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

[Razor01]

On 1/31/2018 at 8:41 AM, VegetableStu said:

oh hey @Notional you're on WAN Awesome Hardware

There ya go, journalists, understand what Adored does.  Same concerns I have been saying.  This type of behavior should not be upheld.

 

 

 

Here is an old Adored video where he talks about AMD AIB partners don't like sending him cards for reviews.  He doesn't get the fact that its not the way he talks about the AMD cards, its the way he creates controversy in general, that is why they don't want to work with him.

 

In the professional world, if we have a problem with someone, we don't just blast them and get them to respond the way we want to, that is the same thing as, harassment or threatening, We don't make things up or omit things to show light on a particular product we like, if you look at later reviews you will see he does this too, and his rumor videos are ladened with this.  These are things that are heavily frowned up on by any business sending out products to a particular reviewer, because they know if the viewer see any hint of that, not only does the reviewer get hurt because of their stances, the product gets hurt too.

 

These are journalistic ethics that AIB partners don't see in Adored.  As I said this has been going on since the first Adored video on youtube and prior to that even more, I probably can still find threads of him on other forums where he actually told people to go kill themselves or he would hurt them, because he didn't like them contradicting what he stated! 

[Citadelen]

On 26/01/2018 at 5:40 PM, NumLock21 said:

"The Great Coffee Lake Con Job" "Con Lake Confirmed" What does that even mean? So Intel did a paper launch of Coffee Lake, so what.  Con Lake Confirmed?! Intel stopped reporting the actual turbo clock on Coffee Lake, who the f*ck cares. You either run at stock clocks and never bother with the turbo cause it's really difficult to notice it or overclock the hell out of them, where turbo boost don't even matter. Do you see other tech channels acting like the sky is falling, just because Intel has decided to stop posting about the turbo clock for Coffee Lake, no.

If the video he posted has correct information, well then good for him. But I'm not going to bother watching any of it cause I don't give a crap about what this person says, after bashing on other tech channels. Hey when you want to be successful, then try your best to be successful by working hard to make your video stand out. Once you start bashing other tech channels. all of your reputation goes down the drain. Now if anyone still wants to watch this person's videos and believe in what he says, then it's your choice. No one is stopping you. Also he seems pretty new into this enthusiast tech stuff, so he can either pipe down by respecting other tech channels, or just go back to working with UNIX.

Watch the video's and you'll find out, I'm sorry but it isn't hard. It's easy to assume that they're shitty baseless videos based on their frankly click-baity titles, but he makes brilliant points in them that I've yet to see anyone else touch on. 

[NumLock21]

6 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

Watch the video's and you'll find out, I'm sorry but it isn't hard. It's easy to assume that they're shitty baseless videos based on their frankly click-baity titles, but he makes brilliant points in them that I've yet to see anyone else touch on. 

Only a person who doesn't know any better will actually watch that person stupid videos. Seriously stop watching while you still have the chance, before getting brainwashed by his nonsense.

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

 but he makes brilliant points in them that I've yet to see anyone else touch on. 

If no one else has touched on those points, then you have to ask why is he the only one talking about it and how reflective of reality are they only a handful of click-bait videos reference them?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 1/31/2018 at 4:23 PM, Razor01 said:

There ya go, journalists, understand what Adored does.

They actually did an embarrassing coverage of the topics. They couldn't even get the facts they were discussing straight (just compare their account of the incident with the information in this thread).

Not to mention they have a history of being assholes towards AdoreTV around the idea of "we have a bigger channel, so who cares about this Irish dude.. oh, Scottish? it's all the same!".

 

On 1/31/2018 at 5:56 AM, Razor01 said:

Tell me this lets say you reviewed a product and had your methodologies or just making a random rumor article or video, that you thought were sound and fair.  But another youtuber comes along and bashes you on his channel for thinking a certain way because of how you wrote something or said something to this affect

