• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO DDR4 4000 MHz

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
Corsair's latest entry into RGB memory is their Vengeance PRO series, a kit supporting iCUE, which is Corsair's RGB lighting control system. This isn't just any RGB memory, though; the Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO series is built for serious overclocking too!

Show full review
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
However, these are OVERCLOCKING modules, and those timings are just a starting point for these sticks to be so capable in the first place. Once you are ready, you can tighten up the timings and boost the voltage and improve the performance these sticks have on offer. Corsair pretty much expects you to do so <snip> There's definite overhead built right into these modules, but how much is really all down to luck.

I don't understand. This may well possible, but if you're going to include this point in any review surely you need to show that you've verified it, or at least qualify it properly as a likelihood rather than a certainty?
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
I don't understand. This may well possible, but if you're going to include this point in any review surely you need to show that you've verified it, or at least qualify it properly as a likelihood rather than a certainty?
Results aren't guaranteed, so no, I'm not required but I can understand why you might want to see that. Corsair has plans for 4600 MHz sticks according to their website, but currently the 4000 MHz ones that I have here are the top-bin set, so will offer the best results right now. There are also only certain memory ICs that are capable of reaching these 4000 MHz clocks, which does pretty much guarantee how these sticks will clock up to their absolute maximum. I am not using a pre-binned 8700K for testing memory right now... I'm using an i5-8400, which may play a role in this as well. I may hit my CPU's limit before the stick's limit... in fact, that's pretty much guaranteed.

So why would I show my CPU's limit in a memory review?


Or, rather, if you are offering to provide about 50 CPUs for me to bin to find the best for memory clocking, I'll gladly undertake showing that. That's just how I roll. :roll:Back and forth, never stopping. :laugh:

Motherboard and CPU play significant roles in DDR4 memory overclocking, too. Motherboard is so huge in that, it's actually very disappointing.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
Because you have just, on behalf of a memory manufacturer, made a specific statement that "there is definite overhead built into these modules", without showing that you have taken any steps to actually be sure this is the case - or even explaining why you believe this to be the case.

Even if there is another reason beyond testing why you believe that to be so, the lack of any such explanation or testing within the article sets my alarm bells ringing.

Edit - as for your edited in comment about testing 50 CPUs - exactly what is the point you are making here? To me this is simply an admission that this review was undertaken without a suitably rigorous testing methodology to be able to verify the claims made as factual within the review.

If you can't verify it, don't present it as fact. If you suspect it to be the case for other reasons and want to make the point, explain those reasons in order to make the point. Anything else frankly comes off as untrustworthy, its really that simple.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
Even if there is another reason beyond testing why you believe that to be so, the lack of any such explanation or testing within the article sets my alarm bells ringing.
You're paranoid then. I've been doing this too long to make statements I can't back up with results. :p It's purely done to tempt people like you, because I enjoy the discussions.

So, how can I verify this without showing results? It's disclosed right on the stick itself, by Corsair. Check the pictures...

Edit - as for your edited in comment about testing 50 CPUs - exactly what is the point you are making here? To me this is simply an admission that this review was undertaken without a suitably rigorous testing methodology to be able to verify the claims made as factual within the review.

If you can't verify it, don't present it as fact. If you suspect it to be the case for other reasons and want to make the point, explain those reasons in order to make the point. Anything else frankly comes off as untrustworthy, its really that simple.

OK, so you are clearly not into overclocking memory. I am, have been for well over a decade. That's kind of what got me the job here at TPU. So, when you go deep into memory overclocking, what you find is that certain memory chips, combined with certain PCBs, give the same results, within a few MHz, and that generally speaking, there is a specific range within which an IC will fail. Some brands openly disclose IC information, like Corsair does. Some brands do not, and directly ask me to not discuss which IC is used, as they may change what they use over time. IC information is critical when you start to really push memory... it tells you how to adjust the timings. You see, overclocking memory isn't about guessing. There's a formula to timings, that changes based on IC behavior, so you need to know the IC to get the most out of a kit. Or you waste time playing with things to figure out the IC type... and then you roll the formula.

