Xbox 360 can't run DirectX 10, confirms ATI
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Aug 24th 2006 at 11:55AM }
1up reports that ATI has debunked a rumor that Xbox 360 could be upgraded to support DirectX 10 via a patch. "Xbox360 cannot run DX10," an ATI spokesperson told 1up. Currently, Microsoft's console runs an advanced version of DirectX 9, which, according to ATI, features "memory export that can enable DX10-class functionality such as stream-out."It's difficult to say when and if studios that are developing cross-platform titles for Xbox 360 and Vista will hit a roadblock because of DirectX variances between the two platforms, but certainly a game like Crytek's Crysis, which does support DX9 with some DX10 features, could be optimized and ported to consoles.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
joe smith @ Aug 24th 2006 12:00PM
Hmmm. Microsoft wrote DX9. MS wrote DX10. MS co-designed the GPU with ATI. MS makes the dev tools for PC and Xbox 360.
Somehow, I think they will be able to solve the cross platform development issue -- if it even really exists.
Fan @ Aug 24th 2006 12:01PM
This is stupid.
You would think that Microsoft put a little more thought into future proofing their consoles. Espescially towards technology that they develop themselves.....
Subnet6 @ Aug 24th 2006 12:03PM
I can just hear the fanboys now, "ZOMBWTFBBQ HA HA the XBOX 360 is already obsolete LOLZERS!!!1111lll!!"
Ok, now that I have stolen their thunder, This doesn't seem like a big deal to me. DirectX 9 functionality far surpassed what could be done on previous consoles so advanced DirectX 9 with some DX10 functionality should serve us well for a few years.
Sean @ Aug 24th 2006 12:11PM
Consoles are obsolete (wrt to their PC bretheren) the day they are announced. Not really news to me.
Their advantage is of course that they don't have to waste as many resources on other bloatware that an everyday OS has to. Although it looks like MS and Sony are doing their best to eliminate this advantage this gen.
la @ Aug 24th 2006 12:12PM
Future proof, what the XBOX 360?? Who ever has that in there head needs a reality check just a few posts back people where slaming Resistance Fall of Man for using up a meager 22 gigs on the disc, not good coding they said, what a waste of space, tut tut. Anyway to keep up the tradition of this corny site ahem. DOWN WITH SONY THE XBOX 360 ROCKS!!!!!! Microsoft is a software company they'll solve this in no time at all then we'll get to see games like crysis on the greatest system of ALL time.
Competition is com ng it'll be here soon. iT's really easy to shine when you stand alone. Shine microsoft shine.
HaloBreaker @ Aug 24th 2006 12:12PM
Wait wait wait, you mean a console that can't be upgraded!? GORSH! Why didn't M$ think of that before, easier way to milk people than Xbox live. have better processors and or video cards that people can buy to upgrade their 360.
gman @ Aug 24th 2006 12:14PM
I don't see how this could really be a big problem aside from slight optimization differences, especially regarding filters....F.E.A.R. on PC can run using DirectX 8 filters...or it can run using DirectX 9
it's in the options menu :P
Chris @ Aug 24th 2006 12:15PM
I've got a wild idea why they didn't add DX10 to the 360..
here goes... Maybe it's because DX10 did not exist 12 monthes ago when they started building the 360. :o
I know it's a crazy idea but maybe that had something to do with it?
Duscrom @ Aug 24th 2006 12:25PM
Lessie... Continueing on with Chris' Theory.. The Xbox 360 has been out for 10 months... Including it being finished 12 months ago.. and DX10 isn't even available for PCs till... from what we know, Next year. Sooooo.. Just like the origonal Xbox was like DX 8.5, this is DX 9.5.
Adam @ Aug 24th 2006 12:26PM
So.... the 360 can't play one game on it ala Crysis (well the way it's intended to be played)
Who cares about one single game?
nalgae @ Aug 24th 2006 12:26PM
You buy a console for exclusive titles, not for it's technical prowess. Anyone deluding themselves by comparing specs between the 360, PS3 and Wii are bound to try and shrug off this bit of information.
The PC will always have better, upgradable hardware and will always cost more, as well as exclusive titles that require keyboard and mouse functionality. Consoles will always have exclusive titles because they are easier to develop for, and will sometimes offer unique features not present in the PC (a la Wii).
