hey I think my screens where pretty good, I show details aswell as the whole enviroment.

First your processor and memory do not fit in the motherboard you chose (it takes core i7 processors and DDR3 memory, you chose Core 2 Duo and DDR2 memory), second you just chose whatever expensive parts you could find and slapped them together then declared it more expensive but conveniently forgot  that:

1. He said PS3+HDTV

2. it only has to run Crysis better than a PS3 would, so running it at 1280x720 is enough as most PS3 games run at a lower resolution than that (fake HD).

Also you slapped in a Blu-Ray writer (which the PS3 hasn't got, only a player) when we are talking about games graphical quality, not attending media functions here.

Others above me already pointed out the fallacies with your calculations/argument, so I'm not gonna even bother.

@Sqrl

That's one of the biggest parts, Crysis doesn't just look when you look at a broad scene, it also looks damn good when you are 2 inches away from the wall.

Why are you guys still discussing this? The thread isn't about prices, it's about graphics and PC proves to be the leader.

So, despite a PC being expensive to run Crysis, it doesn't take from the fact it runs better graphics than a PS3.

/end

(1) No, you're correct, I do not have such skills. 

(2) Who said anything about sales?  This appears to me to be a complete non sequitur.  Aren't we discussing comparisons of the technical abilities of consoles and PCs from various times?  That has nothing to do with sales except that winning consoles get more developers working harder at exploiting the hardware. 

(3) OK, but I find it odd that you are speaking exclusively of single GC setups.  As I understand it the most advanced gaming setups are now dual card; since these setups are in fact "in the wild" in significantly large numbers they should be counted within PC gaming as it stands today.  (And when Crysis came out, I believe.) 

(4) Are you saying this because you believe that Crysis should be considered like a game that came out 2 or 3 years "in the future", so advance 2 or 3 years from 2002?  Considering the fact that Crysis is only ONE year old at this point, I think it's presumptious of you to say that. 

But yeah, I'm sure it's true that no game in 2002 was as deliberately PC-destroyingly demanding as Crysis was in 2007, so I'll give you 2003 ... since we all know how fast the technology advances.  Call of Duty came out in that year. 

On the other hand, the PS3 is more powerful for its time than the Gamecube or Xbox were for theirs, so that may cancel things out to some extent. 

(5) Fair enough -- this is said of many games, and it's true of many games.  But still, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't rush out and download a 12GB game I hardly care about, and tweak my system for it, just to gawk at the graphics. 

Actually FC2 looks pretty sweet as well.. i havent had a chance to play it yet.

but dang.. crysis does look sweeter :(

Ok Final-Fan, i will try to make myself more understandable .... ;)))

1) Ok.

If we remove advanced effects from the discussion (parallax bump mapping, normal mapping and so forth) that are super power hungry from pixels shaders units, current "HD console" game require (we need much more detail on screen due to HD resolution) much more textures and much more high res textures.

Like it or not, putting those on screen require memory space and memory bandwith. There is no practical way of optimising it (except by procedural synthesis but i don't believe we will see this gen).

IMO, by this aspect, Crysis is already out of the bound of what is possible on PS360.

2) I was not building a bridge between those 2.

There is a huge topic on this forum where Crazyman tries to corralate somethings that cannot be because they are not the same (ie, the 2002 PS2 sales to 2008 PS3 sales). Here you do the same, IMO.

3) I speak about single GC setup because PS360 are single GC setups.

4) We are comparing apples to oranges, here. So i will let it go.

I think is noticeable I haven't add a monitor to PC as well. Plus I got the cheapest I could find, or you would prefer a Logitech G15 keyboard for $50? Yes, I missed the processor thing: however a Core i7 is at least 100 bucks more expensive, what does not add nothing to your point then ^^

About the blu-ray thing, I guess is also noticeable I said 'fully outperform PS3'. But if it pleases you, exchange that for a Lite-On DH-4O1S-08 Black Blu-ray Reader which is at least $80.

First off; Crysis is shit. It is also unplayable at max settings because of horrid optimazation no matter how insane your rig is (we've been over this too many times, max settings and very high settings are very different things).
I also can't see any reason why someone won't make a game that looks as good as or better than Crysis, see the massive leap in graphics quality in last gen games from the beginning of the gen till now to see what I mean.

Lastly; all those screens mean nothing, I've seen Crysis on 4-5 different rigs (as well as played the atrocity myself), most of which were superior to mine and it does not look like that, and when it comes close to looking like that, the FPS drops to ludicrous levels.

What's the point of this thread anyway?

optimazation is very good, it's just a little ahead of it's time for most people. It's insane they got crysis working on these videocards so many things are being calculated it's insane. and those screens are exactly how it looks on my PC.