VF 5. VF5 is a great game, i just got it.

They need to reinvent fighting games there is only so much you can do with them now a days.. Seems like both companies just upped the poly count and made the backgrounds prettier but its still the same game basically..

Id like to see a whole new concept brought to the table for these fighting games..

we're comparing graphics. not which game is newer, which series you like better, which one your mommy picked up for you at walmart last week. Honestly I think DOA4 had nicer colors and didnt look quite so washed out compared to VF5. Maybe VF5 has a different/more realistic art style than that of DOA4 but DOA4 looked more visually pleasing. As far as textures, character models etc, they look identical.

Virtua Fighter Looks Much Better.

You're trying to compare two totally different games? Yes, they are the same genre, but neither is trying to capture realism. They're both arcade style games that use different models to achieve the arcade feel. DOA series has always had brighter colors, which gives it a more surreal look, whereas VF5 takes a different approach. Both are established developers and both make great games.

Basically, this is a waste of time.

Both same genre
Neither trying to capture realism
Both arcade style games
Both established developers
Both great games

Seems like a lot in common to me. Anyway I understand your point...but comparing Gears to Resistance anyone?

then I take my hate off to DOA4 because that game is over a year old on a weaker xbox360(says sonyboys)compared to a NEW VF5 on a much stronger PS3(says sonyboys). if its that close to call then it must have been ahead of its time when it launched!!

Once again I say resistance and Gears...

Well there you go. We have the answer. A first generation game on the xbox when compared to a first generation PS3 title is not allowed to be, but a first generation PS3 title and second generation 360 title is. That's ok with me, just hope you can see it's slightly contradictory.

I'm not one who said the xbox was meant to be the weaker system. So don't pull that out at me.

And as you said they took different graphical approaches and yet it's still allowed to be compared, whereas VF5 and DOA4 isn't. It's all good.

Deepbrown? the xbox was supposed to be the weaker system!! it was the PS3 that was to amaze us beyond our beliefs!! remember its only xbox 1. an dont act like RFOM wasnt in development just as long as gears!! remember a game called I-8. so theres no excuse, they both took different graphical approaches, an the route EPIC took worked out better wouldnt you agree!!

Does anyone know where I can find an updated PS3 exclusives list?

and shadows.but doa4 pulls the expansive backgrounds and is more colorful.the water is definitely more realistic in vf5.

i'd give vf5 the nod,but only by a smidge when it comes to graphics.but i wouldn't expect any less from yu susuki's series or am2.even tommy(itagaki) respects VF and patterned his game and characters after what he saw in the vf series.

but close call.tekken 6 had better step to the plate.toss some urban reign into the mix.and to gnothe,VF5 is a port,not built from the ground up.and sega would just be wasting time starting over from scratch.

a port from what!! that game was built with the Ps3 in mind!! plus there was an article on here were SEGA said that its easier to port there arcade board to the PS3 than it is to the xbox, so that probably explains why the xbox version of these games arent released yet(VT3,VF5)but as far as a port goes its ported from their arcade board, so its not like its ported from the xbox or anything like that!!

I couldn't tell which one was better. The video made both look really weird. Though if VF5 has 1080p support then it would probably look better. I've played DOA4 with the VGA adapter and it looks pretty damn nice. I'd say they're about even but VF5 gets the edge.

Ok here goes IMO

Backgrounds : DOA (Including Water,Tree's, ETC's)
Character Details : VF5
Character Animations : DOA

Man fuk dat if i was Really judging on these video i would say either cuz the Vid is to garbage to disrespect any game cuz they are both good. But as far as DOA Goes the Resolution looks a bit higher.

Who ever did this post need to get smacked.

"I'd say they're about even but VF5 gets the edge. "
This is one time where i would say a launch Title still holds its own a year later against a Visual Behemoth.

with both Doa and VF5 running side by side, on the to sony bravias in my dads house. and while DOA4 looks absolutely stunning i have to give the edge to VF5, the textures and the BGs look spectacular.. as a matter of fact this is absolutely evident when you see the fabric and complexity it has as it drapes along the characters every movement. heck even the what has more of a realistic feel to it... I'll give the vastness and interactivity of backgrounds to DOA, in speed and quick execution i'd say they are even... pretty Good!!! the two of them are awesome fighters and should not be skipped especially VF5

VF 5 all the way

You can't compare two different games on two different consoles like this. The true test is when it is the same game on two different platforms.

