[samstave]

uh.. I actually worked at intel in these times... and I used to have a cube adjacent to Andy Grove (for some reason, we were on the same bathroom schedule, and peed quite a bunch next to eachother)

Anyway, my best friend and I ran the DRG game lab (developer relations group) - where we (intel) paid millions to gaming companies to optimize their games to the intel arch and things like SIMD instruction sets... we game tested (subjectively) games running on intel vs AMD machines... it was also the lab where we were able to prove that a subjectively performant PC could cost less than $1,000 === The Celeron Processor

I was even the person who first sent an email (1997) to engineering asking why we couldnt stack multiple processors on top of one another....

I later learned on a hike with a head of marketing that in the proc labs Intel had a 64-core test fab. (This was fucking 1998 when that was revealed to me under NDA etc...)

---

[rasz]

Nice. Were you responsible for 1999 Comdex Fall Rage Software Dispatched SSE demo used to manipulate benchmarks for a couple years by Anandtech (https://www.anandtech.com/show/260/9)? https://www.hardware.fr/articles/95-5/jeux-optimises.html

"looking closely at the demo, we can see - as you can see on the screenshots - that the SSE version is less detailed than the non-SSE version (see the floor). Intel would it try to roll journalists in the flour?"

Two other examples from that link are SSE "optimized" Rage Software Expendables running slower than original, and "Pentium III optimized" PowerSlide by GT Interactive with zero fps difference. At least those two never released, unlike "Designed for Intel MMX" POD from 1997 with one optional audio filter added and 1/6 of the box covered by Intel marketing.

One has to wonder how much was Intel bribing for such blatant lies and manipulation back then.

[samstave]

I was not, but I can tell you that Intel gave companies $1 million for "Optimized" games for marketing such..