If anything, I have seen wild overreactions by "established youtubers" to fairly harmless mentions in his videos. Like he saying "results form channel A don't match those in channel B" (which was a fact), and some of the involved channels basically responding with more or less "how does this lazy mr. nobody dare to challenge my methodology". As an incomplete example, when Coffe Lake launched there were some inconsistent reviews across channels, which was eventually mentioned by AdoreTV. The example is incomplete because I don't remember who it was, but some of the usual suspects reacted with half aggressive, half mocking comments towards him, and how they had all this experience in benchamrking, what does this dude have, he doesn't even run his own benchmarks, etc. But the inconsistency was a fact, and required no incompetence from anyone to be explained: for instance, Linus later did a followup (or was it in the WAN show, can't remember) explaining how they dug further on the issue and it turned out to be a difference in how motherboards handle "Multi-Core Enhancement". (Then he made a strange spin into Asus advertorial, as if the conclusion somehow was that benchmarking with Asus was better ). In any case, I don't know if Linus even ever heard about AdoreTV, but one way or another he noticed the discrepancies across reviewers, investigated the issue, found an explanation. End of story. Meawhile, others were worrying that apparently someone dared to question the size of their epeen or something like that.

I see a lot of people trying to look at this as professional behavior vs. a drama-loving amateur, but in my opinion they underestimate the insider vs. outsider factor: basically, how some youtubers take his comments differently than they would if they came from anyone "in the tech community" (euphemism for circle-jerking clique). 

It seems to me that both users in this threads and youtubers getting pissed at him focus too little on what's being told and too much on who's telling it.

 

 

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

They actually did an embarrassing coverage of the topics. They couldn't even get the facts they were discussing straight (just compare their account of the incident with the information in this thread).

Not to mention they have a history of being assholes towards AdoreTV around the idea of "we have a bigger channel, so who cares about this Irish dude.. oh, Scottish? it's all the same!".

 

If anything, I have seen wild overreactions by "established youtubers" to fairly harmless mentions in his videos. Like he saying "results form channel A don't match those in channel B" (which was a fact), and some of the involved channels basically responding with more or less "how does this lazy mr. nobody dare to challenge my methodology". As an incomplete example, when Coffe Lake launched there were some inconsistent reviews across channels, which was eventually mentioned by AdoreTV. The example is incomplete because I don't remember who it was, but some of the usual suspects reacted with half aggressive, half mocking comments towards him, and how they had all this experience in benchamrking, what does this dude have, he doesn't even run his own benchmarks, etc. But the inconsistency was a fact, and required no incompetence from anyone to be explained: for instance, Linus later did a followup (or was it in the WAN show, can't remember) explaining how they dug further on the issue and it turned out to be a difference in how motherboards handle "Multi-Core Enhancement". (Then he made a strange spin into Asus advertorial, as if the conclusion somehow was that benchmarking with Asus was better ). In any case, I don't know if Linus even ever heard about AdoreTV, but one way or another he noticed the discrepancies across reviewers, investigated the issue, found an explanation. End of story. Meawhile, others were worrying that apparently someone dared to question the size of their epeen or something like that.

I see a lot of people trying to look at this as professional behavior vs. a drama-loving amateur, but in my opinion they underestimate the insider vs. outsider factor: basically, how some youtubers take his comments differently than they would if they came from anyone "in the tech community" (euphemism for circle-jerking clique). 

It seems to me that both users in this threads and youtubers getting pissed at him focus too little on what's being told and too much on who's telling it.

 

 

The biggest difference is that those other you tubers and reviewers (for the most part) are still being quite genuine (even when there are inconsistencies, because none of their benchmarks are ever going to perfectly correlate with each other), but adored is outright making accusations of intent against reviewers or at the very least claiming some degree of ineptitude.

 

Most people judge him by what he is saying and how he is saying it.  That is primarily the only way  to judge anything or anyone.   If he is being an arsehole, then that is what he is, it's not an ad hominem or a dismissal of facts, it's the conclusion drawn when the facts are considered.

 

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

but adored is outright making accusations of intent against reviewers or at the very least claiming some degree of ineptitude.

 

Well, that's not the impression I got from the few videos I watched. It could be that I haven't watched the most blatant ones (I think I watched the Coffee Lake ones, some video with historical data on ATI and Nvidia, and now this one because of this thread ), and it could be that I would have a different point of view if he had come off as insulting people. My impression was that people were overreacting as if he had been insulting, while I didn't see that happening in those videos. Maybe I missed something outside the videos, maybe I have a different  interpretation of the same comments.