Once VF5 comes out for the Xbox 360, comparing THAT to the PS3 version of VF5 would make sense. Comparing the year old Dead or Alive 4 to the brand new Virtua Fighter 5 doesn't make sense.

I just submitted a comparison video of Armored Core 4 showing the PS3 version vs. the 360 version. That will hopefully provide some more credible comparisons.

Graphically it looks pretty equal. And I would call that a win for the 360 since the ps3 is supposed to be like a 100 times more powerful than the hubble telescope.

But Virtua Fighter was never known for top notch graphics. It's all about top notch fighting and I cant wait to kick somebody with my 360 version.

well I really do hope that VF5 has some online play on 360 and I hope that future DOA games go for a more realistic look!

It was the 1st, and its still the best. Always one step ahead of the competition/imitators. Vf5 is an incredible achievement.
Having said that, I do LOVE d.o.a series too. Some people do claim it has too many 'cheap' reversals but I don't think so. The thing d.o.a games have over the competition Id say is the level interactivity. Like smashing through a ceiling to a next level etc.

Lets wait to compare the 360 version of VF5 with DOA4 then after that then we can compare the 360 and PS3 version of VF5 that makes sense as this does not, at all. lol.

What the hell is deepbrown talking about his Sony fanboyism is off the charts and to think i helped him earn his bubbles. If the comparison was just about seeing which fighter looks better we should have waited untill the 360 version of VF5 came out so we can get a better picture of the differences not that it's credable considering in the first place being a year apart. lol

RFOM and GoW had the same amount of dev time both dev teams started out on new hardware this is a bad example.

Xbox1 was more powerful and proved it from day one.

remember the ps3 was supposed to launch spring 06 well after a long time it launched and that gave a lot of time for the developers

*cough*
VF5 barely edges out a 360 game that's over a year old?
Eerrrr... I don't think that's really a victory for VF5 at all.

Wow they are comparing a year old game to a new VF game, well all i can say is well done they made themsleves look like idiots.

I want to bust some @ss you hear me!? Doa 4 is sweet too the online feature makes it 1,000X more worth it.

Instead of taking the usual "fanboyish" Console war fighting approach to this. Why doesnt anyone look at it from another perspective. Maybe they are just showing how much progress had been made in a year. I must say the character models on Virtua Fighter are very impressive. I think Tekken 6 come out victorious on both these titles.

Just how I feel about it.

EDIT: THE VIDEO IS DOWN BUT YOU CAN WATCH IT ON A DIFFERENT SITE I POSTED IT UNDER ALTERNATIVE SOURCES...

aww the vid is down lol

Who cares about the Graphics as long as they both look great. This isn't comparing games, its just an excuse to compare consoles again, like it always is. If both the games were on the same machine you wouldn't even bother, you'd just say yeah both are cool.

If you want to have a real thought provoking gaming dicussion, why aren't we comparing which game we prefer for the charators, or moves or the feel of the game. You just go on about graphics as if its prove of which machine is most powerful or best. I'd actually prefer Tekken DR to either of these games and I'm sure it would look worse than both of them. But I like the charactors, moves and feel of the game. It looks good enough so thats good enough for me.

Looking at the list, which platform is war devil really going to be on.
GS has it listed as a 360only title

But the backgrounds and effects deffinately go to DOA4. When looking at water levels, we se relfection and refraction effects on DOA4. VF5 has a crazy water splashing effect that while more ambitious, looks fake overall and lacks any reflection.

Both have superb characters, but VF5 has more shiney "sweat". I guess that's more realistic.

Animation to DOA4 as well.

Graphics aside, I hope VF5 is a funner title to play, as the final boss in DOA4 makes me not want to play it any more. So cheap.

I hope the port to 360 is a good one, and not a half-assed job a lot of comanies have been doing lately.

That VF5 is coming to the '360 is a shinier package than on the PS3, so this thing is null and void.

I think VF5 has some nicer (more realistic) character models, while DOA4's are a completely different art style but equally compelling. The background and arenas go hands down to DOA4. But I don't think these are a valid comparison. It comes down more to development time than anything else.

