I don't know exactly what is a good monitor for you...

You can play Pc's on Tvs as well

"Try again, there is already a thread showing how with just $675 you have a nice rig to run almost everything at max..." - Actually somebody called the guy out and made him state that it would run only run Crysis on 640X480(Which is far from full). Which looks like crap, at least it would on my 42" lcd. Your right, pc technology increases at a very fast rate. But if developers utilize these advancements they ostracize a large portion of their market. Look at WoW, the developers made a fairly generic looking game that played extremely well on a very wide range of computers, and it is making them tons of money. That is where the pc market makes it's money. Look at The Sims. It plays well on a wide variety of systems as well. Crysis needs a hell of a comp to play and even if you could spend $600 on a pc to play the game, you are buying old ass parts and it is already obsolete. PC gaming will always be there, but it is not going to affect the console market. PC and XBox360 have alot of the same games because development for the two is very similar. You might as well call them both Microsoft platforms. I grew up playing PC games, and every year I would see my father buying new parts. I am not going down that same path. $400 for a system that pumps out great graphics on my 42" lcd for 5 years is a hell of a deal. No gaming pc will keep up without upgrading for 5 years. Another reason PCs have to have more power is because the developers aren't forced to use optimal algorithms. They use brute force and it is noticeable on low end systems.

The PC has been way ahead of the consoles since soon after their launch, its a quick thing to happen. They just always downgrade the graphics for the console version of a port.

And for people who are gonna believe others on these forums about building a cheap pc that can runs these amazing graphics...read this.

""For mere mortals, Crysis chugs. There, I said it. Those five words clear up years of speculation and misinformation. Unless you have an SLI setup with at least two 8800GTX video cards, do not expect Crysis to look like the oil paintings that EA has been passing off as in-game screenshots for the last 18 months. Well, to be totally truthful, the game can look this gorgeous on a single video card… if you prefer your framerate to run at a pace that makes the Lambert Glacier look hasty.

During your first days with Crysis, you'll spend more time staring at the advanced graphics options menu and various tweak guides on the Net (which are going to see some amazing traffic spikes when Crysis hits shelves) than the lush jungles within the game. I know I did - every time I managed to get a playable frame rate, I'd dick around with the options to try and get more eye candy without sacrificing frame rate. Which never happened.

This poor performance is a massive slap to the face with a reality trout, and one that we should have known was coming given the game's poor performance in the beta and demo. Our test machine is by no means a slouch - with a Core 2 Duo processor overclocked to 3.3GHz, 2GB of DDRII-800 memory, a GeForce 8800GTX and 680i SLI motherboard, this ninja cuts through every other game like a ninjato through decomposing manatee flesh. Yet in Crysis, this machine is lucky to get 25 frames a second… with all settings on medium, a resolution of 1680 x 1050 and no anti-aliasing (which, by the way, appears to be incompatible with the game's higher level shaders). A crafty motion blur effect goes some way to hide the sloth-like framerate, making turning seem much smoother than it is, but it won't fool anybody after a short while."" - pc.ign.com(EU)

The only thing I would say they needed would be RAM. And that would not change it too drastically.

@ JaggedSac
$500 dollar pc running crysis on high
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-graphic-game,1907-4.html

This post is full of crap. First, you can build a $500 PC that will run Crysis on High Settings, and make games look better than any console could. Second, WoW looks generic?! I don't think so, and even if it was, the art style of WoW is nothing short of excellent.

" No gaming pc will keep up without upgrading for 5 years" - So? The money you spend on upgrades is money you saved on PC games. You usually save $10-20 for every PC game bought compared to console games... so if you buy 25 PC games in the course of 5 years, you would save $400 from games! That is more than enough money for the upgrades AND still keep some of it. You also don't need to pay $40 every year for Online, unlike Xbox 360.

 It's a fact, for a hardcore gamer it's cheaper to play on a PC than on Xbox 360/PS3.

Agreed shio, and the confirmation for the $500 dollar pc running it on high is in the post above yours.

Intersting bench-mark. At only 1024X768 the system could only manage a measly 37 fps with no AA. Not impressive. Wonder if they actually played a large portion of the game, including fights with explosions and heavy usage of the physics engine, because they never specify. What you just proved is that even at a baseline of $500 the Crysis graphics that everyone loves so much, just aren't there, and the system won't be able to improve unless more money is dumped into it, so all your pc advancements are worthless without dumping more money into it. Now increase the resolution to where it is widescreen. See how the frame rate likes that. The XBox360 handles my 42" 1080p well. That IGN reviewer's system is well over $500.  Nice stats about buying 25 computer games.  At 50 bucks a piece that is a hell of a lot of money regardless.