PCPer Mailbag #28 - 1/26/2018

Subject: Editorial | January 26, 2018 - 09:00 AM |
Tagged: video, Ryan Shrout, pcper mailbag

It's time for the PCPer Mailbag, our weekly show where Ryan and the team answer your questions about the tech industry, the latest and greatest GPUs, the process of running a tech review website, and more!

On today's show:

00:40 - Mid-range/budget Coffee Lake motherboards?
02:22 - Bitlocker performance hit?
05:05 - Optane for page file?
06:36 - GPU production, costs, and mining?
09:19 - Dissuade miners with offsetting GPU price increases and rebates?
12:08 - Higher end Ryzen APUs?
14:32 - Faster GDDR eliminating the need for HBM?
17:24 - Re-testing old GPUs after Meltdown/Spectre fixes?
19:20 - AMD comeback in discrete GPU market?
21:44 - Why do Metldown/Spectre patches negatively affect performance?

Want to have your question answered on a future Mailbag? Leave a comment on this post or in the YouTube comments for the latest video. Check out new Mailbag videos each Friday!

Be sure to subscribe to our YouTube Channel to make sure you never miss our weekly reviews and podcasts, and please consider supporting PC Perspective via Patreon to help us keep videos like our weekly mailbag coming!

Source: YouTube

January 26, 2018 | 10:26 AM - Posted by Zukman (not verified)

Will you respond to thoose serious accusations by Jim?

January 26, 2018 | 10:51 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I will be responding, yes.

January 28, 2018 | 03:28 AM - Posted by albert89 (not verified)

I've seriously stopped taking your and Alyn's shill reviews of all things Intel & Nvidia for months now. No surprises there.

January 28, 2018 | 04:22 AM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

Why would you ask for privacy on the matter and then post your entire e-mail exchange on Reddit?


January 28, 2018 | 07:00 AM - Posted by ShroutResearch (not verified)

This. Came here to check if PCPer did any response/apology to its readers but found nothing but disgusting practices. Ryan manipulating AdoredTV with claims about safety of his family and then posting email chain public. And some brainless sheep here are even defending PcPer LMAO.

January 28, 2018 | 12:00 PM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

What you mean like he said he would and AdoredTV decided not to take issue with?

To say there's been manipulation with "claims" about safety seems rather far fetched as there's no reason not to take that claim at face value.

Honestly i find it peculiar that people are defending AdoredTV when he's clearly shown he's not above threatening people and acting as if he's the arbiter of what's acceptable, that if somethings not to his liking he'll defame and slander them as if he's the tech journalist police or something.

January 28, 2018 | 02:59 PM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

About the safety concerns.

Ryan post his information here and else where. Name location and business number. I think a middle schooler could trace him if he wanted with the abundance of information Ryan provides in multiple sites.

Heck he gives out his location and talks about it on the weekly podcast. All one has to do is google earth it.

Now if those threats are real he should contact local law enforcement. Ryan said they were e-mails so authorities would be able to trace them back.

What i don't understand is after having safety concerns. He goes on to make the conversation he asked for private and turns around and post it on Reddit. WTF!!! moment. Fanning the flames.

Surely he was more concern about putting a private email exchange where the other party could not reply. You have to ask yourself why is Ryan asking for "right to reply" then pull this stunt? Isn't he concerned for his families well being or was just try'n to stick it to AdoredTV a higher priority ?

On Reddit the overwhelming support has gone to AdoredTV. Even other tech forums are agreeing with the AdoredTV fellow. So i'm really baffled why Ryan wouldn't use one of his many media outlets to reply. If his concerns were that great.

February 2, 2018 | 12:13 PM - Posted by Anonymously Anonymous (not verified)

True to form, it's yet another small token effort on your part, utterly lame.

January 26, 2018 | 01:24 PM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

Does anyone take that guy seriously?

I know he has a following on YouTube but I'm not sure a single video he's made isn't a demonstration of his own ineptitude.

He throws random accusations around like confetti and hopes his audience doesn't call him out for his conspiratorial hyperbole and lack of knowledge, i mean the guy even admitted he doesn't know what he's doing.


January 26, 2018 | 01:33 PM - Posted by Ronny (not verified)

Well he isn't always right yes but in this case he seems to be accurate. And seem have put a lot of work into the video. We will await the PC Perspective response to this.

January 26, 2018 | 01:43 PM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

I don't take anyone site very seriously if they don't hold them selves accountable.

Which 99% of the tech-sites including PC Perspective are. They just want traffic and notoriety. They really don't care about follow up once the presser or initial story goes up.

"Mistakes what mistakes? that story is 2-3 days old not worth correcting" They got their traffic out of said story or post and they wont correct it.

Accountability to their following and readership is what makes a tech-site stand out from the 99.9% tech-sites that are just modern day street bulletin boards, the one around the corner has the same info and at the bus stop you find the same information covering the ad boards.

January 26, 2018 | 04:22 PM - Posted by Hydey (not verified)

I was roped in by the video on Intel's business practices over time, along with that Scottish accent, and started to watch his old videos to keep my brain amused while cleaning the rabbit cage (alternating with PC Perspective's shows, funnily enough). But after becoming familiar with his tendency to state his ideas as certainties, which often seemed to be quite off the mark with the benefit of hindsight, he became less interesting to me.

Not going to judge until I've heard all sides in regards to PC Perspective.

January 27, 2018 | 03:50 PM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

Well he was in violation of FTC rules. If that Adoredtv dude had not brought it up he'd still be in violation FTC guidelines.

FTC guidelines say you have to make disclaimers standout and they are not to be footnotes, which the disclaimer PCPer updated is.

Facinating read

Federal Trade Commission



Just brings into light how all these tech-sites including PCPer and AdoredTV don't even do what is required of them.

January 27, 2018 | 09:19 PM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

Looking at PCPerspective reviews/write-ups and builds they don't disclose who provides their hardware at all.

About the most one can find is this nugget

"PC Perspective would like to thank Intel, ASUS, Gigabyte, Corsair, Kingston, and EVGA for supplying some of the components of our test rigs"

FTC states it should be clear to readers what and who is providing and if there is any affiliation with said company. Those affiliations or contributions should be made clear to readers and not hidden in footnotes and if the review is lengthy the disclosure should be repeated.

January 28, 2018 | 05:03 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

And he's at it again with his updated video, claiming how the right to reply is set-out in EU law, unfortunately he hasn't researched the difference between EU law and resolutions, the former being something that can see you in front of a court and the later not intended to have legal effect.


January 28, 2018 | 05:22 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

Then he claims how exceptions in an EU resolution that specifically references how national law may provide an exception without bothering to refer to what national law is providing that exception, so no AdoredTV you were not within you right to refuse a right to reply as firstly an EU resolution is not a legal instrument and secondly you failed to reference the relevant "national" law, as in UK law, that provided you an exception.

It makes me laugh how people claim AdoredTV does his research yet from listening to his latest video moaning about how this situation has been handled he's not even read the whitepaper, the reviews, or anything much beyond the headlines as he seems to have no idea what tests were used when he says "I'll take their word for it"

The sooner someone calls out AdoredTV's mostly unfounded accusations the better IMO.

January 28, 2018 | 11:31 PM - Posted by Emyhw (not verified)

"It makes me laugh how people claim AdoredTV does his research yet from listening to his latest video moaning about how this situation has been handled he's not even read the whitepaper, the reviews, or anything much beyond the headlines as he seems to have no idea what tests were used when he says "I'll take their word for it"

the point is, "conflict of interest". If some one is in the business of writing a whitepapers for a company, they should disclose that in the review (page/ site) in big bold letters before they write the review.
The Main point of the AdoredTV is, " accountability".

Think beyond the scope of this particular story.

January 29, 2018 | 11:21 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

If his main point was "accountability" then why did he publish what some people see as a click-bait sensationalist video instead of taking his findings to the relevant authority.

Think of the reasons behind peoples actions.

January 29, 2018 | 01:20 PM - Posted by what??? (not verified)

i would say his video is miles away from being a click bait.
hahah, you are not as smart i thought you were.

please don't breed.

