Corsair XMS4000 at 255FSB
 

Just benched some Corsair Twin-X4000 (2x512MB) on the IC7-G 2.4C at 255FSB 1:1 SPD timings are below. Voltages at Vcore 1.550, and VDIMM 2.8V.
I also have 4x256MB of the Twin-X4000 I'll be benching tonite. It did much better in the IC7-G then the IS7-E, and the 2.4C's from Malaysia continue to amaze me. This is my second one, and they just love 3.2GHz at default voltage. Coincidence? I think not.

Hehe, i foresee Liquid3D making a powerfull statement in the 4 vs 2 discussion (*) :D

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.html?i=1839
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00438/

probably 18 pages long :D

18 pages eh, that's funny and true. I'm trying to live by the proverb "A man can possess no greater talent, then to use one word in place of two" so perhaps it'll only be 9 pages.

Abit has stabbed me in my mechanical heart again with a BIOS my Grandma could write intoxicated. I've both the IC7-G, and IS7-E, and my illusions of 4GHz are being dispatched rapidly.

In so far as the 4 vs 2 argument, this depends of course on the MB per stick. I've had excellent results populating all four DIMM's with 256MB sticks, although 512MB modules obviously tax the system, from a basic power consumption stand-point.

I don't see how anyone can live with 512MB of memory, but with 256MB on graphics cards now, I guess it's fine. Overclockers love 512MB setups as they allow one to squeeze an extra 10MHz of performance. I refuse to digress, as it's aking to running async. What's the point? Why would anyone want to loose the bandwidth for the sake of an overclock. In this case I agree with Ed, Real World mean's realistic, and I can't relaistically do much with 512MB of RAM, especially when Bill Gates demands 256MB off the top.

Not able to work with 512mb or less?

You can close your apps with the little "x" in the upper right corner of your screen you know. :)

Your right, I should clarify. The software I'm running demands the memory. It's Parallel Distributive Processing software and the more RAM the better. But isn't that a rule of thumb? Sure you can get by with with 512MB, but why not have the extra there. so you don't have start, and re-start applications? This way you simply jump around using several programs simultaneosly, and this also lowers seek time for the HDD. I realize it's only a couple of seconds, but when programs start backing up, and freeze, you can loose stuff, or ven have to re-boot the system to remedy the problem, no?

I agree Liquid, I'd much rather have more than I need, it keeps my machine running happily now, and for a while into the future.

Plus, try running 3dsmax or Premiere with 512Mb RAM.

*OUCH*

Darn, i had to learn 512mb is not enough the hard way. :/

Try editing a 900mb large tiff image with 512mb ram... it takes 30minutes for one operation, while computers who can fit the picture intirely in the ram (2GB needed), can do the same operation in a matter of seconds. :s

Suddenly, i dream of having a Gigabyte 875P with 6*512mb ddr.... :D

hehe, I'd be willing to settle for an IBM big-Iron, should run Linux nicely methinks.:D

What's an IBM big-iron? The Supermicro X5DA8 can accomodate up to 12GB of ECC RAM. Now that's a lot of tomatoes.
It's a $628 Dual Xeon mobo. Schawing;
http://www.essencompu.com/nupplysingar.asp?ID=3424

2GB Registered ECC memory modules.
That alone should be an instant bankrupt case for me.
Let alone 6 of them coupled with this mobo and 2 xeons.
Guess we're not running that on a maxtor 40 either.