Actually no. Fair enough not all games are full HD on the PS3 but not all 360 games run in atleast 720p, if they did the devs would have to take graphical short cuts and not be able to do some affects like full Anisotropic Filtering and stuff like that

You have no idea what you're talking about.

What X360 game doesn't run at 720p?

They don't all run NATIVE 720p, but they do still run 720p. Halo 3 is an example of this. It natively runs at 640p, BUT it's upscaled to 720p, so technically, it is running HD.

"Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers - both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see - lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible - so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image. This ability to display a full range of HDR ... gives our scenes ... a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels."

-Bungie

Your point? It's still 640p.

Also, your lovely little quote does nothing but admit that the 360 wasn't capable of 720p natively

Like I said, it's not your typical 640p. It's two frame buffers used simultaneously to create one image.

GG.

And I love that list, Crunk Juice.

Er I'm just wondering why I keep seeing the dropping of two frame buffers in this thing.

Split alternate frame rendering isn't new, it's a method dating way back to the mid/late 90's I'd say it seems that by splitting the video memory as such that Bungie capped themselves on how high they could go. There are many solutions to HDR rendering, although with MS on their backs maybe they didn't have enough time to really explore all the different methods out there to accomplish the same effect without the sacrifice.

Regardless doing SAFR on a single GPU is a bit odd of a choice and almost overkill to accomplish something that could have been tackled with more invested time.

In the end I have no direct information on what methods they wanted to explore if they were just trying to use a median luminance, what their histogram threshold was, how they dealt with bright pixels in regard to tone mapping results and so on. But from what other developers have published in the field, it's possible without going out on the limb to force it together over two buffers. There was no need to go the excess step on the GPU and force it to do yet another pass to clean up the LDR before going out. Regardless of "well we weren't satisfied" there are other options that work but just like anything they need invested time.

In the end, all this "not your typical 640p" stating means nothing. Of course it's not your typical HDR, it's using an excess pass to render again while reducing the memory overhead in the process as a sacrifice to make up for either a lack of time to properly correct the HDR or just to cut a corner. It doesn't make it better, it's not like the 360 was using a hidden secondary GPU to do it.

A note for those going on about how incapable the 360 is, many companies have already adjusted for the linear sRGB curve and this year there have been publications released to the public so that future devs can release games with proper dynamic range lighting with a fraction of the hassle involved for the console. It's not a case of a system being incapable, it's developers not spending enough time learning the hardware and how to adjust for it. No hardware is perfect, even the PS3 needs special consideration in multi-threading because of the 256kb cache on the SPU's.