[goodtofufriday]

On 2/5/2018 at 4:07 PM, NumLock21 said:

Only a person who doesn't know any better will actually watch that person stupid videos. Seriously stop watching while you still have the chance, before getting brainwashed by his nonsense.

Then I suppose all the legal material mentioned in the below video is all just for brainwashing and not actual actions taken by intel? I suppose by your reasoning all the international court documents are fake. Someone having a strong opinion does not make their information wrong or swayed one way. If someones broken the law then its broken. 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, that's not the impression I got from the few videos I watched. It could be that I haven't watched the most blatant ones (I think I watched the Coffee Lake ones, some video with historical data on ATI and Nvidia, and now this one because of this thread ), and it could be that I would have a different point of view if he had come off as insulting people. My impression was that people were overreacting as if he had been insulting, while I didn't see that happening in those videos. Maybe I missed something outside the videos, maybe I have a different  interpretation of the same comments.

 

It's not just what's in the videos but how he was treating everyone else and his reasoning also.  In the email's between him and Ryan and given his tweets, he was trying to champion himself as the consumers white night at the expense of integrity and fair play.    People are forming legitimate opinions about his motives/integrity  based on how he carries out his business.   If that gives ryan a free pass when it shouldn't have, then that is only adored's fault for giving people a reason to doubt his integrity.    Had he been respectful, giving Ryan a right to reply and not putting the video back up until that reply had been aired to the public it may well have been a different story.  But as it lies now, Ryan has responded, his response is in the public's eye.  And now all that's left is opinion, is ryan in the wrong still?  that's for you and me to decide for ourselves. Because in my mind adored leaving his video published only makes him as bad as his accusations that Ryan is misleading his viewers/readers for not editing the freesync video from years age.  If he doesn't go back and edit or remove his own video  and leave only the new one up, then why should we assume his opinion is morally grounded but Ryan's reasoning isn't?

[Carclis]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

It's not just what's in the videos but how he was treating everyone else and his reasoning also.

Being critical is important and one reviewers inability to take or accept it says a lot more about them than the person dishing it out.
 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

In the email's between him and Ryan and given his tweets, he was trying to champion himself as the consumers white night at the expense of integrity and fair play.    People are forming legitimate opinions about his motives/integrity  based on how he carries out his business.   If that gives ryan a free pass when it shouldn't have, then that is only adored's fault for giving people a reason to doubt his integrity.    Had he been respectful, giving Ryan a right to reply and not putting the video back up until that reply had been aired to the public it may well have been a different story.  But as it lies now, Ryan has responded, his response is in the public's eye.  And now all that's left is opinion, is ryan in the wrong still?  that's for you and me to decide for ourselves. Because in my mind adored leaving his video published only makes him as bad as his accusations that Ryan is misleading his viewers/readers for not editing the freesync video from years age.  If he doesn't go back and edit or remove his own video  and leave only the new one up, then why should we assume his opinion is morally grounded but Ryan's reasoning isn't?

I suspect there is more to the story than what was shown in the emails. At the very least this issue was brought up in early December which I think also points towards at least one of the sources he claims pressured him to make the video. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar exchange took place following the FreeSync issue either. I think it's fair to say that these issues may have just been bottled up over time leading to this and I also think the ethics horse has been beaten beyond death at this point.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Being critical is important and one reviewers inability to take or accept it says a lot more about them than the person dishing it out.
 

I suspect there is more to the story than what was shown in the emails. At the very least this issue was brought up in early December which I think also points towards at least one of the sources he claims pressured him to make the video. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar exchange took place following the FreeSync issue either. I think it's fair to say that these issues may have just been bottled up over time leading to this and I also think the ethics horse has been beaten beyond death at this point.

The problem with the ethics horse is that everyone thinks it's a different breed,  I thinks it's a thoroughbred, someone else thinks its a Clydesdale while others again consider it little more than a poor "my little pony" remake.

[Carclis]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

The problem with the ethics horse is that everyone thinks it's a different breed,  I thinks it's a thoroughbred, someone else thinks its a Clydesdale while others again consider it little more than a poor "my little pony" remake.

I think the big problem is people will automatically look at how something ethically pertains to number one which in this case is only concerning Ryan's actions (and Allyn). They were just wrong. When we look at what Jim did it was certainly unethical too, but not to us; the consumers. So in a sense there is justification to his actions since they were in the interest of the public which I think is the main argument.

