http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130080

This is the video card people talk about that's marginally better than what the PS3 is capable of. It costs $400 in a market more competitive than consoles. It might come down faster (not guarenteed), but even then it costs more than $200 to meet the rest of the requirements to play Crysis on the PC. Pretty expensive game there, even if you bought everything you needed last year except the video card.

And for that, it's not much better than what the Ps3 is doing. Heck, the quotes regarding the game indicate that if the PS3 had a hard drive in it, it might be able to play Crysis. Imagine that. So all they'd have to do is tell it how to use information off of the hard drive and it may be possible.

Doesn't the PS3 have a hard drive?

Edit: About everything else you said:

"...if Crytek 'can' reach that same quality bar on the consoles, then I can't see why they wouldn't release a console version of Crysis for Xbox360 and PS3."

"It's only a matter of working out how many sacrifices would need to be made to make that achievable."

"...consoles do have their limitations. Crysis is a very detailed game with an enormous view distance. All that information has to be stored in a quick to reach place which is either the video ram, or the system ram. The next best thing is then the hard-drive. Unfortunately, consoles don't have much ram nor do they have a hard-drive ( which are much faster to read from than discs ). We've already seen how the simple environments in gears of war require many loading interruptions. This makes it hard to imagine how a game such as Crysis could run on a machine with so little quick access storage.

Note: As far as I'm aware, the HDD's that come with some consoles aren't used to store game data for increased performance, the majority of the loading is done from the disc."

First, let's wait for Dx 10 games to come out ;)

QFT, I also noticed he didn't mentioned the big pappa of the 8800 line.  The Ultra and GTX stomp the everliving crap out of ....well everything not 8800. If you look at some of the Tom's Hardware GPU charts you can see pretty clearly that when you want the best quality you buy an 8800.  The ATI cards can do better than the 8800s when you have AA/AF off, but those cards choke when you turn on AA/AF and the 8800 line in general hums along with negligible difference.

There is a simple and easy to understand reason why console software will always be behind PC software.  The only time when console hardware can be more capable than PC hardware is in the first year of its life.  So within the first year of its life it needs to produce very high quality games.  But as we all know from the numerous threads on the subject, consoles take time to learn and they never have their best looking games in the early stages of their lifetime.  

I won't go so far as to say that a console will never have a better looking game than is available for the PC, but I will say that even if it does it will be very shortlived due to the nature of PC hardware markets which are always progressing.

Also I would say keep in mind that a lot of people believe we are running into a graphics wall very soon.  And if that is truly the case then the focus is going to move to physics engines and AIs as we try to challenge ourselves to progress the market and keep games from becoming stagnant.   

oh yes...keep up dreaming but when you'll wake up just do yourself a simple question: how can a console with an OLD GEN graphic adapter produce better graphics than a PC with a modern 8800/2900 videocard (that has more memory and more shaders)? again do you think that technology is going backward? do you think that RSX comes from a sort of "golden age" of techonolgy? resistance is futile: RSX is OLD (plain and simple). Period.

ah yes PS3 is 4d (that's my favourite PS3 feature ;) )...but as long as we consider the good old 3 dimensions (in this universe) a PC with a modern graphic adapter plays in a different league. 

I'll post some of the specs of the actual RSX versus the middle-range G80, the standard, not overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS that you can get for around $250, just for the sake for everyone to have corrects facts.


PS3 Reality Synthetizer

Core Clock: 550 MHz
Memory Clock: 650 MHz (1300 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 20.8 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 13,200 Operations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 8,800 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 13,200 MTexels/sec
Vertex Operations: 1,100 MVertices/sec

Framebuffer: 512 MB (256 MB actual VRAM, 256 MB via CPU)
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus Type: 128 bit
DirectX Compliance: 9.0c
OpenGL Compliance: 2.0
PS/VS Version: 3.0/3.0
Process: 90 nm
Fragment Pipelines: 24
Vertex Pipelines: 8
Texture Units: 24
Raster Operators: 16 

GeForce 8800 GTS

Core Clock: 500 MHz
Shader Clock: 1200 MHz
Memory Clock: 800 MHz (1600 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 64 GB/sec
Shader Operations: 153,600 Operations/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 10,000 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 12,000 MTexels/sec 

Framebuffer: 320 or 640 MB
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus Type: 320 bit
DirectX Compliance: 10.0
OpenGL Compliance: 2.1
PS/VS Version: 4.0/4.0
Process: 90 nm
Shader Processors: 96 (from the original 128 on the high-end model)
Pipeline Layout: Scalar MADD+MUL
Texture Units: 24 (from the 32 of the high-end model)
Raster Operators: 20 (from the 24 of the high-end model) 

The numbers in blue mean that in that aspect, the mentioned GPU is faster/better.

So yeah, I can't see HOW PC games can look better than PS3, that rumor is just out of this world  

Wow... a console being better graphics than a PC.... thats just funny

Just because someone posted about it.... doesn't make it real people... hell it links to a MYSPACE BLOG.... are we really getting our news from myspace now? seriously?

use common sense people... PLEASE!

@Fazz, Oh you were nice!

But I feel I should hammer the point home a bit for people...

GeForce 8800 Ultra

Core Clock: 612 MHz
Shader Clock: 1500 MHz
Memory Clock: 2160 MHz (1600 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 103.68 GB/sec
Pixel Fill Rate: 14,700 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 39,200 MTexels/sec

Framebuffer: 768 MB
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus Type: 384 bit
DirectX Compliance: 10.0
OpenGL Compliance: 2.1
PS/VS Version: 4.0/4.0
Shader Processors: 128 (I believe you were off, the GTS has 96)
Texture Units: 32
Raster Operators: 24

I think the problem a lot of people may be having is that they think we are saying the PS3 is crap. I can only speak for myself, but I am not saying the PS3 is crap, I am just trying to put into perspective for the fanboys who can't stop drooling exactly where it ranks in the hardware world. The PS3 is still capable of some fantastic graphics, but the mantra of "PS3 owns all"...it just smacks of ignorance on so many levels that it really only detracts from a person's point when they say it or its inumerable variations.