Since benchmarking with normal 9800GTX and/or 9800GX2 are already similar to some of those performances, it really just indicates that the software and drivers aren't optimized for that specific setup.

In fact, Crysis does NOT scale well on multiple cards.

Here is a video of ultra high with 2xAA @ 1920 x 1200. The guy is using three 8800 ultras. His fps is about 40-50. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP3Ifl9lpqQ&feature=user . I'm pretty sure the two 9800x2s could run it alot better.

that video: His settings are far from max and his rez is not full
hd

1920x1200 is the pc equivalent of 1080p, and that is with 3 ultras which the new cards are outclassing. and he said everything was set to ultra high. So yes cards in the near future will run crysis on max.

Edit: Actually that is above 1080p, so I don't know where you got it's not full hd.

So we are using a highly unoptimized game to judge the next console?

first of all in the next generation we probably see ps4 with ps3s cell or slightly-improved cell, because cell is enough powerfull to pull of great graphics. sony will definitely bring beter(and faster) gpu, ram and so on though because those things "slow down" ps3.
as for x360 we will see again hi-end console that will be able to pull this magic 1080p without any problem.
wii 2, well i think that nintendo will make again 200-250(with a game) console so i guess it will have:
2.8-3.2ghz processor or somethin near it,
won't be able to handle 1080p but will have enough specs to pull of 720p on 60frames/s without any problem,
256mb ram for console(both gpu and cpu),
2-8gb harddrive,

Running Crysis on Very High and running Crysis on max are two very different things. I ran Neverwinter Nights 2 at 1600x1200, 2xAA and some other effects and had a stable 40-45 fps (this is almost worse optimized) but when I cranked all effects to full I dropped to a slideshow; 1-2 fps and sometimes even less... ! These added effects are what taxes the computer and are what ultimately makes it next to impossible to max out (max out, not just Very High general settings).
It reminds me of the 15-16 litre V8 Big Block engines in the 30's that produced 15 horsepower, optimization, tuning and calibrating is key to good performance and Crytek know nothing of this.
There will be better looking games on 360/PS3 by generations end on hardware that is dramatcially inferior to these super PC's they're trying Crysis on.
I agree with JaggedSac; using Crysis as a benchmark for anything but shoddy programming is plain silly, and by the eigth gen we'll have games that look way better running smoothly in 1080P at 60 fps no problem.

@Viper1; on max settings (again, maxed out, not just Very High general settings which is widely different, which is the base of my entire point here) Crysis will devour 2 GB's of RAM, make the Quad-Core scream in anguish unless it is overclocked to around 3.5 GHz (again due to optimization) and those Crossfired HD4870's won't do much good either at 2560x1600 with all effects on full. Your FPS average would crawl down to low 20's with dips down to 10-12 fps is my guess. Again; I must insist that people recognize the two widely different aspects of running Very High settings and running max settings all across the board, and it matters not what hardware you throw at it, the game is terribly made and has the worst optimization I have ever come across in all my years of gaming.

So, is it worth getting a rig (if you indeed can, and even still you WILL be paying A LOT) that maxes out Crysis? No way, the game is not even very good and falls through the proverbial cracks and lands with Doom 3, Quake 4 and countless other mediocrities in my book. Sorry Crytek; you did a poor job.

I like how 1080p just became 2560x1600. That's funny.

2560x1600 is the max for PC monitors, and would imply a maximum setting (which is what this is all about regarding PC testing Crysis) so I don't see the humour.
What I see is bad programming from Crytek and a bunch of people unable to realize it. I did mention 1080P for eigth generation consoles but not concerning the PC bit, I was quite adament (ludicrously so, I even punctuated it 3-4 times in my previous post) that I referred to maximum PC settings.