The Patriarchal Greek New Testament should not be confussed with any of the editions of the so called Textus Recuptus first created by Erasmus and used for the KJV. Rather, the Patriarchal GNT represents the text that actually Greek Speaking Christian communities have used throughout the centuries and continue to use. It is also as the title hints the offical Text of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Patriarchal Greek New Testament is very close to "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, edited by Robinson and Pierpont" and "The Greek New Testament According to Majority Text by  Arthur L. Farstad  and,‎ Zane C. Hodges". These text have 'some' support from the 4th century and 5th centuries. For example the Codex Alexandrinus,Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus , Codex Washingtonianus, Uncial 061, and the Codex Guelferbytanus B. However, as mentioned before the the biggest support the Byzantine/Majority text has is that actually Greek speaking Christians from all walks of life use this text the same, however, can not be said of some the famous critical edition of the Greek New Testament. In short: If, you want to read the Greek NT in contunity with Christians through the centuries look no further, on the other hand if you would like to speculate about what the original manuscripts might have said then you might be better off with an edition of the Nestle Alan. Fortunately, there is no need to choose as you can have both (and more editions) in Logos or in paper.

Typically, I have found that most, who hold an allegiance to the Textus Receptus, don't actually read Greek well enough to have made a textual criticism that intelligently selects one over another. Personally, when I read the scriptures, via logos software, I have 4 texts up so I can compare: AFAT, LXX Swete, NA28, NTPT, DSS, and NASB95. As a Greek Orthodox, I lean toward the NTPT, but not blindly so. If you really want to read the Greek NT intelligently, you will do so in conjunction with the Hebrew OT, since the NT contains over 300 quotes from the OT. Sometimes, the Greek translation is ambiguous - especially with respect to determining relative pronoun antecedents. This can usually be resolved by returning to the Hebrew. Case in point: Πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἐπʼ ἐμέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέ με,  - Lk 4:18a Does the οὗ refer to the Lord or the Spirit? It could be either one, since οὗ is genitive singular (both masculine and neuter); therefore οὗ could refer to masculine Κυρίου or neuter Πνεῦμα. It becomes even more ambiguous when you translate it yourself, "the Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me, for whose sake (or because of whom) he anointed me". Who is being referred to in "whose sake" and who is the "he" in "he anointed me", since ἔκρεισέ could actually be translated "it anointed me", and possibly refer back to the neuter noun "Holy Spirit". But, it becomes much clearer in Hebrew, and we also see the Greek leaves out a translation for the Tetragrammaton which is clear in רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יהוה עָלָי - Is 61:1, the verse quoted in Luke. I point all this out to state that often it is not which Greek translation you use, but the fact that you are only using Greek and can't spot that all of them are flawed in certain respects.