But this is a Corsair kit, and they openly disclose IC type on every stick. this stick says v4.31... that's Samsung B-Die ICs, the best of the best when it comes to memory overclocking. The 5500 MHz sticks shown at Computex? Made with these same chips. I don't need to verify anything here... it's been done already by users the world over. you don't need to take my word for it... you just need to know what you're talking about. That doesn't mean these sticks will do 5500 MHz... but they definitely can get much higher than 4000 MHz. Heck, they are 4000 Mhz @ 1.35V, and will probably like eating up to 2.0 V or maybe 2.2V...

As to needing many CPUs to test memory properly for overclocking? That's how it's done at the top end. This should be any surprise, and the fact you seem surprised tells me you're just complaining here for the sake of complaining, but I can use that as a way to educate some readers here in the comment section. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
You're paranoid then. I've been doing this too long to make statements I can't back up with results. :p It's purely done to tempt people like you, because I enjoy the discussions.

So, how can I verify this without showing results? It's disclosed right on the stick itself, by Corsair.
This is a statement you can't back up with a result? I mean, the statement is there is definite overclocking headroom in these sticks.

Where is the result that backs it up? Unless you're going to make some sort of point about how XMP is technically an overclock there is no such result in the review.

As for Corsair making a statement about overclocking these sticks, by all means, please do point me to exactly where "On the sticks themselves" they make any claim that the sticks can "definitely" run at tighter timings or higher clocks. You have some nice shiny photos wherein I did not spot any such claim on the sticks. Or the box, and Corsairs product page only mentions "Carefully screened ICs for extended overclocking potential." - however the same page repeatedly describes the sticks as "Overclocked" already for obvious reasons of not legally promising greater than advertised performance.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
2,707 (0.76/day)
Location
On The Highway To Hell \m/
No. It's because you're a shill. And although you constantly go on and on about how good whatever RAM you're reviewing is at "overclocking", you NEVER provide ANY evidence of it. And you think we're stupid enough to not know why. Like I said. You're a shill. Too afraid to expose the true capabilities of the products from the companies who pay your bills. Oh you claim you're not. I heard all that. And that if anything it's worse for you if you say things that are too good about a product. Next it will be there's no way to say anything good or bad without pissing somebody off. Wait...no you won't. That's too close to doing the right thing.

Look...stable with whatever volts doesn't mean shit. It's actually a bad thing. Those of us who actually overclock things know the bullshit that is "ASIC quality" for what it is. Lower volts for whatever clocks means it won't overclock for shit compared to of chip that needs more volts for the same clocks. So what you're really advertising to me is how piss poor these sticks are likely to "overclock". If they'll even do more than 4000MHz at all.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
I'm well aware of everything you edited in about memory over clocking, Cadaveca, with the exception of how Corsair disclose IC type.

With that said though - the reason they do that in such a coded way is so that they can if needed change the IC used with an inferior quality one that still meets quoted specs. Its a meaningless "statement" about the chips over clocking potential once you bear that in mind. Not to mention - I can tell you that certain serial number ranges of the old Logitech G400 are better for gaming because they don't have any prediction or inbuilt acceleration. Those serial numbers are right on the box.

Does that then mean that Logitech were advertising or guaranteeing no prediction on the G400? No, of course not, it just so happened that with enough research a consumer could find out extra detail about the product that mattered to them.

But this quote here - "I can use that as a way to educate some readers here in the comment section. Thanks!"

You should be doing that in the damned review, otherwise WHAT IS IT FOR? (Or should I ask who it is for?)
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
No. It's because you're a shill.

Ha! I wish I was. I mean, I've had an open offer for people to take my review job... nobody ever does it. Like please, go ahead... and then tell me I pay bills doing this and am a shill. LOL. You can find the link to apply via the Contact Us section.

