Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jul 2017 20:57 UTC
AMD

Last night out of the blue, we received an email from AMD, sharing some of the specifications for the forthcoming Ryzen Threadripper CPUs to be announced today. Up until this point, we knew a few things - Threadripper would consist of two Zeppelin dies featuring AMD's latest Zen core and microarchitecture, and would essentially double up on the HEDT Ryzen launch. Double dies means double pretty much everything: Threadripper would support up to 16 cores, up to 32 MB of L3 cache, quad-channel memory support, and would require a new socket/motherboard platform called X399, sporting a massive socket with 4094-pins (and also marking an LGA socket for AMD). By virtue of being sixteen cores, AMD is seemingly carving a new consumer category above HEDT/High-End Desktop, which we’ve coined the 'Super High-End Desktop', or SHED for short.

AMD is listing the top of the line Threadripper 1950X for 999 dollars, which gives you 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base frequency of 3.4Ghz (and a turbo frequency of 4.0Ghz) at a TDP of 180W (nothing to sneeze at). These are two quite amazing processors, and later next year, the pricing should definitely come down a bit so it's a bit more affordable for regular computer use as well.

Well done, AMD. Sure, we need to await the benchmarks for more information, but this is looking real good. I'm hoping this will finally start forcing developers - specifically of games - to start making more and better use of multicore.

Thread beginning with comment 646718
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Games
by feamatar on Fri 14th Jul 2017 08:29 UTC in reply to "Games"
feamatar
Member since:
2014-02-25

I think it is not hardware resources that hold AI back, it is rather the low priority assigned to AI development and that it needs lots of iterations to get it right. The great FPS AIs of the past(Half Life, Halo, FEAR) used rather smart scripting and audiovisual cues to provide convincing and engaging encounters. Even in strategy games, smart scripting can make wonders, eg: Darthmod for Total War series.


Other areas, like your examples, scale rather well in my opinion and they are all related to graphical detail: the numbers of agents and the number of small entities all need heavy preparation on the CPU side before the GPU can render them, but their number do not break the game.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Games
by Alfman on Fri 14th Jul 2017 17:32 in reply to "RE: Games"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

teamatar,

I think it is not hardware resources that hold AI back, it is rather the low priority assigned to AI development and that it needs lots of iterations to get it right. The great FPS AIs of the past(Half Life, Halo, FEAR) used rather smart scripting and audiovisual cues to provide convincing and engaging encounters. Even in strategy games, smart scripting can make wonders, eg: Darthmod for Total War series.


I was thinking of something far more sophisticated than those "script" examples to be honest, and with far more actors in play. The games we see today are rather limited due to the lack of CPU power.

I concede games can be fun without more sophisticated AI, but having enemies and artifacts that react to their environments with preprogrammed scripts (and animations) is extremely limiting too. In the real world there are potentially an infinite number of solutions and everyone's path is naturally different. But in video games, rather than forcing players to follow highly scripted actions, we could use lots of CPUs to calculate what is physically possible. We've all encountered obstacles in games where something should work, but doesn't because the programmers didn't anticipate it (or didn't have time to write scripts for it), more CPUs running physical simulations could fix that. Most game environments are still quite ridged for the same reason.

Most AI opponents are quite predictable because they're following their scripts, but it's not very realistic. Real humans can develop plans, in game characters should also be able to use their environments in intelligent ways that haven't been scripted. The same intelligence should apply to in game AI teammates. IMHO AI could really revolutionize gaming.

With enough processing power in the long term, AI could actually automate game design itself: world design, plot twists, music, voice acting, etc. That'll be close to the day machines take over in real life, haha.

Edited 2017-07-14 17:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Games
by feamatar on Fri 14th Jul 2017 20:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Games"
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

Scripting in AI programming does not mean that you script the scene(think about Call of Duty, or the daily patterns in open world RPGs), instead you script your AI system(this is easy to understand for strategy games, but the same happens with FPS AI). That is: you define behaviors and priorities, that a particular type of AI should follow. Like this AI is reckless or that other prefers close combat or that other teams up with others. This is all scripting.

But what counts as a good AI system and a good scripting environment is hard to define. For example a strong AI does not necessarily a good AI, because AI should be able to fail and fail in a human way, and that is hard to prepare for.

If the AI is too efficient, too good, the player will say it is cheating.
If the AI does not lose enough time, the player will say the game is too hard.
If the AI fails, it should in a way like a human does, but humans often fail in ridiculous ways, but the AI will blamed that it is too dumb.
Or imagine that the AI in the game decides that you are the least efficient in the team and the game plays itself without you.

So you want something game-like, not something realistic(like almost all of our games are, imagine a racing game where you go on the racing line for 60 laps without any overtake, or a shooting game where you guard a warehouse for 16 hours then killed by a single taliban fighter from 400 meters)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Games
by Kochise on Fri 14th Jul 2017 21:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Games"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Well, sorry, but there was AI based open world in the 90s that just did well with CPU of the time. Thinking about Half-Life (scripted), Black And White or Outcast to name a few. When you compare the CPU power of current chips with those of the 90s or the 00s, stating today chips are underpowered is a bold statement.

Read back how Crash Bandicot for the Playstation was coded, using a variant of the LISP language.

Reply Parent Score: 2