Every gpu physx game ever released from the past four years:
http://physxinfo.com/data/vreview.html
Only 17, that's 4.25 a year. Four of those games are good, the rest are unfortunately, crap. One is not even a true game, it was a free download tech demo. Another, Unreal 3, only has a few effects in one level. Then there is Hot Dance Party, and its sequel; Hot Dance Party 2.
Pretty poor all around: Four years, 17 games (really 15 1/2), most crap. More impressive physics seen on the CPU with no performance hit, versus inferior physics done with gpu physx = 20-50% framerate hit.
Tech demos and a lot of overdone debris effects. Stuff like that has been shown for a long while and used to that degree would cripple any setup out there. Probably why the graphics are terrible in those videos, so they could achieve a playable framerate.
Crysis physics on the CPU, no performance hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-0MWls-C5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaHS-y_mapQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk&feature=related
Battlefield 3 physics on the CPU, no performance hit, knocking down walls, buildings, the vegetation reacting to the wind shear off artillery shells, debris without unrealistic heaps of little fragments all over the place :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNwgRch5PMY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YJdqHe6EcY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBLOOjoE1Kk
Incredible gameplay with physics like that is what drives PC gamers to spend their money!
Why Battlefield 3's PC Version is More than just a Game