In my eyes both parties have made amends. Ryan has fixed most of the offending content and vowed to be more transparent in the future as well as apologising for the misinformation that Allyn posted regarding the FreeSync vs G-Sync comparison. Jim has also shown remorse in a Twitter discussion where he admits he should have reached out for comment before posting the video and additionally he posted a video which expressed Ryan's side as well as linking directly to the Reddit post. 

[Razor01]

On 2/6/2018 at 7:20 AM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

They actually did an embarrassing coverage of the topics. They couldn't even get the facts they were discussing straight (just compare their account of the incident with the information in this thread).

Not to mention they have a history of being assholes towards AdoreTV around the idea of "we have a bigger channel, so who cares about this Irish dude.. oh, Scottish? it's all the same!".

 

If anything, I have seen wild overreactions by "established youtubers" to fairly harmless mentions in his videos. Like he saying "results form channel A don't match those in channel B" (which was a fact), and some of the involved channels basically responding with more or less "how does this lazy mr. nobody dare to challenge my methodology". As an incomplete example, when Coffe Lake launched there were some inconsistent reviews across channels, which was eventually mentioned by AdoreTV. The example is incomplete because I don't remember who it was, but some of the usual suspects reacted with half aggressive, half mocking comments towards him, and how they had all this experience in benchamrking, what does this dude have, he doesn't even run his own benchmarks, etc. But the inconsistency was a fact, and required no incompetence from anyone to be explained: for instance, Linus later did a followup (or was it in the WAN show, can't remember) explaining how they dug further on the issue and it turned out to be a difference in how motherboards handle "Multi-Core Enhancement". (Then he made a strange spin into Asus advertorial, as if the conclusion somehow was that benchmarking with Asus was better ). In any case, I don't know if Linus even ever heard about AdoreTV, but one way or another he noticed the discrepancies across reviewers, investigated the issue, found an explanation. End of story. Meawhile, others were worrying that apparently someone dared to question the size of their epeen or something like that.

I see a lot of people trying to look at this as professional behavior vs. a drama-loving amateur, but in my opinion they underestimate the insider vs. outsider factor: basically, how some youtubers take his comments differently than they would if they came from anyone "in the tech community" (euphemism for circle-jerking clique). 

It seems to me that both users in this threads and youtubers getting pissed at him focus too little on what's being told and too much on who's telling it.

 

What is said is important I agree, but how you say it is just as important.  Accusational or down right dismissive are both equally bad.  Then saying someone is bias yatta yatta yatta, is even worse, this is what Jim does, he is accusational, he is dismissive and he states others are biased, look at all any of his videos, that is the way he gets views. 

 

Great in one video he figures something out, how about all the other videos, where he gets hundreds of things wrong?  Did you see his comments about computerbase.de in that video about about coffeelake?  Pretty blatant he is putting them down, just to make himself look better. 

 

He acts like a Ass hole, well he is going to get shunned, rightfully so. He pointed out 3 problems from PCper, yet only one of them had any merit which was the notice of where they got their testing methodology from.  Freesync crap, there were updated reviews which already state that problem is gone.  The power issues of rx480, sorry, that was AMD fucking up.  Even when those reports were coming up, Adored tried to down play it.  Do you know what, I have a mining rig of rx580 (one left, sold all my other ones at twice the cost to buy my 1070 rigs), and others with 1080's,  all of them have 6 cards each.  THE ONLY ONE that blows out power supplies when mining Eth is the rx580 rig.  I use two different power supplies for each rig, one is a 650 watt platinum EVGA for the motherboard and risers, the other is a 1200 watt platinum for the graphics cards.  The rx580 rig draws too much power from the 650 watt platinum.   Those 6 cards goes over the spec of what the pci-e bus which ends up pushing 650 watt power supply!  So far I blew out 2 (in 6 months) 650 watt power supplies on that one rig.  All my other mining rigs which I have quite a few, all 1070's or 1080's no problems, as the motherboard and risers are only pulling 450 watts the rest of the power is coming from the 1200 watt power supply.

 

Back to the three problems he pointed out.  He throws shit at a wall eventually something sticks.

 

[Deus Voltage]

31 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

What is said is important I agree, but how you say it is just as important.  Accusational or down right dismissive are both equally bad.  Then saying someone is bias yatta yatta yatta, is even worse, this is what Jim does, he is accusational, he is dismissive and he states others are biased, look at all any of his videos, that is the way he gets views. 

 

 

I heard the same argument when Christopher Hitchens accused against Mother Theresa of fraud. I also heard the same thing when Noam Chomsky argued against countless of significant figures in the mainstream media. The same can be said about so many throughout history.

 

Notice here that there is a trend. Whenever there is a dissenting voice, there will be those who will, quite unironically, accuse them of accusing others despite the significant presence of overwhelming evidence. This, in my opinion, is a highly unproductive, intellectually impractical, and dare I say shortsighted exercise in thinking. 

 

The amount of mental gymnastics that some individuals have to exercise just to escape having to deal with the arguments head on is sobering to say the least.

 

Somehow, rather than focusing on the issues themselves, this entire conversation derailed into ad hominems.

Quite a pity.

 

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” -Chomsky

 

 

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

I heard the same argument when Christopher Hitchens accused against Mother Theresa of fraud. I also heard the same thing when Noam Chomsky argued against countless of significant figures in the mainstream media. The same can be said about so many throughout history.

 

Notice here that there is a trend. Whenever there is a dissenting voice, there will be those who will, quite unironically, accuse them of accusing others despite the significant presence of overwhelming evidence. This, in my opinion, is a highly unproductive, intellectually impractical, and dare I say shortsighted exercise in thinking. 

 

The amount of mental gymnastics that some individuals have to exercise just to escape having to deal with the arguments head on is sobering to say the least.

 

Somehow, rather than focusing on the issues themselves, this entire conversation derailed into ad hominems.

Quite a pity.

 

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” -Chomsky

 

 

I didn't read anything in this thread where people were dismissing the evidence or ad hominems.  An ad hominem attack is where you attack the person instead of the argument,   No one here has said that pcper was innocent when it came to requiring a disclosure statement, ergo evidence addressed. The right to opinion and the difference between opinion and fact are not always clear to some, but that is no reason to accuse others of being party to some great intellectual lie because they don't want to take at face value the word of someone they know to be an antagonist.  His actions and intentions combined with questionable claims is the argument, Ergo not an ad hominem attack.

 

Now you can argue that my post here is another example of your claims, however you'd be wrong.  Many of us are intelligent enough to account for red herrings and postulations when deciding if someone is being disingenuous and hypocritical and how that effects their argument. It is intellectually appropriate that one considers the history, motive and accuracy of a person making claims when judging not only the likelihood of it being correct but the ethical and moral positioning.

 

One more thing I'd like to address, is that there are people in this thread who wanted to take adoredtv's position as read,  while at the same time refusing to read the transcript of Ryan and Jim's email exchange and rebuttal. If anything fits the description of "highly unproductive, intellectually impractical, and dare I say shortsighted exercise in thinking."  then that would be it.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

I didn't read anything in this thread where people were dismissing the evidence or ad hominems.  An ad hominem attack is where you attack the person instead of the argument,   No one here has said that pcper was innocent when it came to requiring a disclosure statement, ergo evidence addressed. The right to opinion and the difference between opinion and fact are not always clear to some, but that is no reason to accuse others of being party to some great intellectual lie because they don't want to take at face value the word of someone they know to be an antagonist.  His actions and intentions combined with questionable claims is the argument, Ergo not an ad hominem attack.

 

Now you can argue that my post here is another example of your claims, however you'd be wrong.  Many of us are intelligent enough to account for red herrings and postulations when deciding if someone is being disingenuous and hypocritical and how that effects their argument. It is intellectually appropriate that one considers the history, motive and accuracy of a person making claims when judging not only the likelihood of it being correct but the ethical and moral positioning.

 

One more thing I'd like to address, is that there are people in this thread who wanted to take adoredtv's position as read,  while at the same time refusing to read the transcript of Ryan and Jim's email exchange and rebuttal. If anything fits the description of "highly unproductive, intellectually impractical, and dare I say shortsighted exercise in thinking."  then that would be it.

I think the big problem is that, like with so many things today, people see this as a black and white issue.

