Infamous Chris
Banned
Metalmurphy said:
"marginally"
"vastly"
Lol, thread keeps delivering. Serves it's purpose well
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Forza 3 vs Gran Turismo 5 Comparison Thread of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35
- Thread starter bishoptl
- Start date
"marginally"
"vastly"
Lol, thread keeps delivering. Serves it's purpose well
test_account
XP-39C²
Just out of curiousity, which words would you use instead?Infamous Chris said:"marginally"
"vastly"
Lol, thread keeps delivering. Serves it's purpose well
Metalmurphy said:
vastly? They're different architectures but each has its advantages for gaming. Sure the peak processing power of the CPU is higher in the PS3 but using it in a gaming context isn't easy at all. Not everyone is naughty dog.
PS3s biggest advantage is disk space, not its CPU.
H_Prestige
Banned
360 has a significantly stronger GPU, more RAM, and basically equal or better CPU. And it's easier to program for. You'd think people would have figured it out by now but I guess the PS3 myth still continues. It's only advantage is Bluray, which is only a convenience and doesn't affect how games look.
Fun fact: all Sony first party games would look even better if they were made for 360 and GT5 would embarrass Forza 4 even more.
Fun fact: all Sony first party games would look even better if they were made for 360 and GT5 would embarrass Forza 4 even more.
For one we are not sure how the reflections were created, so we can't assume. Two, are we talking about PGR with the "screen saver" rain effect on the windshield? y'know, the repeating rain pattern? That game? The game the runs at 30 FPS and pre-bakes almost all SF's? And to boot, poor lighting and not-so-high texture res?eso76 said:
user friendly
Member
Thinking it was a bit a sarcasm unless you don't like that sort of thing, which would be odd since you are in this thread. I lol'd at it...bobbytkc said:
Metalmurphy
Member
H_Prestige said:
What is this fact you speak off?
Actually CPU is what saved PS3. HDD just erased some constrains X0 has.Yoritomo said:
CELL is vastly superior to xenon, yes its harder to write too, but with current advanced tools and libraries from phyre engine and engines that are coded to use jobs, cell is great tool and its scary fast.
Xenon is basically 3 PPUs taped together, so it has 3 cores and 6 threads, and one thread is almost completely dedicated to XMB [like 70% from what i remember]. Because X0 dont have HDD, it uses more CPU for texture decoding [for exampled Bizarre in PGR 4 used one whole core just for decoding textures].
CELL is two times faster than i7 920 in single precision calculations and it has really low latency.
Basically CELL in pure SP flops is almost equal to RSX.
RSX is worse than Xenos, by quite a bit, but because PS3 can use SPU culling, they are almost equal in many cases and RSX is worse for probably max 20% in other ones, its all depends of code of course ;p
Less options, worse driving model, less cars and tracks, less different types of racing makes it 'much much better game than GT 5'? 'every aspect' seriously?Yoritomo said:
Jamesways
Member
H_Prestige said:
AND, studies have shown that comsumers of the more powerful console are more typically more successful in both careers and wealth, are far more attractive, and have healthier sex lives too. In fact, they're just better people living better lives in every way.
Now, I can't remember if that was the ps3 or the 360, maybe it was PC. Oh where's that study...
Anyway, whichever it was, people are far more superior.
;P
KKRT00 said:
The SPU's are largely number crunchers, they are vastly different to a PPU, and obviously any SPU resource used to bolster RSX is then not available for other things..
It's surprising that if you take the strengths/weaknesses of each as a system that they relatively matched..
And looking at games as ultimate proof isn't always fair, since the game/developer focus is often different.
Just take FM/GT, and on spot graphics, GT is the clear winner..
But when you look at all the things the game has to do, you start to see that hardware resource doesn't seem overly 1 sided
GT - Night
GT - Wet tracks
GT - 1280*1080
GT - Some better lighting shaders
GT - Some nicer spot texture
GT - Long dev cycle (could start engine from scratch)
FM - Liveries on car
FM - Audio
FM - Head tracking in all modes
FM - Depth of physics (not how realistic, but collisions, known tyre modelling depth)
FM - locked 60fps
FM - Arguably more geometry on tracks
I'm not trying to make that a definitive list to argue over, but you can see that if you where to notionally assign some resource penalties for each feature, there is an element of obviously playing to the hardware strengths, but also the total hardware resource spent doesn't seem as unbalanced as many people seem to think IMO!
KKRT00 said:
Driving model is up to debate. And unless someone has sunk actual time into both games with a wheel their opinion on one game vs the other means jack shit in that respect.
Multiplayer, tuning, interface, rivals mode, blah blah. the stuff that makes it a game and not a just a sim are all better in FM4.
Proving what the sim community has known for quite some time: that GT fanboys are the worst.chubigans said:
Still I think a healthy comparison can and should be made between both games but this thread reflects that fir many this is about system wars and not about 2 great games that complement each other.
Metalmurphy
Member
Ok maybe vastly is a bit too much, better is enough.Infamous Chris said:"marginally"
"vastly"
Lol, thread keeps delivering. Serves it's purpose well
Btw I love how you keep trying to sell this unbiased view of yourself, do you keep forgetting the thread you're in and your past posts in it?
