Difference between Rage 128 and Rage 128 Pro is quite significant, both clocks and architecture. No die shrinking at all, both 250 nm.
It goes like this, no guarantee
Rage Fury 103/103
Rage Fury Pro 125/143
OEM 128 / Xpert 2000 90/90
OEM 128 Pro/ Xpert 2000 Pro 118/140
From Rage 128 to first Radeon Ati wanted to have their own cards with clock advantage.
wrote:Difference between Rage 128 and Rage 128 Pro is quite significant, both clocks and architecture. No die shrinking at all, both 2 […]
Difference between Rage 128 and Rage 128 Pro is quite significant, both clocks and architecture. No die shrinking at all, both 250 nm.
It goes like this, no guarantee
Rage Fury 103/103
Rage Fury Pro 125/143
OEM 128 / Xpert 2000 90/90
OEM 128 Pro/ Xpert 2000 Pro 118/140From Rage 128 to first Radeon Ati wanted to have their own cards with clock advantage.
i searched it again and you are right with the 250nm process, i got it wrong.
but when it comes to clock, i think more reviews are in agreement with my conclusion: rage128gl was announced to be at 100/100, but released to be 90/90.
and for rage128vr, my xpert2000 is at 80/60, which is in agreement with a previous version of wiki(its now edited to be 90/90).
i am looking for info from the cards that you have used/tested, not just what you have found on the net.
BBA Xpert 2000 is 90/90. If you want to test all the inumerous clock variants of other companies then good luck to you sir, I cannot be bothered.
yeah there may be too many variants. can you show me a picture of your BBA Xpert 2000? mine looks like this one(first picture in the page):
http://82.114.193.227/vga2/index.php?option=c … :ati-rage-128vr
and the clock is same as reported in the page.
but then again, may be just due to different batch even if card layout is almost the same, yeah. 😒
Only 128 VR card I have is exactly this L shaped one, 32 MB, clocked at 80/120.
http://www.vintage3d.org/images/xpert2000.JPG
I believe yours is also, many tools report wrong clocks for Rage 128 and 60 MHz would be just insanely low. So you were more or less correct with the specs. Perhaps it was Xpert 99 which had 90 MHz.
That website www.vintage3d.org looks interesting. The graphics card list seems to be identical to the one on pc-erfahrung.de
Btw, I never really bothered with all the minute differences in clock speed of whatever graphics card. It's interesting to learn about how these variants came to be though, there are many untold stories.
wrote:That website www.vintage3d.org looks interesting. The graphics card list seems to be identical to the one on pc-erfahrung.de
Btw, I never really bothered with all the minute differences in clock speed of whatever graphics card. It's interesting to learn about how these variants came to be though, there are many untold stories.
Most of the time the speeds are just a result of binning. The oddly shaped ones, like the L-shaped cards, are designed to fit a particular type of chassis where the control panel intrudes on the space occupied by the slots. The cards have to be L-shaped to go around the intruding parts.
wrote:That website www.vintage3d.org looks interesting. The graphics card list seems to be identical to the one on pc-erfahrung.de
it is my genuine work going many years back, I had it on my older web and many people could just download it. Since then many webs put on many such tables, yet none of them was futile enough to try to sort them by performance.
wrote:wrote:That website www.vintage3d.org looks interesting. The graphics card list seems to be identical to the one on pc-erfahrung.de
it is my genuine work going many years back, I had it on my older web and many people could just download it. Since then many webs put on many such tables, yet none of them was futile enough to try to sort them by performance.
I didn't know that. Actually, I remember pc-erfahrung as it actually did sort them in a performance kinda way (though you can't have a definitive list, performance depends on many things like what version of DX it's benched in.
If you created and still maintain that list, would you like me to add your site to my "Good reading for people new to retro computing" thread?
And do you think you'll at one time be adding cards to the bottom of your list?
I always wanted a list that includes, say, every PCI card and up (perhaps even some ISA cards!!! 😁 )
Do as you like, I am glad if my work is useful. However I will not venture into 2D, 3D is taking enough time as it is. If you have a table ready I can easily publish it separately though.
I am aware how difficult is performance comparison, for example I had a split tables for DX8 / DX9 back in FX days, but I am just too lazy for that now, so I have to generalize.
wrote:Do as you like, I am glad if my work is useful. However I will not venture into 2D, 3D is taking enough time as it is. If you have a table ready I can easily publish it separately though.