You are comparing graphics in a game that premiered one month after the release of a system in development under 2 years to a game that has come out almost half a year after PS3 release, probably in development what around 3 years. Seems a little bizarre as the longer a game is in development the better it should look. Also, you have to figure in a development time for online capabilities. This can be the longest part of development on a game. DOA4 boasts a deep online mode, while VF5 there is no such thing (I don't need fan boys saying online isn't practical because of lag, I've seen it in action for a multitude of fighters, where timing is everything with few problems). I think a better comparison would be between games launched at the same time with equivalent development windows. This was the case in Gears of War vs. Resistance, but is rarely ever the case. Even Gears vs. Resistance will be argued off as a 2nd gen release, vs. launch, even though development times were very close.

For the Dreamcast beats them all! X:~)

These are parts of greatly informative articles where I draw information from in comparing the two GPU's for the systems, do the reading and you may learn something, if not may explain potentials minus the CPU's of course.

As for Xenos:
"... ATI's Xbox 360 GPU (codenamed Xenos) is quite interesting. The part itself is made up of two physically distinct silicon ICs. One IC is the GPU itself, which houses all the shader hardware and most of the processing power. The second IC (which ATI refers to as the "daughter die") is a 10MB block of embedded DRAM (eDRAM) combined with the hardware necessary for z and stencil operations, color and alpha processing, and anti aliasing. This daughter die is connected to the GPU proper via a 32GB/sec interconnect. Data sent over this bus will be compressed, so usable bandwidth will be higher than 32GB/sec. In side the daughter die, between the processing hardware and the eDRAM itself, bandwidth is 256GB/sec.

At this point in time, much of the bandwidth generated by graphics hardware is required to handle color and z data moving to the framebuffer. ATI hopes to eliminate this as a bottleneck by moving this processing and the back framebuffer off the main memory bus. The bus to main memory is 512MB of 128-bit 700MHz GDDR3 (which results in just over 22GB/sec of bandwidth). This is less bandwidth than current desktop graphics cards have available, but by offloading work and bandwidth for color and z to the daughter die, ATI saves themselves a good deal of bandwidth. The 22GB/sec is left for textures and the rest of the system (the Xbox implements a single pool of unified memory).

The GPU essentially acts as the Northbridge for the system, and sits in the middle of everything. From the graphics hardware, there is 10.8GB/sec of bandwidth up and down to the CPU itself. The rest of the system is hooked in with 500MB/sec of bandwidth up and down. The high bandwidth to the CPU is quite useful as the GPU is able to directly read from the L2 cache. In the console world, the CPU and GPU are quite tightly linked and the Xbox 360 stands to continue that tradition.

Weighing in at 332M transistors, the Xbox 360 GPU is quite a powerful part, but its architecture differs from that of current desktop graphics hardware. For years, vertex and pixel shader hardware have been implemented separately, but ATI has sought to combine their functionality in a unified shader architecture."

"Vertex and pixel processing differ in purpose, but there is quite a bit of overlap in the type of hardware needed to do both. The unified shader architecture that ATI chose to use in their Xbox 360 GPU allows them to pack more functionality onto fewer transistors as less hardware needs to be duplicated for use in different parts of the chip and will run both vertex and shader programs on the same hardware."

"ATI is predicting that developers will use lots of very small triangles in Xbox 360 games. As engines like Epic's Unreal Engine 3 have shown incredible results using pixel shaders and normal maps to augment low geometric detail, we can't tell if ATI is trying to provide the chicken or the egg. In other words, will we see many small triangles on Xbox 360 because console developers are moving in that direction or because that is what will run well on ATI's hardware?

Regardless of the paths that lead to this road, it is obvious that the Xbox 360 will be a geometry power house. Not only are all 3 blocks of 16 shaders able to become vertex shaders, but ATI's GPU will be able to handle twice as many z operations if a z only pass is performed. The same is true of current ATI and NVIDIA hardware, but the fact that a geometry only pass can now make use of shader hardware to perform 48 vector and 48 scalar operations in any given clock cycle while doing twice the z operations is quite intriguing. This could allow some very geometrically complicated scenes."

