Your computer is just very limited in how much attention to detail it can have, because it has wildly less processing power and has to get its job done in real time.
By contrast, Disney is using a server farm to spend 3 seconds analyzing the mechanics of a tuft of hair wiggling in the breeze for 1 second.
While certainly not directly linked to poor physics simulations of water in computer games I would guess it has played a big role in holding back advancements in this area because how much locally-only non-game mechanic influencing visuals could cause contrast with need to be duplicated on the server physics.
That's 16.7ms to run your WHOLE game engine, you get some fraction of that left over to do rendering.
Ie a game which was hosted on a remote desktop that had direct access to a GPU server farm on a very fast network.
The general term for it is cloud gaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_gaming
What you are asking is basically has anyone run a game on a supercomputer/cluster so that the graphics are way better than what could be done locally. The answer is no, nobody has. That would be pretty neat though. It would be super expensive to make with no way to recoup the cost.
For a movie[1]:
> There's a principle I call The Law of Constancy of Pain. Back when we made The Adventures of André & Wally B. in 1983 a typical frame took from several minutes to a few hours to compute. Now computers are literally millions of times more powerful and a typical final render takes from a few minutes to a few hours to compute, averaging somewhere between 2 and 4 hours. Render times have remained flat for over 30 years because that's just how long people are willing to wait for them.
So movie artists are willing to have each frame of a movie take 2-4 hours to render vs 16.7 milliseconds.
[1]: https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-render-a-Pixa...