I am aware how difficult is performance comparison, for example I had a split tables for DX8 / DX9 back in FX days, but I am just too lazy for that now, so I have to generalize.
Actually, I find your generalized list to be of real value, or I wouldn't have listed it! 😁
I've got 3 Rage 128/128 Pro cards. Honestly I thought they were pretty solid. The image quality was nice over all, and the 3D speed was decent enough.
wrote:I've got 3 Rage 128/128 Pro cards. Honestly I thought they were pretty solid. The image quality was nice over all, and the 3D speed was decent enough.
Input like this is always wanted hehe 😉
First hand experience >> gossip/hear-say 😜
Personally I never bothered with the pre-Radeon ATI chips, I tend to prefer 3DFX/NV/S3(/Rendition 2100) and I have plenty of those to go around.
wrote:Personally I never bothered with the pre-Radeon ATI chips, I tend to prefer 3DFX/NV/S3(/Rendition 2100) and I have plenty of those to go around.
yeah i an a loyal fan of nv, but i also collect cards from ati and other brands, just to prove that they are no match. 😁
wrote:Personally I never bothered with the pre-Radeon ATI chips, I tend to prefer 3DFX/NV/S3(/Rendition 2100) and I have plenty of those to go around.
Same here, although I thought the Rage Fury Maxx was/is too interesting to pass up.
wrote:Same here, although I thought the Rage Fury Maxx was/is too interesting to pass up.
The one time I had a Rage Fury Maxx I wasn't able to get it to install properly on my Socket A board. This was probably around 2003, and I had wanted to try the card just to see how well it actually performed, so I nabbed one off ebay, only to find out the thing was kinda picky on what it was willing to work on. Ended up only being able to get it to work on a Slot 1 board I had, so I wasn't able to really do much with it, so I sold it.
wrote:wrote:Same here, although I thought the Rage Fury Maxx was/is too interesting to pass up.
The one time I had a Rage Fury Maxx I wasn't able to get it to install properly on my Socket A board. This was probably around 2003, and I had wanted to try the card just to see how well it actually performed, so I nabbed one off ebay, only to find out the thing was kinda picky on what it was willing to work on. Ended up only being able to get it to work on a Slot 1 board I had, so I wasn't able to really do much with it, so I sold it.
What version of Windows were you using? It doesn't work right with 2K/XP. You have to jump through hoops just to get it to boot in anything other than VGA mode and then when you've straightened that out the second GPU doesn't work. You're better off just to use a single Rage Fury if you're using 2K/XP.
wrote:wrote:wrote:Same here, although I thought the Rage Fury Maxx was/is too interesting to pass up.
The one time I had a Rage Fury Maxx I wasn't able to get it to install properly on my Socket A board. This was probably around 2003, and I had wanted to try the card just to see how well it actually performed, so I nabbed one off ebay, only to find out the thing was kinda picky on what it was willing to work on. Ended up only being able to get it to work on a Slot 1 board I had, so I wasn't able to really do much with it, so I sold it.
What version of Windows were you using? It doesn't work right with 2K/XP. You have to jump through hoops just to get it to boot in anything other than VGA mode and then when you've straightened that out the second GPU doesn't work. You're better off just to use a single Rage Fury if you're using 2K/XP.
I have mine running on 98SE on a 440BX Socket 370 board. It's been rock solid 😀
wrote:wrote:wrote:Same here, although I thought the Rage Fury Maxx was/is too interesting to pass up.
The one time I had a Rage Fury Maxx I wasn't able to get it to install properly on my Socket A board. This was probably around 2003, and I had wanted to try the card just to see how well it actually performed, so I nabbed one off ebay, only to find out the thing was kinda picky on what it was willing to work on. Ended up only being able to get it to work on a Slot 1 board I had, so I wasn't able to really do much with it, so I sold it.
What version of Windows were you using? It doesn't work right with 2K/XP. You have to jump through hoops just to get it to boot in anything other than VGA mode and then when you've straightened that out the second GPU doesn't work. You're better off just to use a single Rage Fury if you're using 2K/XP.
Ahh back then it was Windows ME. Like I said, was able to install it fine on the slot 1, but the card refused to work right on the socket a board I had. Seems like I ended up trying to find info on if others had issues with the card too, and a lot of people did. Back then I was less interested in running slot 1 hardware then I am even now, otherwise Id just have kept the card running on that, but that Slot-1 setup was just a extra board/cpu combo with a PII I had nabbed cheap and kept around to test stuff with.