The thing I hate most about fanboys is that they seem to tout graphical superiority, when in reality, that superiority is quite short lived. If you're going to be a fanboy, tout your system exclusive games. That's all you have, really. I own a PS2 simply for the RPGs, the Guilty Gear series and the occasional gem like Shadow of the Collosus.
I'm not going to be upgrading my PC to a DX10 card for a while. Probably in 2-3 years. Then again, the PS3 and 360 shelf lives are supposed to be like 7 years or something? Heh.
pr0cs @ Aug 24th 2006 12:26PM
This is irrelevant anyway, it took developers how long to start supporting SM2.0 and it's been "availiable" for what? 5 years now..
Non-issue. The amount of games focusing directly on DX10 ONLY over the next 5 years will be minimal.
Buckshot @ Aug 24th 2006 12:31PM
11. This is irrelevant anyway, it took developers how long to start supporting SM2.0 and it's been "availiable" for what? 5 years now..
Non-issue. The amount of games focusing directly on DX10 ONLY over the next 5 years will be minimal.
QFE!!!
Let alone using sm 3.0 on anything but benchmarks. The full scope is dx9 is barely used today.
dsub @ Aug 24th 2006 12:33PM
20 bucks says MS releases a new set of XNA tools that streamline the process of porting DX10 titles to the XBOX360.
mcloki @ Aug 24th 2006 12:34PM
It says it can't be upgraded, not awaiting a software patch. And this seems odd.
Maybe DX9 plus refinements will be good enough for the next 8-10 year lifespan.
SO now, no High Definition movie player built in. No access to better graphics presumably. And no games I want to buy except maybe GOW and Halo and nothing in the pipeline that's making me go OMG. Glad I'm sitting out the first round of the next-gen wars.
Stu L Tissimus @ Aug 24th 2006 12:35PM
X360's DX9 already supports the single largest new feature of DX10: Shader modules that can be used for both pixel and vertex shading. K?
Jigen @ Aug 24th 2006 12:36PM
The 360's graphics API isn't DirectX9 in the first place! It uses its own API that's pretty much inbetween DX9 and 10, with some features 10 doesn't have.
This entire discussion shouldn't be taking place.
boots @ Aug 24th 2006 12:36PM
ZOMBWTFBBQ HA HA the XBOX 360 is already obsolete LOLZERS!!!1111lll
Well, actually, Microsoft fanboys have been touting DX10 this, DX10 that, and so on. It's good to have their thunder stolen this way. Especially almost right after news of DVD9 being obsolete already by not fitting next-gen games. Good luck in trying to not make me feel like my 360 is a huge paperweight, Microsoft!
atomic pond @ Aug 24th 2006 12:37PM
yes, this is a non-issue. It's not the A.P.I but the games that count.
JJ @ Aug 24th 2006 12:37PM
Well personally i dont think its a huge deal, but you have to admit if something like this was announced on PS3... fanboys would come out in droves to claim how much the system sucks.
When in reality its not a big deal.
insane_cobra @ Aug 24th 2006 12:38PM
I don't see it becoming a problem during the console's life span. PC games that *require* DirectX 9 hardware have been quite rare up until very recently, I believe the situation will be similar with DirectX 10.
As for the software side of things, XNA was designed to make porting code between PC and Xbox 360 easier. Surely that also includes DirectX.
This is similar to claims DVD9 wouldn't provide enough storage space for future games. It's like Microsoft hasn't made a bazillion careful studies before choosing one solution over the other. How stupid do people think they are? Probably quite stupid as they're only one of the world's most successful companies...
dsub @ Aug 24th 2006 12:41PM
what you guys need to realize is that this is Console, not a PC. Console games are not developed with the Direct X api in mind. If you are going to look at the 360 as having slightly better capabilities than DX 9 then think of it like this. What a PC can do with DX9, a 360 can do more. It has more resources, and is dedicated solely to gaming. Not running an OS and other programs. I'm sure the hardware in the 360 is more than capable of delivering top notch graphics for years to come. Look at games like Unreal Tournament 2007. It's a PC game that runs in DX9, and it looks AMAZING. Look at Gears of War, it uses the Unreal 3 engine, which is designed for PC games to run in DX9, and it looks AMAZING. If DX9 functionality can deliver a game that looks as good as Gears of War or UT2007...who needs DX10 functionality?
