Originally Posted by Redeemed
That is an application of VMs I'd never considered. Is that even possible? With the API's dealing with the drivers and such? I think it'd be rather neat.
It is actually already possible with Virtualbox. You got me thinking about it and I was able to make it happen. So if you have 2 guest VM's you can isolate the mouse to that VM. The only problem is there is an overhead penalty and the mouse is not as smooth as it would be natively. Basically to do this directly on your pc you would need to have another stack to intercept mouse and keyboard input like what they are doing for audio. Then run a second instance of the mouse pointer only on that display. It seems very plausable to do, the main thing is I don't know how WDDM handles full screen support on these new cards. You always used to have to specify which display was primary and anytime you wanted a full screen application it would switch to that monitor. If you can get around that we're pretty close to making it a reality.
For the 7970 I didn't even really mean versus the GTX 580, just the fact that a single card is able to push 3 1080p panels at almost max settings and still be playable. With a 10% OC you wouldn't need to do much to make it completely smooth. If you're looking for a better comparison between cards there is a graph at the bottom of the page to show all of the cards at the same settings.
Originally Posted by brady
I agree that it's pretty niche, and I think if you don't care enough about it, then AMD offers some amazing products in terms of price/performance/power consumption. I'd actually prefer GPU accelerated PhysX be platform independent; I think it's annoying that it's not.
There are good and bad things about GPU acceleration. For games it makes more sense to have physics on the CPU because there is a lot more free processing power. I already have a quad core cpu with half of the cores waiting to be used, but my GPU tends to have it's hands full. For particle effects and things like that GPU physics can do some interesting looking things, but my main reasoning for not worrying about phsyX is that it isn't integral in making something work.
What I mean is all of the stuff I've seen for PhsyX has been more about adding additional particles when you break a block versus things like aerodynamics. It doesn't matter to me if using GPU physics gives me more stuff on the screen when I blow something up, but it would matter more if I were playing a game like Iracing and using PhsyX on the GPU meant they could produce more accurate driving conditions with the additional GPU power. You can use PhysX on the CPU, but I'm not really sure what type of things it can handle.
That's probably the biggest thing for me is I don't know of a PhsyX enabled game that adds real functionality by having it on, it's mainly just there to increase looks. In BF3 using their physics engine it's now possible to actually blow things up and drive a tank through those blasted light poles! If using Nvidia PhysX meant I could drive though a light pole versus not, I would be all over it. Like you said though, if PhysX would work on any GPU and not just be used on the cpu for other cards, there might be more draw to using it. As an Nvidia GPU only feature I don't think it's going to get those types of differentiators to really make it that must have feature.