Look...stable with whatever volts doesn't mean shit. It's actually a bad thing. Those of us who actually overclock things know the bullshit that is "ASIC quality" for what it is. Lower volts for whatever clocks means it won't overclock for shit compared to of chip that needs more volts for the same clocks. So what you're really advertising to me is how piss poor these sticks are likely to "overclock". If they'll even do more than 4000MHz at all.

WHUT. I have no idea what you're talking about here... ASIC quality is a GPU thing, not memory. I have time for a discussion... but lets use the right terms first, so we are on the same page? talking different languages will get us nowhere.

Samsung B-Die chips scale really well under voltage. Proven by the pro clockers... just check HWBOT. How high will you get? It varies... so why would what I got matter?


I'm well aware of everything you edited in about memory over clocking, Cadaveca.

If you knew that, then why did you ask the original question? HRm….:pimp:

But this quote here - "I can use that as a way to educate some readers here in the comment section. Thanks!"

You should be doing that in the damned review, otherwise WHAT IS IT FOR? (Or should I ask who it is for?)

Why, when I can do both?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
Why, when I can do both?
The answer to that is very simple. Because by burying this discussion in the comments and not the articles (If anyone takes issue with the claim at all), the article serves its purpose as an advertisement much more effectively and none of the points being raised in this thread will be seen by the average consumer - even one that knows their onions, as they are unlikely to click into the thread.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
The answer to that is very simple. Because by burying this discussion in the comments and not the articles (If anyone takes issue with the claim at all), the article serves its purpose as an advertisement much more effectively and none of the points being raised in this thread will be seen by the average consumer - even one that knows their onions, as they are unlikely to click into the thread.
Hmm, that's actually a good point. But it doesn't change the fact that these sticks are made with Samsung B-die (which can clock much further than 4000 MHz in almost every instance, it's why people are asking for B-die for Ryzen too..), and that the IC type is disclosed right on the label... and because of that, I can claim it goes higher easily.

You guys always make me laugh. I include overclocking results, people complain that maybe I got a hand-picked set, and retail won't clock the same. Don't include results, people complain. You do understand you're asking for a bunch of pictures? Like a picture from the internet has any real validity... I mean, I cannot stop grinning. Such a riot.

I used to do the overclock testing and posting pictures. I do it from time to time these days, but like once in 20 reviews, because people complain that our results are cherry-picked because we get our samples direct from the product maker. Sure, that's possible, so let's just get rid of it...

But I still play with memory every day. I'm still gonna overclock the crap out of this stuff just because it was free? I'm not going to give specifics... it's either.. it clocked good, or not at all, or reasonably... you should be able to tell what that all means if you pay attention.... or so I thought.

So let me think on this a bit. How do we remove cherry-picking (because that definitely happens still), but still give actual useful information?

I mean, for memory overclock.. what's an overclock? Pushing that 1.9V+? Or do we go by Intel's rated XMP max of 1.5V?

Want a review that takes very kit and focuses only on overclocking?

I can do it all... no problem. but you know, there needs to be a reason other than you just being uneasy... because I know I'm honest. :p I don't care if you think I am or not... heh.

I mean, I barely paly games these days... too busy playing with memory. It's kinda stupid, but I really like testing memory. Just like I like RGB stuff... play more you say? ...uh...do you know what you're asking for?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
2,181 (0.51/day)
Location
Deez Nutz, bozo!
System Name Rainbow Puke Machine :D
Processor Intel Core i5-11400 (MCE enabled, PL removed)
Motherboard ASUS STRIX B560-G GAMING WIFI mATX
Cooling Corsair H60i RGB PRO XT AIO + HD120 RGB (x3) + SP120 RGB PRO (x3) + Commander PRO
Memory Corsair Vengeance RGB RT 2 x 8GB 3200MHz DDR4 C16
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX2060 Twin Fan 6GB GDDR6 (Stock)
Storage Corsair MP600 PRO 1TB M.2 PCIe Gen4 x4 SSD
Display(s) LG 29WK600-W Ultrawide 1080p IPS Monitor (primary display)
Case Corsair iCUE 220T RGB Airflow (White) w/Lighting Node CORE + Lighting Node PRO RGB LED Strips (x4).
Audio Device(s) ASUS ROG Supreme FX S1220A w/ Savitech SV3H712 AMP + Sonic Studio 3 suite
Power Supply Corsair RM750x 80 Plus Gold Fully Modular
Mouse Corsair M65 RGB FPS Gaming (White)
Keyboard Corsair K60 PRO RGB Mechanical w/ Cherry VIOLA Switches
Software Windows 11 Professional x64 (Update 23H2)
how can you give a negative for it's RGB LED features when this kit's main selling point is those lights? o_O also, not all 4GHz kits with RGB LED comes cheap unless there's another brand you have in mind that compete with Corsair's offering on an even playing field...
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
Hmm, that's actually a good point. But it doesn't change the fact that these sticks are made with Samsung B-die (which can clock much further than 4000 MHz in almost every instance, it's why people are asking for B-die for Ryzen too..), and that the IC type is disclosed right on the label... and because of that, I can claim it goes higher easily.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the closest any reviewer will ever get to admitting their review is an advertisement.

Anyway, Cadaveca, it's trivially simple to satisfy all comers here.

1 - If based on specs alone it is *actually valid* to consider a kit to have been designed for the purpose of overclocking, then state this and the rationale within the review. Conversely, if a kit's marketing mentions overclocking and you discover that it's actually micron ICs in dual rank on the DIMM, state something like "While overclocking is part of this kit's marketing and branding, it's significant to note that the ICs used here are micron, arranged in dual rank - this may limit overclocking headroom compared to kits based on single-rank Samsung B-die"

2 - In terms of overclocking, don't make claims like "definitely" at all - It's not possible to be definite about overclocking and the fact you said you were definite about it, was one of the items that raised the biggest red flag for me, and probably most pointed to "shill" for MrGenius - Instead, point to sources of testing data and state "Kits with these specifications or similar have been seen to achieve <frequency> <timings> by <sources>, and while this is not reflective of all sticks due to the nature of overclocking, I think most customers can expect to see headroom above the included XMP profile of these sticks"

3 - If you're going to do something like in point 2, or if you're going to overclock yourself and show those results, the single biggest thing you can do to show consumers and the readers of your review that you're not shilling, is to have a bolded disclaimer at the top of the relevant page, which reads "Overclocking is often a design consideration when manufacturers make products, however it is not guaranteed and not all examples of a specific product will be able to overclock well, or at all. For more information, please see <link to technical article about the nature of the silicon lottery, INCLUDING a relevant paragraph, front and center, on the risks of tech reviewers being given golden samples or cherrypicked items.>"

It won't get rid of people accusing you of being given cherrypicked samples, but it will at least give you the ability to say "There's nothing we can do about the types of samples manufacturers send us, but this is why we explain in every review that our results may not be representative, and host an article that explains this, which we link to in these reviews so that people can understand our vulnerability to this kind of manipulation and hopefully avoid being fooled any more than we might have been"

This would also be very relevant to CPU reviews - in fact probably moreso, as there is a reliable, mass-tested source of data about overclocking CPUs - Siliconlottery. AdoredTV's recent "con-lake confirmed" video relied on this data for it's conclusions about Intel's 8700K press sampling for example.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
521 (0.20/day)
Damn dude; it's okay to give feedback, but to write that much because he neglected to do the overclock test, I think you're overreacting a bit.

You've written so much stuff I skipped half of it.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
Damn dude; it's okay to give feedback, but to write that much because he neglected to do the overclock test, I think you're overreacting a bit.

You've written so much stuff I skipped half of it.

Do as you wish, I would much rather give a lengthy but complete response that an idiot won't read, as opposed to a short and incomplete response that an idiot will misinterpret.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
Damn dude; it's okay to give feedback, but to write that much because he neglected to do the overclock test, I think you're overreacting a bit.

You've written so much stuff I skipped half of it.
He's not complaining about that. He's complaining that I said there is considerable overclocking headroom, but don't have a screenshot of it.

yet full disclosure, he posted a thread, I disputed much of his point, and now he's here. :D

I didn't NEGLECT anything. I did not put those screenshots into the review (I did do this testing and do have screenshots) on purpose. I mean... read my signature here. I do things like this all the time, on purpose, with a clear goal in mind.

And see below:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the closest any reviewer will ever get to admitting their review is an advertisement.

Anyway, Cadaveca, it's trivially simple to satisfy all comers here.



2 - In terms of overclocking, don't make claims like "definitely" at all - It's not possible to be definite about overclocking and the fact you said you were definite about it, was one of the items that raised the biggest red flag for me, and probably most pointed to "shill" for MrGenius - Instead, point to sources of testing data and state "Kits with these specifications or similar have been seen to achieve <frequency> <timings> by <sources>, and while this is not reflective of all sticks due to the nature of overclocking, I think most customers can expect to see headroom above the included XMP profile of these sticks"
Again, you're not telling me anything I don't know, but none of this is justification for me to do so. I'm not going to argue your points... they are definitely valid, but I'm not every other reviewer.

Is a review marketing? You bet, each and every one of them. That's how we get samples.. companies write this of as a marketing expense. But I'm not about to post stuff in a review if I don't think it's relevant (and to me overclocking is NEVER relevant), but sometimes people mistake my comments in a review conclusion as something they are not. Yes, I wrote these sticks have considerable overclocking headroom (and they do), and no, I do not have screenshots in the review, but rather than making that comment to point out the ability of these sticks, that comment was made in reference to the ICs used to build this kit. This would make sense to someone that really knows about memory overclocking. I guess most do not. That's a valid criticism, but its also not going to make me post screenshots.


If overclocking is important to you, my reviews are NOT for you. If my comments about overclocking rile you up, you've missed that part of my review perspective. So I did neglect something, but not what you want it to be, unfortunately for you.

Not idiot, just lazy :rolleyes: But nicely said.
When people have nothing left to attack, they try character assassination. Its a funny thing most cannot help. Psych 101. :p
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
521 (0.20/day)
He's not complaining about that. He's complaining that I said there is considerable overclocking headroom, but don't have a screenshot of it.

yet full disclosure, he posted a thread, I disputed much of his point, and now he's here. :D

I didn't NEGLECT anything. I did not put those screenshots into the review (I did do this testing and do have screenshots) on purpose. I mean... read my signature here. I do things like this all the time, on purpose, with a clear goal in mind.

And see below:


Again, you're not telling me anything I don't know, but none of this is justification for me to do so. I'm not going to argue your points... they are definitely valid, but I'm not every other reviewer.

Is a review marketing? You bet, each and every one of them. That's how we get samples.. companies write this of as a marketing expense. But I'm not about to post stuff in a review if I don't think it's relevant (and to me overclocking is NEVER relevant), but sometimes people mistake my comments in a review conclusion as something they are not. Yes, I wrote these sticks have considerable overclocking headroom (and they do), and no, I do not have screenshots in the review, but rather than making that comment to point out the ability of these sticks, that comment was made in reference to the ICs used to build this kit. This would make sense to someone that really knows about memory overclocking. I guess most do not. That's a valid criticism, but its also not going to make me post screenshots.


If overclocking is important to you, my reviews are NOT for you. If my comments about overclocking rile you up, you've missed that part of my review perspective. So I did neglect something, but not what you want it to be, unfortunately for you.


When people have nothing left to attack, they try character assassination. Its a funny thing most cannot help. Psych 101. :p

Haaa the situation is clearer now thanks to your briefing. My mind is free of doubt.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
Is a review marketing? You bet, each and every one of them. That's how we get samples.. companies write this of as a marketing expense. But I'm not about to post stuff in a review if I don't think it's relevant (and to me overclocking is NEVER relevant), but sometimes people mistake my comments in a review conclusion as something they are not. Yes, I wrote these sticks have considerable overclocking headroom (and they do), and no, I do not have screenshots in the review, but rather than making that comment to point out the ability of these sticks, that comment was made in reference to the ICs used to build this kit.

1 - OK, it's a marketing expense. I don't dispute that. However there is a difference between reviews (which are marketing), and advertisements (which are also marketing). That fact should absolutely not affect the substance of any review. In fact, this is widely agreed upon - this is why Steam reviews clearly demarcate which reviews were left by players who recieved the game for free - Because that fact often leads to bias and it's in the interests of the consumer and a fair marketplace, to ensure that everyone is at least aware of it, even if bias cannot be eliminated entirely.

A company should not be able to send substandard product out into the wild as a marketing expense and expect to get a positive return on that expense simply because reviewers wish to continue receiving samples. Reviewers should have the backbone to serve the consumer with a warts-and-all appraisal of a product. Conversely, if a company is prepared to put their product where their mouth is by making good product, that's exactly the kind of thing that should be rewarded - something that relentlessly positive coverage of all products turns into a practical impossibility, by turning every review into the same meaningless shout of recommendation that nobody can or should take seriously.

Sadly, you have referenced again and again things like continued sampling. It really seems to be your primary concern that your relationship with these companies remains sunshine and roses - and I understand that, but I despise it.

2 - If overclocking is never relevant, don't mention it. Especially not in a review of a product where of all the existing marketing material, only one sentence of it explicitly mentions overclocking and not "overclocked" (as in factory overclocks).

3 - I am not at all asking for screenshots and it's your own particular variant of "character assassination" to misrepresent my argument that way. If you don't want to cover overclocking, then that's fine. But don't try to have your cake and eat it too - If you're going to make claims about a stick's overclocking ability you are expected to either verify them, explain them, or both. In this review you explained nothing, demonstrated nothing, and claimed everything. All the relevant information that could have at least made your overclocking claims understandable without actual testing, you ultimately provided over the course of this thread, defending yourself, and not in the review, where it would have actually served and educated the consumer.

Not least, I pointed out a reason why Corsair codifies the IC information on their sticks the way they do and that has been ignored - despite the fact that it has actually become a marketing feature to guarantee Samsung memory ICs, due to the fact so many memory brands will gladly swap out Samsung B-Die for an inferior IC with less headroom, as long as they can still maintain the advertised XMP profile. For purposes of stock clocked operation that is, naturally, irrelevant, but for the purposes of overclocking, it is almost the entire relevant point.

I have no doubt you're aware of the latter point here of course, which is why your review studiously avoids even using the word "Samsung" at any point, despite the fact you have so HEAVILY relied on explaining Samsung B-Die in this thread.

Once again - If this information you're so proud of being able to explain were in the fucking review, there'd really be no issue here. It is conspicuous by it's absence and I do not believe this is an accident. You are likely well aware that Corsair enjoy having that freedom to switch to a cheaper IC if one becomes available for this product, and do not wish to risk your future interactions with them by throwing them under the bus. To me, that's simply a betrayal of the consumer.

Of course, you are absolutely welcome to claim that this last point is wrong and that you merely forgot to illuminate the consumer about the wondrous benefits of Samsung B-Die - but I would ask that if indeed you do want to claim I've made that assumption in error, you do the decent thing and add "Samsung B-Die" to some salient place in the review text, so that other poor souls don't make the same assumption.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
Sadly, you have referenced again and again things like continued sampling. It really seems to be your primary concern that your relationship with these companies remains sunshine and roses - and I understand that, but I despise it.
This is where your assumption is made incorrectly. I do reviews for a completely different purpose.

I didn't arrange this review... or any reviews right now. That's not how this works. If a brand doesn't like what I write... it's not me they talk to. I don't ask anyone for samples, either... I get asked if I want to do a review. That relationship you want to infer I want to maintain, doesn't exist here. I do not do this like most reviewers at other sites do things.

I have no doubt you're aware of the latter point here of course, which is why your review studiously avoids even using the word "Samsung" at any point, despite the fact you have so HEAVILY relied on explaining Samsung B-Die in this thread.

Once again - If this information you're so proud of being able to explain were in the fucking review, there'd really be no issue here. It is conspicuous by it's absence and I do not believe this is an accident. You are likely well aware that Corsair enjoy having that freedom to switch to a cheaper IC if one becomes available for this product, and do not wish to risk your future interactions with them by throwing them under the bus. To me, that's simply a betrayal of the consumer.

Of course, you are absolutely welcome to claim that this last point is wrong and that you merely forgot to illuminate the consumer about the wondrous benefits of Samsung B-Die - but I would ask that if indeed you do want to claim I've made that assumption in error, you do the decent thing and add "Samsung B-Die" to some salient place in the review text, so that other poor souls don't make the same assumption.

Again, this is shown on the picture of the product label. I do expect my readers to know a bit and to do some research, and I do want my claims refuted. You are very right in that I avoided using the word Samsung in this review. Good catch. But again, it's not for the reasons you want to imply.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
This is where your assumption is made incorrectly. I do reviews for a completely different purpose.

I didn't arrange this review... or any reviews right now. That's not how this works. If a brand doesn't like what I write... it's not me they talk to. I don't ask anyone for samples, either... I get asked if I want to do a review. That relationship you want to infer I want to maintain, doesn't exist here. I do not do this like most reviewers at other sites do things.
Then of course there is nothing in the way of you updating your article with a clarification that despite no testing being done, the SAMSUNG B-DIES that MUST be on these sticks to reach the quoted performance, are usually capable of more and thus your confidence in their headroom. After all, you're beholden to no-one and surely will ruffle no feathers by more clearly making the same point you've been making in this thread.

Go on. Dare you.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
Then of course there is nothing in the way of you updating your article with a clarification that despite no testing being done, the SAMSUNG B-DIES that MUST be on these sticks to reach the quoted performance, are usually capable of more and thus your confidence in their headroom. After all, you're beholden to no-one and surely will ruffle no feathers by more clearly making the same point you've been making in this thread.

Go on. Dare you.
If you are a real enthusiast, you already know this. The idea that Samsung B-dies are the best, and nothing compares, has been a fact for a couple of years now. I'm done riding that hype train... it was me that started it by hyping G.Skill's 3200 MHz C14 sticks... almost two years ago now. Look at how popular those sticks are today... yeah, I'm taking credit for that.

Like, there's a reason I was able to give the ASRock X370 Taichi a 10/10... I had those kits in hand, and tested that board using the right kits, unlike every other reviewer at launch that used AMD-supplied garbage ram. When most reviewers can't even sort THAT out... don't talk to me about integrity of what I'm writing. There's a reason I can make such claims and not worry about it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
If you are a real enthusiast, you already know this. The idea that Samsung B-dies are the best, and nothing compares, has been a fact for a couple of years now. I'm done riding that hype train... it was me that started it by hyping G.Skill's 3200 MHz C14 sticks... almost two years ago now. Look at how popular those sticks are today... yeah, I'm taking credit for that.
Oh dear oh dear.

Your logic is becoming absurdly tortured at this point. At first you made the argument that these sticks overclocked well and you knew it and that's why you stated so in your review. Then you stated that people would accuse you of having cherry picked samples. Then you claimed that people in the know should already be aware of all this (in which case why are they reading your review, the spec sheet should more than suffice), and now you're making the claim that actually, its just that you got bored of reporting on a "hype train" and decided to start omitting the facts that comprised it. Oh, and at one point you tried to argue that over clocking was "irrelevant" despite the fact you put it into your review as a significant point in the first place.

Its almost as if there's a much more obvious and simple explanation for all of this twisting and turning you're doing to avoid naming Samsung in the article, to avoid providing numbers that people may read and expect are representative, to avoid explaining how over clocking numbers cannot ever BE representative, or really do anything of service to any consumer that isn't already so well informed they don't need your review in the first place, rendering your only audience the exact kind of people that these omissions would help certain large businesses to more greatly profit from.
 
Last edited:

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.54/day)
Oh dear oh dear.

Your logic is becoming absurdly tortured at this point. At first you made the argument that these sticks overclocked well and you knew it and that's why you stated so in your review. Then you stated that people would accuse you of having cherry picked samples. Then you claimed that people in the know should already be aware of all this (in which case why are they reading your review, the spec sheet should more than suffice), and now you're making the claim that actually, its just that you got bored of reporting on a "hype train" and decided to start omitting the facts that comprised it. Oh, and at one point you tried to argue that over clocking was "irrelevant" despite the fact you put it into your review as a significant point in the first place.

Its almost as if there's a much more obvious and simple explanation for all of this twisting and turning you're doing to avoid naming Samsung in the article, to avoid providing numbers that people may read and expect are representative, to avoid explaining how over clocking numbers cannot ever BE representative, or really do anything of service to any consumer that isn't already so well informed they don't need your review in the first place, rendering your only audience the exact kind of people that these omissions would help certain large businesses to more greatly profit from.
It's not tortured at all. you just simply don't see how you could review something without benchmarks. that's great. I'm here to show you how.

So, performance is one thing. That's covered by the benchmarks. But 4000 MHz isn't crazy-fast these days, so this kit isn't about top-end performance anyway. It'd be spec'd as a 4500 or 4600 MHz kit if that was the case. Memory speed doesn't have a very large impact on system perforamcne beyond a certain point, anyway. We've already coverd this topic for this platform in a separate review. So, what else does this kit offer? what makes it actually good? That's the conclusion of my review... the very last line... what makes these sticks great is how well the are integrated into Corsair's iCUE software, and what THAT offers. Everything else plays second fiddle. I'm not reviewing this products performance.. I'm reviewing the EXPERIENCE you get using these items. That's really why I avoid mentioning ICs, and overclocking specifics, and why I've posted memory reviews without a single benchmark at all... what I'm looking at is something completely different than what YOU are looking for. You'll find what YOU want on other sites, once they get their own reviews of this kit done. I know they have their kits...

And beucase other sites have these kits, THEY will cover those specifics for you. It's really not needed for me to do so, unless I had the only review ever of this kit, and I was NOT the first to post one. You see, we aren't competing with our opinions compared to other sites; we are all working together. I'm sorry this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but the things you expect of me just aren't realistic. Other people do that, yep.. and they will continue to do so. I do something DIFFERENT.

that's what we do here at TPU... something different. We draw our traffic for something else.. reviews aren't the end-all-be-all. We are here because of GPU-Z, and W1zzard. no tech site offers that sort of thing, along with reviews. But don't get it twisted.. what I do really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. You can argue your point here all you want... it won't change what I do, nor will I see what I have done in my review as wrong... it was INTENTIONAL, and it wasn't nefarious, or done for the sake of earning a dollar. I'd still be doing board reviews if I wanted money... and the system reviews, CPU reviews, and all the other stuff I used to cover that I gave to other people to do. All your points simply bolster my stance, from where I sit. I refuse to create an echo-chamber where all I do is what every other site does.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
595 (0.23/day)
So in simple terms the argument you just made is that the performance in overclocking of these sticks is utterly irrelevant, despite the fact you've spent an entire thread arguing that you can back up your claims about overclocking, mentioned it and features relating to it on multiple pages of the review, listed it as a pro point in your conclusion and spent an entire paragraph of said conclusion extolling the sticks overclocking virtues.

Instead, you would like us all to believe that you never had any intention of making any claims about these things. Immediately after making some big claims about these things.

What's really sad about this is how completely your own first post in this thread contradicts you, glossing over the iCUE integration in order to extol how these sticks are for "Serious overclocking too!" (Exclamation point your own).

Corsair's latest entry into RGB memory is their Vengeance PRO series, a kit supporting iCUE, which is Corsair's RGB lighting control system. This isn't just any RGB memory, though; the Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO series is built for serious overclocking too!
 
Top