Hey look Iknos is back. How come we didn't see you on the GT5 NRL race? You'd said you'd show up...
RukusProvider
Banned
Iknos said:
The games are the just weapon of choice. The real battle you're seeing is Sony vs MS diehards.
I'll never understand romanticizing corporations who see you nothing more than a revenue stream.
Driving model includes suspension and track recreation and those are better in GT 5 without an doubt.Yoritomo said:
Multiplayer isnt better, interface is hurting only haters, tuning i agree, rivals mode - havent You seen seasonal events?
60fps damn stop with that 99.9999999% people cant notice difference between 50 and 60fps.Snubbers said:
And stop with dev cycle, look at Crysis, look at BF 3. FM 4 is third Turn10 game on X0, so they had 7 years to change the engine, more than GT 5 was in development. And look how GT 5: Prologue looked in 2007.
Collisions are bad in both games, dont really understand why it was even an argument, maybe for GT 4 could be.
Tyre modelling is awesome in GT too.
And about tech side.
Physics are much more complex in GT, just observe how suspension reacts, how physics move drivers inside the car.
Audio is more complex in GT if You're talking about hardware resources.
Collisions are based on the same things and actually GT is better because it has realtime deformations, not model swapping.
Some tracks has more geometry, some has similar in GT, so its really hard too compare.
And now things You havent mentions.
HDR in GT 5, higher lod on cars, real-time shadows, more post-processing lighting effects, volumetric particles, anisotropic filtering, much better animations.
The problem is tearing and it's technically really impressive that Forza is 60fps all the time.KKRT00 said:
Tearing usually doesn't affect me (play without v-sync on PC), but I still think windscreen wipers look pretty bad in GT5 with all the tearing. For people who have a problem with tearing it's a huge issue as they can't play a race with multiple cars at 60 fps all the time.
KKRT00 said:
What's your gamertag? For more of your opinion I need some evidence that you've played a significant amount of FM4.
Suspension modeling is great in FM4. It was piss poor in 3 but vastly improved in 4. The number of options available to someone making a multiplayer game in FM4 destroys GT5. Track recreation depends on the track. GT5 has the definitive ring, that's for sure.
Nobody will ever convince anybody that game X is better than game Y in this thread.
But the condescendence of certain posters is quite funny. Give your heads a shake if you think that a certain fanbase is better than another. A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party, but there is no battle unless there be two.
Anyway, resume!
But the condescendence of certain posters is quite funny. Give your heads a shake if you think that a certain fanbase is better than another. A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party, but there is no battle unless there be two.
Anyway, resume!
gutterboy44
Member
This thread isn't even entertaining to read anymore. I think it has run its course and needs to be put down.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Iknos said:
Hold your horses son, no fanboy is better than the other. Thats why they are called 'Fanboys".
Red Blaster
Member
Forza defenders resorting to attacking the fans and not the game. Typical, but I guess that's what you have to do when the game you're repping is a self-driving arcade racer.
Loaded up both games last night at the same time, played the nurb GT track with the bmw z4.
Forza feels and sounds better, GT5 looks too dark but looks great in photomode. GT's nurb is superior and their shaders are insane. The interesting thing is that I had FUN playing both. I suggest some of you do the same. You'll come back to a thread like this and realize how childish it is to argue over two games.
Forza feels and sounds better, GT5 looks too dark but looks great in photomode. GT's nurb is superior and their shaders are insane. The interesting thing is that I had FUN playing both. I suggest some of you do the same. You'll come back to a thread like this and realize how childish it is to argue over two games.
Infamous Chris
Banned
Red Blaster said:
You keep reposting the same gamefaqs level "attacks" over and over like you're a teenager (or lack a mature mindset). The ironic thing is, there is noone "attacking fans" the way you speak of, and when it has happened in this thread, it happens on BOTH sides. But of course your tinted shades blind you. If you think calling people fanboys, which many outrightingly admit they are in this thread (or obvious is obvious) is a personal insult ... I have no words.
And how many times are you going to say "self driving arcade racer?" Are you making things up to ease the pain of Forza 3/4 averaging much higher ratings than your holy grail? The pain must be unbearable. In before fanboy brethren come to your rescue.
Infamous Chris
Banned
Apex said:
Inferiority complex is strong with this one.
I think they're worst on the losing/struggling side, especially if it has dominated. Forza isn't struggling yet like the GT series was after GT5, but it lost a bit of the lead after spec 2 and FM4 and IMO the forza fanboys have gotten worse.Iknos said:
This thread is just running in circles: graphics -> standard cars -> graphics -> frame rate -> graphics -> physics -> graphics -> consistency -> etc...
For some time we've known that GT5 has the best graphics, most cars, most race conditions and most realistic physics, forza the best career mode, best multiplayer, best framerate and most cockpits. We've ran out of stuff to discuss and are basically using one game's advantage to counter the other game's advantage.
*bails out, after a couple of posts*
