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 646742
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Games
by feamatar on Fri 14th Jul 2017 20:52 UTC 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[4]: Games
by Alfman on Fri 14th Jul 2017 21:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Games"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

feamatar,

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.


I would avoid using a term like "scripting" to refer to AI that is simulated rather than scripted. It feels like overloading the same word to have conflicting meaning. Never the less I'll try to keep your definition in mind for our dialog ;)


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.


That's an interesting paradox. It's trivial for a dumb game AI to dominate a human player, just give it super human abilities (like reflexes, strength, precision, field of view, omnipotence, etc). Game designers tweak these variables to make the game fair (or, let's be honest, to be challenging but always favor the protagonist). However we (or at least I) have yet to see games where characters exhibit intelligent traits, like being able to plan strategies and use improvisation to achieve their objectives. They run fixed algorithms that don't learn.

We could have an interesting debate about whether having in game characters that are too intelligent would make the game less fun to play. You bring up a good point, if they are too intelligent, you the player could become less relevant in the game. But perhaps a game designer could incorporate this in the game. The official mission is fighting a common enemy, but an unstated objective might be for you as the player to become relevant and rise through the ranks by outperforming your own team's AI. You could finish the game as a low foot soldier or as a commander depending on your actions. Competing against your own AI in this way could be a novel game mechanic.

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)


If it's too realistic, it's more of a simulation than a game, but there's still a wide gradient between them and I'd personally like to see creative use of advanced intelligence in games, but you could be right too, there might not be that much demand for this sort of thing among gamers. In any case we're not likely to see studios invest in this until massive core counts become much more common place.

Reply Parent Score: 2