not have a huge effect on individuals in terms of energy/cost savings, but if many people adopted this a lot less energy could be used. /Hippy.

The main thing I like about this ram is its look, I am slightly obsessed with the colour green, I have been since I was a little'un.
Turbotab 18th March 2010, 19:29 Quote
So if the CPU will run cooler, with these modules, would that translate into higher overclocking potential?
Bindibadgi 18th March 2010, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotab
So if the CPU will run cooler, with these modules, would that translate into higher overclocking potential?

Possibly :)
borandi 18th March 2010, 20:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazbarber
What affect does this have on anything though? Overclocked ram (never mind lower timings for twice the price) always seemed like a scam to me (What effect if any does it have on fps?

RAM is used for more than just gaming, you know. Apart from the plethora of video and image editing suites that benefit, also scientific simulation (what I do) aids from having fast memory - the faster the better.
andrew8200m 18th March 2010, 20:36 Quote
I ran a review for some low volt stuff on another site... ll look for some screenies of an OC.

Andy

EDIT

http://www.upload3r.com/serve/180310/1268941067.jpg

http://www.upload3r.com/serve/180310/1268941094.jpg

1.35v 1600mhz (8-8-8-24) clocked in a 1.6v 2006mhz (10-9-9-27)

rather good really :)
TheUn4seen 18th March 2010, 21:36 Quote
Quote:
RAM is used for more than just gaming, you know. Apart from the plethora of video and image editing suites that benefit, also scientific simulation (what I do) aids from having fast memory - the faster the better.

Not really. Faster RAM (1066 vs 1600MHz) will only give you about 3% performance increase in case of cryptography (what I do), with ~10GB file encryption, multithreaded and RAM to RAM so no HDD slowing things down. The most limiting factor is the CPU, x86 is a weak architecture performance-wise, so there is really no need for 16GB/s when the CPU can process 10% of it. Even 667MHz DDR2 could easily cope with fastest quad- or hexa-core x86 CPUs.

And besides, DDR3 was introduced because motherboard market was getting a bit slow and manufacturers needed something to make people buy new things.

As for the "green" stuff, I don't really care. I like my car drinking an ocean of fuel per kilometer and my computers eating as many kilowatts as they wish. With everything watercooled heat isn't an issue. Instead of stupid whining, EU should just build more nuclear power plants, and everyone would be happy - more workplaces for engineers and cheaper power for all.
John_T 18th March 2010, 22:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUn4seen
As for the "green" stuff, I don't really care. I like my car drinking an ocean of fuel per kilometer and my computers eating as many kilowatts as they wish. With everything watercooled heat isn't an issue. Instead of stupid whining, EU should just build more nuclear power plants, and everyone would be happy - more workplaces for engineers and cheaper power for all.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain daft.

The fuel your car drinks an ocean of - it's electricity is it? Of course it's not, it's a fossil fuel, fuel which is polluting the local air you breath with far nastier gunk than the vastly over-hyped CO2. I agree with your point re: nuclear power plants, but what has that to do with this?

If sports car 'A' can do 0-60 in 4.3 seconds with a top speed of 170mph on 12mpg, but identical sports car 'B' with an improved engine does 0-60 in 4.3 with a top speed of 170 - but on 20mpg - then sports car 'B' is simply a better car. If you can do the same job with less expenditure, (energy, cost, or both) then it's an improvement. It's not a question of doing less, it's just finding ways to do the same, (or better) more effectively.

Greater efficiency is always better.

Saving between 5 watts idle to 32 watts load in one machine is almost negligible, but, multiply it by 10-20 million machines nationally, by hundreds of millions of machines globally - it becomes significant.

You shouldn't have to be a lentil eating tree-hugger to see that...
Pete J 18th March 2010, 23:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew8200m
I ran a review for some low volt stuff on another site... ll look for some screenies of an OC.
Andy
EDIT
http://www.upload3r.com/serve/180310/1268941067.jpg
http://www.upload3r.com/serve/180310/1268941094.jpg
1.35v 1600mhz (8-8-8-24) clocked in a 1.6v 2006mhz (10-9-9-27)
rather good really :)
Thanking you! Mmm, cheap 2000MHz.
Cyberpower-UK 19th March 2010, 11:19 Quote
Can you repeat the tests with LinX as it will load up pretty much all your memory rather than the paltry amount Prime Blend uses. It's far better for testing memory overclocks.
andrew8200m 19th March 2010, 12:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberpower-UK
Can you repeat the tests with LinX as it will load up pretty much all your memory rather than the paltry amount Prime Blend uses. It's far better for testing memory overclocks.

That at me mate??

If so thats 50 instances of IBT max mem stable. didnt try any more as I figured that would about do it..

Andy
TheUn4seen 19th March 2010, 20:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
I'm sorry, but that's just plain daft.

The fuel your car drinks an ocean of - it's electricity is it? Of course it's not, it's a fossil fuel, fuel which is polluting the local air you breath with far nastier gunk than the vastly over-hyped CO2. I agree with your point re: nuclear power plants, but what has that to do with this?

