PC Perspective accused of violating journalistic ethics *Update 2 with PCPer reply*

[Razor01]

OH yeah conlake video Adored did, here is someone that actually tested it out, and Conlake is BS, it works as advertised.

 

 

See the difference of people that actually do the test vs people that pull random website's numbers together and try to figure out without the actual knowledge to make an accurate assessment of the situation?

[Notional]

20 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

OH yeah conlake video Adored did, here is someone that actually tested it out, and Conlake is BS, it works as advertised.

 

 

See the difference of people that actually do the test vs people that pull random website's numbers together and try to figure out without the actual knowledge to make an accurate assessment of the situation?

I don't see how that video disproves anything?

• The CPU was rushed. We know that for a fact.
• The CPU's cannot run within their TDP at boost speed. We also knew that, because Intel measures tdp very oddly compared to AMD.
• A lot of reviewers did run the CPU's with auto overclock (which both breaks the tdp and brings you into silicon lottery territory), even without knowing. That might not be Intel's fault, but the results are misleading none the less.

[Razor01]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

I don't see how that video disproves anything?

• The CPU was rushed. We know that for a fact.
• The CPU's cannot run within their TDP at boost speed. We also knew that, because Intel measures tdp very oddly compared to AMD.
• A lot of reviewers did run the CPU's with auto overclock (which both breaks the tdp and brings you into silicon lottery territory), even without knowing. That might not be Intel's fault, but the results are misleading none the less.

1)  Yes it was a paper launch, no big deal there, it happens at time, ask AMD about that for their graphics card launches......  Those circumstances are quite different because 8th gen Intel CPU's for OEM's didn't have a delay, that means Intel was focused on getting stock for OEM's.  AMD had stock issues with Ryzen too! The stock of Ryzen wasn't the greatest at launch either, it took a little time to get enough CPU's and definitely motherboards out there.

 

2) Yes they do, it was checked in that video I linked, they run at TDP at the boost clocks!  Intel's TDP is straight forward, Their TDP definition hasn't changed since Nehelam.

 

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/white-paper/resources-xeon-measuring-processor-power-paper.pdf

 

AMD's definition is the one that changed from Phenom which was the same/similar as Intel's, to BD's, to something different but closer to Intel's again with Ryzen

 

3) No they don't break the TDP definition, not sure where you got that from with auto overclocking they don't.  And any case similar to AMD's boost too

 

Just added the link for Intel's definition of TDP, its been there for many years and hasn't changed.

 

Here is anandtech's article about it too

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/2807/2

 

Its very straight forward

 

Quote

Intel's TDP is a "round up" average of power measurements of processor intensive benchmarks.

 

 

Here is Intel's Ark page for the 8700k

 

https://ark.intel.com/products/126684/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_70-GHz

 

what does it say, base clock @ 3.7 max boost with a single core boost of 4.7, if ya hover over the ? in the boost clock,  it say it, single core boost 4.7 max.  TDP is 95 watts, which Hardware Unboxed tested and it did hit those figures and with 4.3 ghz boost clock on all cores.  The only time the CPU didn't, is a crappy OEM build which has serious build quality issues or a CPU fan that was rated for lower TDP.  Simple, Intel's TDP definition hasn't changed and Coffee Lake fits into that definition.  The only time Intel's numbers didn't add up is because of the motherboard or build period.  That is not Intel's fault as Adored tried to put it, that is the OEM and or motherboard manufacture's fault.

 

Any case Adored did the something worse that what he accused PCper of doing LOL, He didn't check his facts, he pulled numbers out of other reviewers without understanding, each reviewer is using different methodologies so results CAN and WILL be different.  Yet he calls out those reviewers, and Intel saying he as right all along, yet he was wrong himself!  He is too full of himself to see where he went wrong, just a little test with a 8700k or any 8th gen processor for that matter would have given him the CORRECT information to make a better conclusion.

 

He can't take numbers across different tests and use them to push a conclusion.  This is the same problem he has done in numerous videos added to other even more gross errors, we don't know even need to get into his basic lack of knowledge of what he talks about yet.  Any idiot that has been looking at reviews over the years knows they can't take one reviewer's numbers and try to align them with another reviewer's numbers.  Too many variables to that.  Yet he did it with this video and people use it as a poster child of something he got right, when in fact he was wrong again?

 

I can't believe people actually take his word for it when he makes shit up all the time.  As I stated its all about Adored, he doesn't give a shit if he is correct, or wrong, as long as he gets his views, he is happy.  He doesn't care about the people that watch his shit, they can go make a fool of themselves as long as Adored gets his ad money or patreon money, that is all he cares about.  He doesn't care about journalistic ethics.  All he cares about is getting money.

 

He even stated it in one if his videos, if he doesn't get enough hits or donations, he has stop making videos, yet he makes 300 bucks an hour or something like that, both of those statements were in one of his videos.  To much BS.  He should rename his channel BSTV

[mr moose]

On 2/14/2018 at 2:37 AM, dalekphalm said:

Oh I see - I misinterpreted what @cj09beira and @Notional said - I thought it was still on the last page.

 

Yes, this is definitely much better. I would still prefer it to be at the top of the first page, but being at the bottom, before the buttons to move to the next page, is actually not bad.

If they are like me then they don't read the first page and just drop straight down to the list to go the benchmarks page.  I only read the initial page if I am interested in comparing their results to another reviewer or benchmark.   Which makes it a very good place to put it.

 

5 hours ago, Razor01 said:

SNIP

I'd give up, rational people know adoredtv is the supermarket tabloid of the internet, but you will never convince those who want to believe him.   Any one who ignores such glaring issues with consistency in data collection, ethics, etc is not going to be swayed by logic or reason.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 hours ago, Razor01 said:

OH yeah conlake video Adored did, here is someone that actually tested it out, and Conlake is BS, it works as advertised.

 

 

See the difference of people that actually do the test vs people that pull random website's numbers together and try to figure out without the actual knowledge to make an accurate assessment of the situation?

 

First thing the guy says: "we are investigating if the core i7 8700K reallly performs as advertised"...

 

No, it really isn't about "running tests vs. pulling random websites" (random websites = the websites you deem credible, so...): the difference is understanding what the "Con Lake" and "Con Lake con firmed" videos said and not understanding it. You don't seem to understand it, and the guy in the video doesn't seem to understand it either.

The whole point was about locked processors and H/B and OEM motherboards. This guy "tests" with an unlocked processor and Z motherboards (no other available to test.. .oh, wait, there are OEM boards, but the first thing the guy says is basically "LOL, no", essentially refusing to test anything of relevance). In other words: this video is utterly irrelevant for the argument in the "Con Lake" videos.

It is thus ironic that you chose to state it as "proper tests vs. pulling random webistes", when the original videos are based on actual tests by computerbase and information about turbo boost provided directly by intel, while you pull this random (i.e., not relevant to the arguments made by AdoredTV at all) video as if it was supposed to mean anything...

 

This is what actually happens: "attacks on computerbase" that never happen, "debunking videos" that don't even address the same topic at all... I'm all for having a critical view on things, but the first step before judging somethign is making sure one understands it.

You can remain skeptical until the lower end board arrive and allow for further testing, but everything we know so far points that expecting a locked Coffee Lake to run all day on all-core turbo on the non-OC boards was a little optimistic, if not reckless.

[mr moose]

I just can't believe with people like HU, pcper, Jayz2c, GN, (and probably more) having pointed out adored's conclusions and reasoning was simply wrong, yet people here still think adoredtv is right.   I can understand the argument way back when there were conflicting results that the average user might not have understood, but we are talking about well documented and qualified testing now from multiple sources.

 

Not too mention the fact his video is called "conlake" while there is no problem with chip doing what is was advertised to do.   How is that a con?

 

This just reaffirms my opinion that adoredtv is little more than a sensationalist who gets his views by being a dick.  I am embarrassed for anyone who thinks he is legitimate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DoctorWho1975]

Maybe I will start watching PcPer again... still pretty damned skeptical of the fact the same guy has a "separate" company that writes white papers also reviews the exact same items.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, DoctorWho1975 said:

Maybe I will start watching PcPer again... still pretty damned skeptical of the fact the same guy has a "separate" company that writes white papers also reviews the exact same items.

I'm not troubled by the fact that he owns companies that do both. My issue was the lack of transparency, and the fact that the reviewer was the author of the white paper.

 

That's a conflict of interest, and he should have excused himself from the review ideally. If they couldn't get anyone else to write the review, then it should have been a huge disclaimer "Hey just so you know, I wrote the white paper that the review methodology is based on!"

 

Now, since then, they've added a disclaimer to the first page of the review, but it still doesn't mention that Allyn did both, and is a little on the vague side.

Better than nothing, of course. But still not ideal.

[DoctorWho1975]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not troubled by the fact that he owns companies that do both. My issue was the lack of transparency, and the fact that the reviewer was the author of the white paper.

 

That's a conflict of interest, and he should have excused himself from the review ideally. If they couldn't get anyone else to write the review, then it should have been a huge disclaimer "Hey just so you know, I wrote the white paper that the review methodology is based on!"

 

Now, since then, they've added a disclaimer to the first page of the review, but it still doesn't mention that Allyn did both, and is a little on the vague side.

Better than nothing, of course. But still not ideal.

 

Right, they have half assed it hence I'm still meh about them. I don't understand why they aren't completely transparent.. they are losing audience by not changing or maybe its worth the audience loss compared to the bank they roll in from double the content on a single piece of hardware (monetized through Shrouts white paper and then again on PcPer).

[divito]

I'm really concerned at all the Adored defenders still participating in this thread. What kind of deluded existence is this? The tinfoil hats and kool-aid need to be put down.

[dalekphalm]

19 hours ago, divito said:

I'm really concerned at all the Adored defenders still participating in this thread. What kind of deluded existence is this? The tinfoil hats and kool-aid need to be put down.

A few people seem to raise reasonable points.

 

There seem to be a few different issues here:

AdoredTV seems to have lost the respect (or never gained it) of many LTT users. They feel like he is using unethical means to try and push an "ethical" narrative. They also feel that he does not understand the content he is talking about.

 

Whether that's true or not? Well, each person must look at the facts and information available, and decide for themselves.

 

There are at least a few people unconvinced by these arguments, and these are likely the ones you are referring to.

 

The other thing to consider is that AdoredTV might have had (or still have) valid points, despite himself acting in unethical ways, and/or not understanding the technical concepts he is talking about.

 

Someone can act unethically, while still bringing up a valid point.

 

We, as rational users, must distinguish between the two. We can still call him out for his unethical means, while still considering points he's raised. The two are not inherently mutually exclusive.

 

Personally I don't know whether his points are valid or not, beyond the simple Ethical Violations of PCPer that are unequivocally true. Beyond that, the ConLake crap, etc. Well I'm staying out of that debate. Others can fight it out over who is correct or not.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Whiskers
Removed reference to deleted post

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

There are at least a few people unconvinced by these arguments, and these are likely the ones you are referring to.

 

The other thing to consider is that AdoredTV might have had (or still have) valid points, despite himself acting in unethical ways, and/or not understanding the technical concepts he is talking about.

 

Someone can act unethically, while still bringing up a valid point.

 

 

The issue I have, as I am sure others also have,  is that the valid concerns he raises  are not enough to justify unsubstantiated accusations, bending or misrepresenting review data, and what amounts to outright slander.     If he wants to raise valid concerns there are multiple ways to do that without all the unethical, misrepresentations and lies.

[Whiskers]

I have just had to hide almost 50 posts in this thread. Some of the behaviour in here has been completely ridiculous, and a few of you will be receiving warnings shortly. Read them carefully because if this sort of behaviour continues bans are going to start going around.

 

I am keeping this thread open because the discussion before this utter mess was mostly civil and I hope it can continue in such a way. But let me be clear - stick to the community standards. If anyone breaks them again in this thread the mod team will have no choice but to lock it, and you will receive a warning or suspension from the forum.

 

Keep it civil. If you can't keep it civil, don't participate in the thread.