I think this just goes to prove that mature, third party titles can't sell on the PC.

^ha thats a good one,though i know your joking,these sales are only in america

Hey now, don't make fun of Crysis!

Dx9, Dx10 is not the issue here. Crysis looks good in Dx9. But Dx9 Crysis will still bring a console to its knees at higher settings. CoD4 is direct x 9 and looks really good on the PC (at least my PC) and looks like crap on the 360. I haven't seen the PS3 version.

Normally I disagree with most of your posts, but I have to agree with you here... with a caveat.  I think it might very well be possible to get the PS3 to play this game without a lot of compromises, but the cost of doing so might also be prohibitive.

My guess is they couldn't do it with a simple port, i.e. - their engine may do something brute force like require a lot of RAM to hold cached textures, etc., or require a lot of hard drive space, etc., etc.  Really digging deep into the Cell and finding clever ways instead of brute-force ways to do some of the visuals might make the game run really well on the PS3, but most companies that develop primarily for PC tend to not want to bother figuring out how to take advantage of a console's specialized hardware... it can be a royal pain in the butt.  And dedicated PC gamers tend to be okay with the idea of frequent hardware upgrades.  One of my engineers at work built a fairly decent PC last year, but now he's already looking to upgrade the video card for about $300 bucks.  I had to get out of that rat race, so I bought a console.

Maybe when there's 30 million PS3s and 360s out there, those companies will reconsider.  It's a question of ROI.

Just for the record: A GeForce 7900 (G71, optimized G70 aka RSX) can run Crysis at medium-low settings, 800x600, at 14 frames per second average... just so you know ok?

 Is not that easy, RSX has a bus of 128 bits (low range cards like the 7600 has the same bus), the 7900 has a bus of 256 bits (medium range cards)... so i think is the RSX is not just a 7900, falls between the 7600GT and 7900GS

 I'm almost certain that you know nothing of the PS3's structure, other than "CELL ROXORZ" so I don't know why you'd make that comment..

Anyway, seriously, PS3 and 360 fanboys/girls, why would you want crysis on your console anyway? I've played it on a high end comp and yes the graphics are gorgeous, but other than that, it's pretty standard fair FPS wise. Also, I doubt Crytek would want to port over a FPS PC game to a home console, because look at UTIII, PC > PS3 and eventually the 360 in terms of gameplay, it's too fast paced (like most PC FPS are). Reason why CoD4 and Halo are such success on home consoles is because they are slower than PC FPS, particularly Halo, and CoD4 has the "aim-assist" to compensate for the slower pace of the gameplay/analog stick. That's why TF2 gets very little love on xbox live, because it's a game built for PC mouses. Why would a company who lost out on PC want to spend more money tweaking the gameplay and downgrading the graphics for a console version, doesn't make much sense to me.

 its hard to say honestly becasue it could also be as strong as an 8600GT. You never know unless we get full documentation from nvidia which we wont have till the PS4 is released. 

Well yeah, but all signs seem to point that it's a 90nm G70 (NOT G71, I'll explain on this later). When nVidia released the GeForce 7800 (G70), they claimed it was as powerful as two GF6800 on SLI, with 302,000,000 transistors... same thing said about the RSX. The difference is that the G71 is an optimized, refined design, with less transistors, better performance and less power consumption. The RSX is an unmodified G70 it seems.

My guess is that it's a GeForce 7800 with it's balls cut (128 bit bus) (and opposite to popular belief, having the VRAM on the package of the GPU DOESN'T gives it a boost in performance, it's there to save space in the main print circuit board, and therefor, money)