If sports car 'A' can do 0-60 in 4.3 seconds with a top speed of 170mph on 12mpg, but identical sports car 'B' with an improved engine does 0-60 in 4.3 with a top speed of 170 - but on 20mpg - then sports car 'B' is simply a better car. If you can do the same job with less expenditure, (energy, cost, or both) then it's an improvement. It's not a question of doing less, it's just finding ways to do the same, (or better) more effectively.

Greater efficiency is always better.

Saving between 5 watts idle to 32 watts load in one machine is almost negligible, but, multiply it by 10-20 million machines nationally, by hundreds of millions of machines globally - it becomes significant.

You shouldn't have to be a lentil eating tree-hugger to see that...


I know it's not the best place for that, but I'll answer anyway.

The faster we burn all fossil fuel available the better, simply because oil companies will have less and less power and people will be forced to find better alternatives - mainly electricity. And that is quite easily available in any amount, even if expensive now.
And I know that oil has a ton of other uses besides being a fuel, but being so dependent on one thing puts too much power in too few hands (ie americans "liberating" anyone who has some oil left).

And while I completely agree with engine efficiency argument, life without my 5.7l V8 HEMI would be more boring. And I will not sacrifice this pleasure just because some Greenpeace punks get paid to go around screaming "OMG, Global Warming will kill us", despite the fact that scientific evidence begs to differ.
John_T 20th March 2010, 09:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUn4seen
The faster we burn all fossil fuel available the better, simply because oil companies will have less and less power and people will be forced to find better alternatives...

Wow, now there's an interesting logical train of thought! I should try that on my alcoholic friend - I'll get him to drink so much beer and vodka that the landlords will hold less sway over him and he'll start craving a nice cup of tea... :)

You're right though, this isn't really the place for this kind of discussion.

I just think greater efficiency is a good thing in general, not so much from a moral point of view, ("We need to save the world!") but purely from an intellectual standpoint - ie, if I can do the exact same task, but with less energy/cheaper/faster/all of the above, then that to me is beneficial and something I should do.

I think the world of computing is pretty obsessive about efficiency too, as chips get smaller, faster, better, less hungry - so this RAM is really just another small step forwards in the ongoing trend, and one which will no doubt be copied and then bettered over time.

If you don't agree that's fair enough - I can agree to disagree if you can...
Skiddywinks 20th March 2010, 18:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUn4seen
The faster we burn all fossil fuel available the better, simply because oil companies will have less and less power and people will be forced to find better alternatives...

Wow, now there's an interesting logical train of thought! I should try that on my alcoholic friend - I'll get him to drink so much beer and vodka that the landlords will hold less sway over him and he'll start craving a nice cup of tea... :)

I just think greater efficiency is a good thing in general, not so much from a moral point of view, ("We need to save the world!") but purely from an intellectual standpoint - ie, if I can do the exact same task, but with less energy/cheaper/faster/all of the above, then that to me is beneficial and something I should do.

I think the world of computing is pretty obsessive about efficiency too, as chips get smaller, faster, better, less hungry - so this RAM is really just another small step forwards in the ongoing trend, and one which will no doubt be copied and then bettered over time.

If you don't agree that's fair enough - I can agree to disagree if you can...

To be fair, I rarely come across two opinions in an argument that I both agree with. Both have there merits as far as I can see. Although, we can always make more alcohol :P
Quote:
You're right though, this isn't really the place for this kind of discussion.

Yeh, sorry -_-

More on topic, I recently managed to finally get a i5-750 to go with the i55 Sabretooth I won from Asus, so I will give this LoVo RAM a shot, and compare it too some 1.65v sticks in terms of CPU overclockability.
javaman 21st March 2010, 02:15 Quote
I think we should look at effiency from another view point. How much is Britain spending on importing gas/oil? TBH who cares about the enviroment but think of all the money out of your pockets going to the oil companies who have a strangle over the country. If Russia was to shut down a pipeline what effect would that have? Thats the reason I support such Investment in greener technology, if it means that the country looses less money and gains some sort of self sufficency surely thats a better reason over saving the enviroment?
bulldogjeff 27th March 2010, 13:42 Quote
I think the general opinion here is what happens when it's over clocked.As most of us on here will be cranking everything up ,power savings dont really come into the equation, this stuff will obviously work well in main stream pc and htpc's....But if it can be run at lower voltages and overclocked it'll be a winner less heat etc........I think the bit tech boys need to test this ram to destruction and see what happens....over to you boys....lol
maxmax80 12th April 2010, 14:23 Quote
Hi!

I'm Max from Italy!

I have intel cpu sk775 / 1333 mhz (bus speed) / 9 (bus ratio)

I buy kingston LoVo and I want to put it on my next 775 mobo

mine is a risk 'cause LoVo born for P55 but I want try to put kingston on P45 (for intel officially support 1066 ram but mobo productors speak only about FSB...) or X48 chipset

I found MSI P45 DIAMOND and DFI UT X48-T3RS and both models can go down under 1.2volt Vram

do you think P45 or X48 have the same probability to drive (or not to drive) kingston correctly?

thanks

max
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums