Re: PhysX officially sucks.
While I wouldn't sacrifice a ton of performance to get a Physx capable card, I definitely consider it a factor when choosing a graphics card.
A non-physx capable graphics card would have to be significantly faster than the competition for me to buy it. Simply because I'm the kind of person who wants the whole package if I'm going to spend money on an upgrade.
I'm not going to buy a $500 graphics card that can't show me the best visuals in the latest games if another $500 graphics card can.
If no decent games use Physx over the course of the next year then my stance will change, but I think Cryostasis alone is a game worth upgrading for.
However, if ATI puts out a card that is 20% faster than an nvidia card in the same price range I'd pass on Physx for the time being.
__________________ ---- Primary Rig ---- CoolerMaster 690 II Advance - Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0Ghz + Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme
6GB DDR2 @ 942Mhz 5-5-5-20 1.9v (2x1Gb Wintec AMPX PC2-8500 & 2x2Gb G.Skill PC2-6400) - EVGA Geforce GTX 470 @ 750/1500/1850 (1.050v)
Sparkle Geforce GTS 250 1Gb Low-Profile (Physx) - Crucial RealSSD C300 64Gb SSD - Seagate 7200.12 500Gb SATA - Seagate 7200.10 320Gb SATA
ASUS VW266H 25.5" LCD - OCZ GameXStream 700W PSU - ASUS Xonar DX - Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Surround - Windows 7 Professional x64
---- HTPC ---- Asus M3A78-EM 780G - AMD Athlon X2 5050e 45W @ 2.6Ghz - 2x2GB Kingston PC2-6400 DDR2 - Sparkle 350W PSU
Seagate 7200.10 320Gb SATA - Seagate 7200.10 250Gb SATA - Athenatech A100BB.350 MicroATX Desktop - Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic