If you have two sticks of ddr, one A and one B (A and B are of equal size). Lets assume the fsb runs at C mhz. Any data to be loaded to ram would be D. Any data written to A is also written to B. Now offset dimm B acess by a quarter of a clock such that instead of A and B being read/written to twice a clock cycle, A would be read from, then B, then A, then B, so on and so on. This would increase any latency by a quarter of a clock cycle, but it would double the effective FREQUENCY of the 'ram raid', making your old 1600 (200mhz) able to work clock for clock with a 3200+ (or other 200fsb cpu, like the newer p4s and the a64s) with a little latency added. This idea greatly differs from dual channel because of a few things. Both 'ram raid' and dual channel ram double the bandwidth, but 'ram raid' doubles frequency while dual channel doubles bit width. 'Ram raid' halves memory capacity, while dual channel does not affect it. Dual channel does not add latency to the ram read/writes while 'ram raid' does. Dual channel does not require identically sized dimms, 'ram raid does'. Dual channel greatly affects overclockability by making the chipset work harder, limiting fsb. 'Ram raid would greatly help overclocking because the memory would be effectively doubled. I think the idea would be good overall, but would make using it more expensive ( you have to buy 2x the ram!!, but you get 2x the speed) but it is worth it because 512megs of pc4400 (cl3)can easily cost you 150 usd in one dimm, while you can get 2*512s of lower ram (2700 or 3200) for cheaper, with added latency (it would still be lower even if it is cl2.5 ram because it would end up being cl2.75, yet at pc6400 or 5400. seems like an impressive performance boost for a cheaper product!!! the idea could be scalabel to mor than 2 dimms, but that wold make for some pretty complex clcok generators