You're either 100% with AdoredTV and think PCPer are worse than Hitler, or you think PCPer are completely innocent and is just out to attack AdoredTV.

 

In reality, I have the position that I think PCPer did something wrong (which they have somewhat corrected) but also think that AdoredTV handled the situation extremely poorly and have no right to sit on a high horse telling others than "it's about morals".

 

I guess you could compare it to someone finding a security hole in an operating system and instead of contacting the developers, you just go "look at me everyone! I found a security hole in this OS! Here is how you exploit it!" and then claim you did it in the name of security.

[Razor01]

10 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

I heard the same argument when Christopher Hitchens accused against Mother Theresa of fraud. I also heard the same thing when Noam Chomsky argued against countless of significant figures in the mainstream media. The same can be said about so many throughout history.

 

Notice here that there is a trend. Whenever there is a dissenting voice, there will be those who will, quite unironically, accuse them of accusing others despite the significant presence of overwhelming evidence. This, in my opinion, is a highly unproductive, intellectually impractical, and dare I say shortsighted exercise in thinking. 

 

The amount of mental gymnastics that some individuals have to exercise just to escape having to deal with the arguments head on is sobering to say the least.

 

Somehow, rather than focusing on the issues themselves, this entire conversation derailed into ad hominems.

Quite a pity.

 

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” -Chomsky

 

Well you just took the meat of my comment out, out of the 3 issues Adorned accused PCper of, only one had merit, the freesync one was BS, Pcper had updated reviews already done with that problem not being there, the power draw of the rx480 that is a major problem and there is no way Adored could even state otherwise.   These are not ad hominem attack, that is based on what he stated, that is nothing personal or anything about him.  If I want to say something personal about him, there is enough out there to show how he thinks, just go to any forum he was on and look at how he treats people that disagree with him, like when he is says the person that is disagreeing with him to go kill themselves.

 

Ad hominem attack, he is a jack ass that tries to make himself look better than others, while he makes the same errors and even more severe errors than others in his field.  Its pathetic when people actually think he is doing it for the betterment of the industry.  He isn't, he is doing it for himself and he shouldn't play it as "ethical" when he is not ethical.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Then saying someone is bias yatta yatta yatta, is even worse, this is what Jim does, he is accusational, he is dismissive and he states others are biased, look at all any of his videos, that is the way he gets views. 

That would be very bad indeed, and that may have happened in some video I didn't watch; the problem, however, is that then we get to:

13 hours ago, Razor01 said:

 

Great in one video he figures something out, how about all the other videos, where he gets hundreds of things wrong?  Did you see his comments about computerbase.de in that video about about coffeelake?  Pretty blatant he is putting them down, just to make himself look better. 

You see, it never happened. I thought I might be going crazy so I re-watched the "Con Lake" video, where computerbase is not present at all, and then the "Con Lake Con firmed" one, in which he extensively cites computerbase. He cites. Properly attributed quotation. He just uses them as a source. There isn't a single adjective towards them. No dismissal at all, nor any praise, for that matter. So when I watch that video, and I read you say how he "blatantly put them down", then I can come to no other conclusion than the one in the post you cited: people are ganging against this guy on the basis of imaginary crimes. The stuff you mention just isn't there. But, of course, I'll be glad to read any literal quote of offending parts of the video you want to make. I just can't watch the video a third time looking for things that aren't there. It's just not that good, you know

 

All in all, your reply sadly confirmed my point of view. There are things to criticize and dislike about AdoredTV, I for one couldn't care less about the twitter catfights (there is a reason I don't use twitter after all), and I consider including them in the videos somewhere between uninteresting and petty. And I guess everyone could mention something more important or less important that they don't like. But that's not a reason to turn a quoting a source into "putting them down", that's just "alternative facts" level of cognitive dissonance. 

[Razor01]

Ah ok sorry I mixed in the twitter crap, haven't watched his videos in a while and mixed the two together.  Yeah it was on Twitter where the fight happened.

 

I really don't care for the way he reports things getting one thing right and 100 wrong is not a good way of reporting.  Sorry, might as well call him Semiaccurate of Youtube!  Carlie reborn as a youtuber is pretty much what Adored is. 

