The only "jump in graphics" I can think of since Crysis (the original) is perhaps Battlefield 3... maybe? It's rather impressive at full settings but it's not as impressive as the jump (and the "gap" filled by it) from pre-Crysis games to suddenly getting Crysis back in 2007. Before Crysis we had FarCry and Half-Life 2 which of course themselves were also impressive leaps from previous generation engines (and graphics). But at least as far as PC games are concerned Crysis 3 is certainly not a "leap in graphics" as much as the original did compared to what came before.
I think that the next graphics "leap" we might see would probably come from a game that use the next Unreal engine fully (or extensively), perhaps a next gen console title (then of course ported to the PC). But I wouldn't classify Crysis 3 as being a game worth buying "just for its graphics", nor do I think that Crysis 3 graphics are a significant leap from "currently top" GPU-taxing "good-looking" games. I think however that Crysis 3 does look very good at very high settings from the videos I've seen of it so far, although I won't play it, haven't even finished the second one (and not interested to complete it either).
I kinda wish that the next "big leap" would come from Valve though, same way they impressed the industry and the crowd of gamers alike when they revealed Half-Life 2... the first time I saw facial animations of the G-Man in that demonstration I couldn't believe my eyes. Sure the first FarCry was also very nice but, for me, nothing could beat Half-Life 2's quantum leap, it really was the Crysis of its day. I wish Half-Life 3 could do the same, but I do think that the next leap will come from a game made under Unreal Engine 4 for some reasons (which have no basis... just a "feeling").