January 29, 2018 | 01:44 PM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

So because you can't refute the argument or facts you resort to ad hominem attacks, classy.

Oh and BTW i didn't say they are click bait, i said some people see them as click-bait sensationalist videos, big difference.

January 29, 2018 | 03:52 PM - Posted by Anony mouse (not verified)

Come on now. Don't be a hypocrite

That's what you been doing to this AdoredTV guy too?

January 30, 2018 | 03:01 AM - Posted by WhyMe (not verified)

Or just don't feed the trolls.

January 30, 2018 | 07:04 AM - Posted by GB (not verified)

Yes we do take it seriously. Impartial journalism is whats its all about, if your in someones pocket, your reviews are worth anything. We have this issue in the UK with a certain PC hardware magazine, being in a certain online retailers pocket, I stopped buying it and haven't looked back. I hope this is matter is resolved in some fashion.

January 26, 2018 | 11:56 AM - Posted by frack (not verified)

"Dissuade miners with offsetting GPU price increases and rebates?"

As long as it's done by the GPU makers rasing their wholesale prices on their GPU dies. AMD for one needs more revenues so it can afford more base die tape-outs as currently AMD has only one discrete Base die Tape-Out for consumer/pro GPUs and that's Vega 10. Nvidia has 5 base die tape-outs(GP100, GP102, GP104, GP106, GP108). There is no mystery to why the GP102 based GTX 1080Ti can throw out more frames with the Ti's 88 ROPs complements of that GP102 base die tape-out that offers up 96 ROPs for Nvidia to create GPU variants with loads of extra pixel fill rates.

The GPU makers should just let their GPU die wholesale prices float with demand and only sign short term sypply contracts with the AIB partners. Let the GPU makers do direct rebates to gamers if they need to but really it's a supply and damand issue with GPUs from now on with GPUs wanted even more for their compute than graphics. The GPU makers should be the ones to get the most revenues form and demand pricing as it the GPU makers' investments that have created the GPUs in the first place.

January 26, 2018 | 03:36 PM - Posted by Vince (not verified)

Regarding FPS loss in games due to Meltdown/Spectre patches: The Witcher 3 is one of the games that shows a significant performance loss (8.2% to 9.4% FPS) after applying the patches, due to the game continuously streaming in game assets in the background. Digital Foundry reported a loss of about 11.5 (Meltdown) to 13.2 FPS (Meltdown+Spectre microcode) in performance benchmarks after patching. See http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-does-patching-cpu-... for details.

January 26, 2018 | 10:18 PM - Posted by Endo (not verified)

RE BitLocker disk encryption.
I've been doing some research, but have found surprising little and/or conflicting information. Can someone please fact check these two statements for me?

1. No NvMe SSD works with BitLocker HARDWARE encryption (aka IEEE 1667/eDrive; at least not as a boot drive).

The Samsung 960s were advertised as to become compatible with a firmware update, but that has not yet happened. https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/forums/v3_1/forumtopicpage/board-id/...

2. BitLocker SOFTWARE encryption causes significant wear to SSDs.

From what I've inferred, the suggestion is that if an SSD is software encrypted, it's like it's always 100% full and therefore some SSD magic I don't understand (TRIM/garbage collection/over provisioning/whatever) is adversely impacted.
...but this seems very controversial.

Crucial states there is an issue, but with no discussion, here: http://forums.crucial.com/t5/tkb/articleprintpage/tkb-id/ssd%40tkb/artic...

Others refer to a 2009 Microsoft statement that BitLocker on NTFS already accounts for this.


January 29, 2018 | 10:12 AM - Posted by Steve-a-rino (not verified)

Will you or any of the PCPer staff be replacing older hardware that will not be receiving firmware updates for Spectre variant 2?

January 29, 2018 | 01:34 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

I really wish I could go Zen+ but I doubt I'll have the money when they come out. Maybe by the time Zen 2 comes out I'll be able to finally upgrade my i7 860 :-).

January 29, 2018 | 03:44 PM - Posted by Jimbo Jam (not verified)

Is there any chance we can get a core load graph of some sort to accompany CPU reviews? We could see how much overhead a CPU has left when it is GPU bottlenecked during bench marking.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.