SonicRift @ Aug 24th 2006 12:45PM
#5 said "we'll get to see games like crysis on the greatest system of ALL time."
I say there's no way they would even consider publishing Crysis on the Dreamcast, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Stumper @ Aug 24th 2006 12:46PM
You guys need to re-red his statement. He did not say "The 360 does not current support DX10." he said the ""Xbox360 CANNOT run DX10". Way to have forsight MS and use DX10 compatable hardware.
It's not an issue of MS figuring things out. I'm no Sony fanboy, but after all the crap MS fanboys have given Sony fanboys recently, you're probably going to hear some over this...and frankly, you'll deserve it.
(quick aside - Talk all you want about the PS3 being overpriced, but at least they give you online functionality for free. As someone in Finance, I'll take higher fixed costs in exchange for lower variable costs ANY day.)
dsub @ Aug 24th 2006 12:51PM
Holy Shit newsflash!!
Neither the PS3 or Wii can support DX10!!!
That must mean they aren't future proof and suck!!!
This story is a non-issue.
random @ Aug 24th 2006 12:51PM
As far as future proofing goes, I think console owners are now experiencing what PC users have been dealing with for years. Welcome to the party.
Jigen @ Aug 24th 2006 12:55PM
Re : #24 "DX10 not supported",
I believe this is probably true, even though you'd never run a PC DX9 or 10 on the 360, the 360 probably doesn't fully support DX10.
But I also know the first version of DX10 on Vista will not take advantage of features that the 360's GPU has.
DX10's specs changed several times in the making and after the making of the 360's GPU.
Companies who port games always have to take stuff like this, and much bigger issues into account when porting. Honestly, it seems they hardly do any work in porting at all, it'd be great if they COULDN'T always do the cashin.
potato @ Aug 24th 2006 12:57PM
Not to mention games at this point are still running SM2, and the holy grail of SM3 hasn't even begun to be tapped. HL2, a (arguably) good looking game doesn't have ANY support for SM3.
Tech is playing catchup, the fact that the 360 won't run DX10 won't bother it none.
And to the ones crying about 22GB on a disc: That's not bad coding, that's called zero texture compression :P Considering both machines run 512MB RAM, uncompressed textures won't do any game much good at all.
There's no reason to go beyond a dual-layer DVD, for this gen at least. We're in an era where game production costs are spiraling upwards, mostly because of more and more content, and here you are introducing a new format that just screams "more content! jack up game prices again!"
We're seeing a surge towards procedural content generation to SOME degree or another, and this trend will only DECREASE the amount of space necessary to store a full game. I've seen some of this tech demonstrated and it's really quite something.
Eric @ Aug 24th 2006 12:58PM
Stumper, riddle me this:
How can Microsoft have used DX10-compatable hardware when the 360 was finalized over a year ago, and DX10 has yet to be finished?
The Xbox not being able to run DX9 wasn't an issue in the last generation with DX9 games, so why would it suddenly be any different this generation?
Lou D @ Aug 24th 2006 1:08PM
The big thing about DX10 is physics. DX10 is has a physics api that can take advantage of dedicated physics-processing hardware.
Suprise, the 360 has no such dedicated hardware.
Suprise, neither does the PS3.
Word's still out on the Wii as there was an insinuation dropped by an ATI developer in a Gamespot "Last Word" video the day before E3 when he was demoing ATI's DX10 on a PC and was asked about ATI's physics processing capabilities being included in a console.
Alcoholic Zombie @ Aug 24th 2006 1:09PM
Finally something negative towards the 360 & I know the PoS3 fanboys are going to milk this for all it's worth.
Kinda how I milk the brain juices of young hot teenage girls.
Baa-zing!
Biggie @ Aug 24th 2006 1:15PM
This isn't news... if you watched some of the DX10 developer conference videos... you would know that MS intends to support DX9 and 10 in parallel for quite sometime. How could anyone expect the 360 to support DX10 when the hardware still doesn't exist.
