Read the review, do not look at the score. It's what I do, because all TPU scores are inflated. OR, you can see 70% as 0.5 stars and 100% as three stars.
I did read the review, but I don't have a smile on my face.
From what I gather based on the response of others here and other forums, it looks like a lot of enthusiasts are very unhappy with the latest "media review coverage". This is not journalism. These are advertorials disguised as product reviews. Here is my main critique.
Given a price point of USD $2000, or perhaps more likely EUR €900,
- it is only 8 GB of memory
- performance at stock is well below DDR3-2133 kits, overclocked it is not faster across the board
- the praised overclocking potential has not been tested or verified
- the packaging is DDR3-1600 grade
The author uses games to benchmark the product. Obviously, the conclusion of this review should have been to buy a GTX Titan instead. Also, why is the editor's choice award not given to that DDR3-2133C9 kit? It's a fraction of the price and it can deliver nearly the same performance as this luxurious kit?!
We can not blame memory vendors for releasing this kind of over-priced, under-whelming performance kits. They have directors and managers in charge who decide whether it is economically smart to invest resources in hand-picking ICs for this type of memory. The main task of media and reviewers is to inform their readers, and make a correct analysis. For this price, gamers and overclockers can buy better hardware that will make them happier. Yes, even overclockers. I see some people justify this kit as being in demand for high speed records - well, that is not true. Only for memory frequency validations, single sided MFR memory is of any relevance. For performance benchmarking purposes, it is useless.
This is a press release in the form of a product review.
Congratulations(?).