"There are 3 parallel groups of 16 shader units each. Each of the three groups can either operate on vertex or pixel data. Each shader unit is able to perform one 4 wide vector operation and 1 scalar operation per clock cycle. Current ATI hardware is able to perform two 3 wide vector and two scalar operations per cycle in the pixel pipe alone. The vertex pipeline of R420 is 6 wide and can do one vector 4 and one scalar op per cycle. If we look at straight up processing power, this gives R420 the ability to crunch 158 components (30 of which are 32bit and 128 are limited to 24bit precision). The Xbox GPU is able to crunch 240 32bit components in its shader units per clock cycle."

"Those who paid close attention to the amount of eDRAM (10MB) will note that this is not enough memory to store the entire framebuffer for displays larger than standard television with 4xAA enabled. Apparently, ATI will store the front buffer in the UMA area, while the back buffer resides on the eDRAM. In order to manage large displays, the hardware will need to render the back buffer in parts. This indicates that they have implemented some sort of very large grained tiling system (with 2 to 4 tiles). Usually tile based renderes have many more tiles than this, but this is a special case.

As for the PS3 RSX:

"The PlayStation 3’s RSX GPU shares the same “parent architecture” as the G70 (GeForce 7800 GTX), much in the same way that the GeForce 6600GT shares the same parent architecture as the GeForce 6800 Ultra. Sony isn’t ready to unveil exactly what is different between the RSX and the G70, but based on what’s been introduced already, as well as our conversations with NVIDIA, we can gather a few items.

Despite the fact that the RSX comes from the same lineage as the G70, there are a number of changes to the core. The biggest change is that RSX supports rendering to both local and system memory, similar to NVIDIA’s Turbo Cache enabled GPUs. Obviously rendering to/from local memory is going to be a lot lower latency than sending a request to the Cell’s memory controller, so much of the architecture of the GPU has to be changed in order to accommodate this higher latency access to memory. Buffers and caches have to be made larger to keep the rendering pipelines full despite the higher latency memory access.

The RSX only has 60% of the local memory bandwidth of the G70, so in many cases it will most definitely have to share bandwidth with the CPU’s memory bus in order to achieve performance targets.

There is one peculiarity that hasn’t exactly been resolved, and that is about transistor counts. Both the G70 and the RSX share the same estimated transistor count, of approximately 300.4 million transistors. The RSX is built on a 90nm process, so in theory NVIDIA would be able to pack more onto the die without increasing chip size at all - but if the transistor counts are identical, that points to more similarity between the two cores than NVIDIA has led us to believe. So is the RSX nothing more than the G70? It’s highly unlikely that the GPUs are identical, especially considering that the sheer addition of Turbo Cache to the part would drive up transistor counts quite a bit. So how do we explain that the two GPUs are different, yet have the same transistor count and one is supposed to be more powerful than the other? There are a few possible options.

So it is possible that NVIDIA’s estimates are slightly off for the two GPUs, but at approximately 10 million transistors per pixel pipe, the RSX will feature more than the 24 pixel rendering pipelines of the GeForce 7800 GTX, yet NVIDIA claims it is more powerful than the GeForce 7800 GTX. But how can that be?"

"The most likely explanation is attributed to nothing more than clock speed. Remember that the RSX, being built on a 90nm process, is supposed to be running at 550MHz - a 28% increase in core clock speed from the 110nm GeForce 7800 GTX. The clock speed increase alone will account for a good boost in GPU performance which would make the RSX “more powerful” than the G70.

Remember that the Cell host processor has an array of 7 SPEs that are very well suited for a number of non-branching tasks, including geometry processing. Also keep in mind that current games favor creating realism through more pixel operations rather than creating more geometry, so GPUs aren’t very vertex shader bound these days. Then, note that the RSX has a high bandwidth 35GB/s interface between the Cell processor and the GPU itself - definitely enough to place all vertex processing on the Cell processor itself, freeing up the RSX to exclusively handle pixel shader and ROP tasks. If this is indeed the case, then the RSX could very well have more than 24 pipelines and still have a similar transistor count to the G70, but if it isn’t, then it is highly unlikely that we’d see a GPU that looked much different than the G70.

The downside to the RSX using the Cell for all vertex processing is pretty significant. Remember that the RSX only has a 22.4GB/s link to its local memory bandwidth, which is less than 60% of the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 7800 GTX. In other words, it needs that additional memory bandwidth from the Cell’s memory controller to be able to handle more texture-bound games. If a good portion of the 15GB/s downstream link from the Cell processor is used for bandwidth between the Cell’s SPEs and the RSX, the GPU will be texture bandwidth limited in some situations, especially at resolutions as high as 1080p."