Hasan @ Aug 24th 2006 1:17PM
What about PS3? Wiil games like Crysis run with all of their glory on PS3?
ketsuke @ Aug 24th 2006 1:18PM
bwah hah ahhaa ha ha ha ha!
Shady @ Aug 24th 2006 1:18PM
Xbox 180 ;)
SuicideNinja @ Aug 24th 2006 1:19PM
Does it matter? Does the PS3 or the Wii support DirectX at all?
This article is just a vessel for PC "opportunists" to blabber about how their hundreds to thousands of dollars they keep spending on PC hardware is "totally worth it".
$600 Video Card, a PS3 with a game, or a Wii with several games and accessories. Hmmm. I don't think the first even belongs on the list.
epobirs @ Aug 24th 2006 1:21PM
Considering that no DirectX (more specifically Direct3D) 10 GPUs are shipping at this moment, it's hardly a surprise that a platform whose spec was completed over a year ago isn't going to be treated as a DX10 target.
The original Xbox was the only DX8 capable system in its generation. The PS3 is at heart a DX9 (OGL equivalent) platform, and the Wii is at best a DX8 system. (If it lacks programmable shaders it remains DX7 but the GameCube was able to do some of it in software and the Wii's higher throughput should allow for more.) DX9 is entirely new to the console world. Much of the PC world is still getting a grip on it after a few years. It could be quite a while before DX10 is properly exploited by more than a handful of expensive showpiece projects.
It's going to be quite a while before the average Xbox 360 title really makes full use of the system.
Anyone thinking this would be upgraded by a patch doesn't understand how this is done on consoles. The D3D API doesn't reside in the Xbox 360 firmware. It's on each individual game disc and built to that game's needs. If a game doesn't use a major portion of DirectX it doesn't go in the build and waste memory space.
Likewise, if Microsoft ships an upgrade of the SDK and it isn't too late in the project, that newer version of the APIs, with whatever bug fixes or optimizations it offers, gets used on the game without the eventually buyers having to do anything. They don't even need an update via Xbox Live Silver. It's on the disc, a tiny chunk of code compared to the graphics assets.
Thus, if Microsoft chooses to port parts of DX10 to the Xbox 360 to simplify cross development, especially under XNA, it will happen without the average consumer knowing or caring. It only matters that the games are good.
Keep in mind, Direct3D is just one part of DX10. Some other parts will be ported while others are only meaningful for PC development.
Magus @ Aug 24th 2006 1:21PM
wait...wait... so MS is going to force everyone to vista to play halo2 that wont be dx10 compatable on pc?
MY HEAD HURTS FORM that half assed logic!
LordMinogue @ Aug 24th 2006 1:28PM
So, does the PS3 support DirectX 10?
ninja @ Aug 24th 2006 1:38PM
I'm not a M$ fan, but just like anything else, they may be able to offer some form of an update, unless the limitation is all in the hardware.
*******************************************************
As for #4:
Consoles are obsolete (wrt to their PC bretheren) the day they are announced. Not really news to me.
*******************************************************
Not entirely, I believe the PS3 (like the PSP) will offer firmware updates - updating security issues, adding new features and services through-out it's life cycle. As an example, my PSP is more valuable now with all the new updated features (more supported media formats, added web browser, flash support, RSS feeds and more).
On that note, aside from Graphic card updates; I know the PS3 will offer upgradable HDDs and hear rumor (which I highly doubt will be possible) that the PS3 will offer memory upgrades too.
I wonder if big N thought of this at all.
Mycroft @ Aug 24th 2006 1:47PM
This isn't news at all to anyone but the lay person. The PS3 is pretty much a standard off-the-shelf Direct X 9 compliant one, but Sony will obviously be using a pared down, specialised version of GL called OpenGL ES 2 for DX9 level vertex/pixel shaders. 360 has a more advanced GPU than PS3, similar to DX10 features with a unified architecture, compression etc and some snazzy new ones like high speed FSAA cache to offload work. Sony's original plan was to use the cell for the gfx work too, but in the end it was necessary to bolt a PC part on. Will be interesting to possibly see Cell GPUs in the future.
