<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="HardwareAnalysis.Com" -->
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
    <channel rdf:about="">
        <title>Hardware Analysis - DDR400... rated at DDR200 ?</title>
        <description>Hardware Analysis Community Forums</description>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/</link>
        <image rdf:resource="/images/halogo.gif" />
       <dc:date>2009-11-23T13:00:55-05:00</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314262"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314253"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314247"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314214"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314204"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#0"/>
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>
    <image rdf:about="/images/halogo.gif">
        <title>Hardware Analysis</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/</link>
        <url>/images/halogo.gif</url>
    </image>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314262">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2005-08-19T05:28:54-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: DDR400... rated at DDR200 ?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314262</link>
        <description>The reason why is because the A64 has an issue with fully populated ram slotts, the most i have heard and read is it running no faster than PC 2700, aka 333, but tomshardware did say that when the memory controller was going on there 939 A64 that they where testing strange memory problems started showing up.</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314253">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2005-08-19T04:51:01-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Sean Costello</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: DDR400... rated at DDR200 ?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314253</link>
        <description>in some ways it is</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314247">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2005-08-19T04:25:04-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Meier Link</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: DDR400... rated at DDR200 ?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314247</link>
        <description>hmm is this a henderence on performance ? but thanks for answering been trying to figure it out for like the past week</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314214">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2005-08-19T02:49:37-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Sean Costello</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: DDR400... rated at DDR200 ?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314214</link>
        <description>makes sence, but wouldnt it be running at 2t?</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314204">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2005-08-19T02:37:47-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Adam Kolak</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: DDR400... rated at DDR200 ?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#314204</link>
        <description>If you have 4 sticks of ram, then thats right, because 4 sticks each run at 100mhz x 4 = 400.  Before you probalyl had 2 sticks so they each ran at 200mhz.  </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#0">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2005-08-19T02:30:44-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Meier Link</dc:creator>
        <title>DDR400... rated at DDR200 ?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/47850/#0</link>
        <description>OCZ4001024ELDPCE-k &amp;lt;--RAM  &lt;br /&gt;
MSI k8n Neo2 Plat. Bios 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had 1 gig of my RAM operating just fine, at 200mhz (2-3-2-5 1t) and so i decided to add another gig of the exact same ram.. however according to my bios and cpu-z.. my ram now is at 100 mhz (2-3-2-5 1t)  It is the exact same ram, so I am wondering if I am missing something and why my ram is now at ddr200 instead of ddr400 and is this hindering my performance? </description>
    </item>
</rdf:RDF>
