Originally Posted by Razor1
Thats an art direction my man, thats the problem look at this way you want something that has breakable polys or do you want something that is premade and broken down when collision is detected. There is a major difference, there will be art limitations based on polygon arragement and texture details, if you want more realism, then we have to go into procedural texture being built on the fly, based on new UV's made for the polygons. Those aren't easy to do at all even with the horsepower we have today.
I get what you are saying and definitely wouldn't mind getting an extra physx card if there was a game that required it(/made proper use of it). Sadly this is not the case.
What I think is going on is that nvidia knows that a single GPU running both physics and rendering wouldn't outperform a multicore CPU + GPU doing the same task(fluidmark proves this, see chart below). They also know that most people wouldn't shell out for an extra card unless there are games out there that make use of it(reason why I think ageia would have failed). So they gimped the cpu support of physx to make having a physx-capable card look more attractive. It's marketing and makes them money they otherwise wouldn't get, but unless you own nvidia stock this is not behavior you should support as it hurts the consumer.