Thanks guys - I'd forgotten about the Crucial memory tool: guess it's the only way to be safe.
If I may take Imsabbel's comments, my problem (& I can only write as I find) has been that I've had a relatively small number of motherboards in recent years but a much larger number of RAM types due to problems with compatability. Obviously I only buy RAM at the stated speeds (i.e. if the board supports PC6400 I don't buy PC8000 & then try to underclock it: I only buy what the board supports).
What I'm trying to ensure is that, if my board supports RAM at x speed & I buy RAM at x speed, then it should work, correct? We would all think so, & indeed, that is how it should be; but that is not my experience.
The offending RAM has then been placed in the PCs of friends where it has, on the most part, worked. Try RMAing the RAM under those circumstances. This is not faulty RAM; this is simply incompatability, something which should not happen in this day & age. I'm then stuck with RAM I can't use & have to E-bay it at a loss to someone else who then (hopefully) won't have the same problem or I get an irrate customer knocking on my door in the early hours. I then have to take pot luck with more DDR2 800 from a different manufacturer.
qasdfdsaq makes a very good point: you do not expect to have to certify an mp3 player with headphones & you don't get approved SATA disks for certain motherboards etc, etc. But why are we in this position with RAM? The very existence of approved vendor lists surely acknowledges there is a problem. My point is, bearing in mind all of the RAM that's out there, why are these lists so short?
RAM incompatabilities do exist; Google for it. Having done so myself, perhaps I should be aiming my dissatisfaction at the chipset producers (read nVidia) & not the RAM co's as my last three mobos have had nVidia chipsets & they seem to be getting a reputation for hit & miss RAM support on the forums.
Anyway, just to wrap up, if all DDR 800 was the same (& I'm not just referring to CAS latencies here), what's with the very non-comimttal response from Saphire TS? Perhaps my reply was from the office wally