 

Look at any of his videos, he doesn't know anything about how yields and manufacturing of silicon is done.  Sorry but that is the truth.  No company will ever go into mass production without yields being extremely high, talking 80% + on the full chip, this comes straight from people that actually work on chips, not a want to be reporter that thinks he knows what he is talking about.  The Pascal videos were a joke, he doesn't know enough of silicon and GPU design to know that Pascal was going to get the same boost in base to boost frequencies as Maxwell did with the new process, his assumption was since the design of the transistors were customized for Maxwell and 28nm that will not translate over to Pascal and 16nm.  This is crap, if he understood anything about nodes and GPU or even CPU designs, it will translate over and more so because of the drop in voltage of the smaller node.  Lets pull up his Polaris videos, first video he thought it was going to be around 980 performance, second video a bit higher than that, then the last video it was going to reach the 980ti performance lol.  Its a joke.  He also pointed out that Pascal won't get the same perf/watt uplift from Maxwell that Maxwell got from Kepler!   Lets not forget AMD's master plan videos!  Yes AMD will take over the GPU market because of their console wins.  Wow that really was based on some serious forethought *sarcasm*.  Looking back at history we all know that never will happen.  How about his comments that Pascal can't do Async compute?  Oops guess he got that wrong too.  Even though the white paper for Pascal spells out the problem that Maxwell had with the inability to dynamical allocate resources after the first allocation.  This was what we saw at Beyond 3D with the async test with Maxwell, after the first allocation of shader resources, Maxwell had a lag time to reallocate, essential the GPU had to be flushed. That is why it created a stairway steps type graph.

 

His Pascal vs Maxwell clock for clock tests, another joke, you just don't do that to figure out IPC.  First off IPC in all GPU's that have scalar processors are the same IPC per core, that goes for all AMD GCN and nV's from the G80 onward.  So lets talk about what Adored did for this tests, he equalized flops on both Pascal and Maxwell parts, to test IPC.  He isn't testing IPC rather he is testing through put.  The problem with that is, if cache amounts and layouts are different, or fixed function units are different, through put changes and for the cards he used they are different!

 

I don't care how you try to point out that he made one good point in all his videos so far.  These mistakes are so obvious to anyone that does tech reviews or any amount of knowledge about GPU's, yet he does it and does it with gusto and people feed on the shit he shovels.  This is just a few of his mistakes, but they are so fundamental to what he talks about, that he gets everything else wrong after the fact.

 

Did you see his video on AMD's profits this past quarter?  He assumes AMD has taken marketshare from Intel, I don't know if that is real or not, nor does the figures of posting a profit show that either, because their gross margins went up, that alone can cover the profits AMD posted.  To put that together with taking marketshare away from Intel, is disingenuous, even AMD didn't state they took marketshare (And we know how AMD would be stating things like that, yelling on the top of their lungs if they did). That is not investigative journalism if he is making a strong conclusion based on incomplete facts.  So after all the crap that was done with the PCper video, he does it again, and does assumptions to draw conclusions.  Did he change?  No he didn't even though people are saying he changes after making mistakes.  He never does and won't.

 

[cj09beira]

pcper has a disclosure chart on the end of the first page of their 2400g review, this is the way to do it, and i applaud them for it

[Notional]

5 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

pcper has a disclosure chart on the end of the first page of their 2400g review, this is the way to do it, and i applaud them for it

Indeed. They only started doing that after Adoredtv criticized them. Should still be on first page, but it's better than nothing.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

Indeed. They only started doing that after Adoredtv criticized them. Should still be on first page, but it's better than nothing.

it is. 

its a good step in the right direction 

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

Indeed. They only started doing that after Adoredtv criticized them. Should still be on first page, but it's better than nothing.

Agreed - it's the "bare minimum", but not sufficient, in my books. First page for disclosures. It's the only way you as a publication can be sure that readers actually saw it (whether or not they read the disclosure is impossible to police).

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - it's the "bare minimum", but not sufficient, in my books. First page for disclosures. It's the only way you as a publication can be sure that readers actually saw it (whether or not they read the disclosure is impossible to police).

They have a detailed disclosure on the first page of the new AMD APU review. Hopefully they will continue that practice for all future reviews. 

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They have a detailed disclosure on the first page of the new AMD APU review. Hopefully they will continue that practice for all future reviews. 

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.