Buckshot @ Aug 24th 2006 1:50PM
#39 As an example, my PSP is more valuable now with all the new updated features (more supported media formats, added web browser, flash support, RSS feeds and more).
Don't you mean your psp is more crippled now? The needless updates are what destroyed the psp and ps3 will be in for a hard road if they patch for only security reasons like the psp.
"Never, never upgrade a psp higher than 1.5 firmware"
Mycroft @ Aug 24th 2006 1:54PM
Also, the major advance in DX10 is the context switching capability, allowing Vista to give multiple programs access to the card simultaneously, bringing it closer to a specialised CPU. This is important because the desktop itself is accelerated, X360 has no use for that feature. The 2 consoles are very similar this time which is great, as last time PS2 held down xboxs potential coming so much later. PS3 has a slightly better CPU if you can thread it correctly and Xbox has a better GPU, but in the end it probably won't mean much to most games. Its not like its going to be noticeably different.
Loque @ Aug 24th 2006 2:03PM
Who carees if the Xbox can't run DX10? ATI doesn't even have a GPU that can handle it.
Besides, as long as the GPU shares its shaders and pipelines and doesnt restrict them to a single function, it has the most important part of DX10 anyways.
Darth Pixel @ Aug 24th 2006 2:12PM
Microsoft future proofing their consoles. Ah ah ah, good one.
Remember guys, they want you to buy a new one every 4 years.
So, no, they are not going to future proof them.
J.Goodwin @ Aug 24th 2006 2:14PM
Features of DX10 probably not supported by 360:
Paging of graphics memory to main RAM (360 already has combined RAM for video and main system, so it's pointless).
A no limit system for object generation, provided there are adequate resources (360 has a known resource limit, so you'd have to be an idiot to program it to do loads more than it's capable of).
Geometry shaders (360 supports procedural content via other means, instead of in the unified shader on the GPU)
Virtualization for varying configurations (360 has a set configuration and can't deal properly with the branch code that this type of virtualization normally uses, so you would want to recode that to be platform specific anyway).
Texture Arrays. 360 Supports texture arrays, but only up to 64 surfaces. DX10 supports 512.
HLSL on DX10 has a slightly different approach to texture access.
So it's not so much that DX10 is superior, as it is that the two platforms do things differently by design because of differences in a limited number of output targets, CPUs, the fact that Main vs Graphics RAM are unified or not unified, and whether or not there is a hard drive. Then there is the actual technical limitation on texture arrays, which I think is about the potentially available memory on the system, and the way that it is actually laid out.
Dave @ Aug 24th 2006 2:15PM
This reminds me of discussions about "bits" in consoles way back in the late 90's. No one really knows what they're even talking about.
*Well, you see the N64 has a 64-bit processor so the Dreamcast must be twice as powerful because it has 128-bit graphics and the X-BOX doesn't even stand a chance because it only has 32-bits lolol.*
Rootbeer @ Aug 24th 2006 2:15PM
"How can Microsoft have used DX10-compatable hardware when the 360 was finalized over a year ago, and DX10 has yet to be finished?"
Seeing as how Microsoft controls both the 360 hardware development and the DX10 API development, they could have instituted a feature freeze on the DirectX 10 specs once the 360 specs were final.
If they had, it would be simple to understand what DX10 means to PC gamers: it means you can have graphics comparable to those on a 360. DX11, which would have included the physics API and the other new features that the 360 does not support, would have come later. Giving PC gamers an easy way to tell if a game EXCEEDS what's possible on a 360.
Instead there's two needlessly distinct branches of the DirectX standards, one for PCs and one for console(s). Porting from one to the other becomes more complicated than it has to be, and the meaningfulness of any DX revision number is diluted.
J.Goodwin @ Aug 24th 2006 2:16PM
In short, even the next Xbox (assuming there is such a thing) wouldn't support DX10. It doesn't need to.
J.Goodwin @ Aug 24th 2006 2:38PM
Physics acceleration is not part of Direct X 10. There is no single standard yet, and no one has even started to agree on what should be in it. Nvidia backs Havok, ATI has their own standard. Microsoft is working on one, but it won't be ready in time for the shipment of Vista. Maybe you'll see it in Direct X 10.1 or 11.