In summary:
The Xenox, built ground up by ATI, is capable of using today's graphic's engines to make some amazing looking screens with 10 mb of memory dedicated to 4x Anit-Aliasing (smoothing of jagged lines) at no cost to graphics horsepower. 332 Million transistors and 48 pipelines allow for lots of texturing, able to be flexible enough to do geometries (not currently the case) or pixels (much more used currently, especially by the Unreal engine, which is licensed for use the the vast majority of game developers) as needed. The GPU is linked very closely to the CPU, and is able to shift 512 mb of RAM towards either as needed.

The RSX is based on the G70 and is a card that was implimented late in the game when the cell could not handle graphics processing as was assumed it could (whether due to programming difficulty or simply too much drain on resources). The differences as noted above amount to a lessened memory bandwidth versus the 7800GTX PC cards. This will cause more reliance on the Cells Memory controller and memory banks (which causes a major problem in high detail at 1080p, which is why you are seeing the majority of PS3 games running 720 best frame rates).
300.4 million transistors and 36 piplines, 24 and 12 dedicated, versus 332 million (that is with the skimping due to unified pipelines, normally 48 pipelines would use a heck of alot more) and 48 pipelines, combined with 512 system memory and 10 mb dedicated 4x AA = roughly 522mb that could be used for graphics (more realistically about 386-412mb for pure graphics due to other needs), versus the 256 mb dedicated in the PS3 just allows for a more powerful GPU on the 360.

But these are facts, you read and you decide. May explain something though. Here is part of an article I left out:

"All 48 unified pipelines are capable of helping with either pixel or vertex shader operations when needed so as a result efficiency is greatly improved and so is overall performance. When pipelines are forced to go idle because they lack the capability to help another set of pipelines accomplish their task it’s detrimental to performance. This inefficient manner is how all current GPUs operate including the PS3's RSX. The pipelines go idle because the pixel pipes aren't able to help the vertex pipes accomplish a task or vice versa. Whats even more impressive about this GPU is it by itself determines the balance of how many pipelines to dedicate to vertex or pixel shader operations at any given time a programmer is NOT needed to handle any of this the GPU takes care of all this itself in the quickest most efficient way possible. 1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360’s gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360’s GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times."

"VF5 and indeed all fighters call for 1 frame timings on allot of moves.
Period. All in all I can say through years of experience, online for a fighting game blows. It's a fun novelty that wears thin quickly when you start to realize that your skill and timings WILL be screwed up here and there due to ping/lag issues.

So that's why I call you a fanboy (obvious that you are) because you state that anyone that brings up online pitfalls is a fanboy, that is a complete cop out. "

Yes im With you 100% But For as what DOA did online if VF5 could play online like that it would be a blessing (I play about 95% Lag free with people on my friends list and lag being slow down is not bad unless your connection suck im not playing.). In DOA the only way i miss my Juggles is if i could'nt launch the opponent high enough due to weight constraints and VF has Low level Launches so this could required more stricter timings online to show how good you really are.

"And I have been playing cps2 games via mame (sfa3 etc) and Kof games for years and there is always lag. "

I remember playing SVC on Kawaks i think had 5ms ping and i was playing against somebody and i had the most fun in that game i ever had. So i know where you come from but if you ever played CV@ on O.G. Xbox with a cable modem you should'nt experience lag.

"As a fighting game fan who has been playing fighters since the early 80's you are "

Don't you mean 90's? Cause Everything you played i trust me did and i wish i can go at it with you right now just for the hell of it.

ok-i've got all you faygs beat.
anybody who has BOTH games wil say DOA4.
'nuff said.
yeah and if you don't believe me-bring it online be-yotches! gamertag = abdomina=psn+live..but wait...oh we cant play vf5 online....ohhhhhh.......

I like Slay the Spire but Monster Train on game pass has kind of overtaken it for me. Wish I could pay money for it on my playstation.

So basically if you paid for both services you get the shaft.
😡😡😡

Bring PSNOW to Australia.

Sleeping dogs please... Best and most fun fighting gameplay in a open world ever..

This is a solid list and I would love another Def Jam game (or at least on Xbox BC) after the abomination that was Icon. Fight Night unfortunately has been canned in favour of those UFC games which imo are quite lackluster.