Consoles won't be able to run Crysis on High even on 720p, if they use CryEngine 2 for it. Crysis on Medium can use up to 1.5 GB of RAM at the most intensive areas, so unless they cut back on enemies, foliage and explosions, it isn't feasible. 

If they update Crysis to CryEngine 3, then there's a chance that it will be able to run on consoles, though Crysis 2 on consoles is barely the Gamer setting on PC, which is two levels below the current best mode, Ultra. 

It's not a matter of being a fanboy or not (I game on PC's as much as I do on consoles or handhelds), it's a matter of knowing the arquitecture of a game and seeing that in it's current form isn't feasible. My laptop can run Crysis on Very High at 25 - 30 FPS and it has a ATI HD 6770 and an i7 Core. A Core 2 Duo won't run you Crysis on High, an i3 even worse. You'll need at least an i5 for it. 

An SB Pentium+Good GPU+4GB of RAM are likely to handle it very well w/high settings (not max naturally). I think that it's very possible.

CryEngine 2 is an unoptimised joke, I was talking about them using CryEngine 3. And I think Crysis on High is similar to Crysis 2 on consoles, just look at the tech demos. Not only that, but I think that foliage looks a lot better than a building.

And yes, it is a matter of being a fanboy. I get so agitated by people whining on about how PC's have the best graphics and how you can make a PC which looks better than a console for only a fraction of the price, the latter point being a load of bullshit. And then they whine on about keyboard and mouse being the best thing since sliced bread, they are just so ignorant and annoying.

HD 5770 and Core 2 Duo is my PC right now, and I normally have an FPS higher than 30fps when I play on "Very High" settings. The point you just made makes PC's look even more expensive, your laptop must have cost you about £700.

It's gonna flop... Why release one after the SECOND? Flop, and waste of resources. Not to mention that so much will have to be reduced to make this game run at a good frame rate.

Crysis 2 hardcore? lol it's was barely softcore, hell I can see partia nudity on day time TV. Cysis 2 is totaly a kiddy game.

Guess Crytek wasn't happy with Crysis 2 sales?

I disagree when you say that Crysis foliage look a lot better than a building. Crysis foliage isn't that impressive, outside the physics behind it, as there has been better foliage (Risen for example). Heck, even the low grass physics were exactly like the physics in the grass of Oblivion with pretty much similar textures. 

I've seen Crysis 2 on consoles, and I don't see it coming close to Crysis on high, there's just too many differences, especially on the post-processing effects field and mainly on textures. Crysis 2 on consoles has some pretty ugly textures and a massive amount of texture pop up as well. Maybe lightning is close to Crysis high, but in most of the fields I would say that it comes close to Crysis medium.

I agree with the majority of your second paragraph, but you also have the same modus operandi with console supporters claiming that consoles are the much better alternative. Both camps can be annoying and obnoxious, because both PC's and consoles have their own strengths and weaknesses. 

I wasn't trying to make any point, because I distinctly said that I had a laptop to run Crysis. A laptop with similar specs that you posted would only be able to run Crysis on medium with playable FPS. I had a laptop with the fastest Core 2 Duo for laptops and an overclocked GT 9650M 1 GB which performed the same as a GTX 9800M and only got 10 fps on High. 

But.... I thought that was all there was to console shooters too. Graphics and mediocre gameplay. To assuage your fears, the gameplay of just about every single console shooter is mediocre too, so me saying Crysis is mediocre should imply that it is at least as good as console shooters.

Eat it up? Deffinitely not in 1080p. Hell even in 1680x1050 the game will have frame irruptions with no AA at all!

First flaw in your post comes from calling me a PC fanboy when in fact I am a Sony one but we'll leave that alone. Second, the kb/m combo is proven time and again to be more accurate because you control exactly where you aim as opposed to velocity/stop in a pad. Finally, yes my gripe is them taking this long to bring Crysis 1 to consoles instead of much earlier. To me it looks like they will make the same mistake as EA when bringing ME2 to the PS3 at full price (despite DLC) over a year later. My gaming rig including the monitor cost me 650 including shipping. Lets say without monitor and shipping (to bring on even ground with ps3 and 360 launch) it would be roughly $480ish. I have another thread with full specs when I asked Disolitude for advice, but in summary I have an Sapphire Radeon HD 5830 1gb gddr5 256-bit, AMD Phenom II X4, etc. I play Crysis 1 at max and it easily blows anything away on consoles atm and Crysis 1 is only at about $20 on D2D and Steam. With that being said optimization on consoles has been done well which is why we have beauties such as Uncharted 2, KZ2-3, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, etc. You simply have to understand that my rant is based on Crysis 1 coming out this late on consoles with most likely  a full 60$ price tag when you can get it for cheaper on a PC and get better performance out of it. In order for it to be worth it, they would have to release Crysis 1 and Warhead at 30-40$ (getting both bundled on PC is $30 on steam) and I honestly do not see them doing that.