[QUOTE="mazza558"] [QUOTE="AcidRonen"]what a waste of hardwareTE_Lawrence

Did you even read any of the posts in this thread?

Funny how it seems like no sheep nor lemming here actually can read. :(

You'll have to excuse that ignorant fanboy. His level of intelligence is comparable to my pet hamster.

[QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"][QUOTE="ps2_rocks234"][QUOTE="McLarenAK47"][QUOTE="hd28guy_basic"]

i told the cows...

...but they NEVER listen...

..cows.. keeping the dream alive..:lol:

m3Boarder32

there;s something in ur cranium that seems to be dead, mind telling me what it is??

....and the ps3 STILL has no 1080p games like you cows claimed...:lol:

But but, teh dual 1080p HDTV's with one PS3 :lol:

Attention COws, Cell is a nightmare to dev for, it can't even hit HDR10.

Let alone 120 FPS  :lol:

:lol: Cows and their hype :lol:

Red_Cloak

Really? Because he says they are able to do something other than HDR16 without loss of quality. Self owned you fool.

[QUOTE="munu9"]Where does it say the cell can't handle HDR16?AcidRonen

it doesn't HS devs are just lazy 

No they found a better way of doing it, without loss of quality, read the rest of the thread before commenting.

Are you ****in' stupid? Did you even bother reading the rest of thread?

Well hopefully its fairly obvious that 32 bit integer framebuffers are faster than 64 bit ones. So why wouldn't you use 32 bit integer framebuffers if the quality is the same?

There no real lose of quality... float RGB space doesn't make much sense for HDR, so we don't use it.

Bet NVIDIA and ATI are pissed about wasting all that silicon for FP16 stuff DeanoC