This one looks like 128-bit card. Benchmarks will show.
Yes, Ultra does not say anything about bus width.
Why would you trust GPU-Z?

I agree, looking at memory chips I think this one is 128-bit card. CPU-Z is lying very often, maybe check aida64/everest or performance tuner

Gamecollector wrote on 2013-11-18, 07:12:

It looks like I'm another happy (?) owner of ATi Rage 128 Pro Ultra. Yes, it was OEM (videocard+CD+license agreement+manual). And yes, drivers from this CD wasn't installing by default. This is the starting point of my love to ATi programmers...
I will add photos and PCI_ids later...

got one that looks like this as well, with non-soldered DVI, memory only on front (16mb presumably) and all that. never could get the drivers installed despite modifying the .inf with the actual subsystem ID. funnily got some 2000 drivers for that thing which state that installing the drivers via the .inf method (as opposed to .exe) will bluescreen the machine under 98SE.

pci.exe didn't seem to mention anything of ultra though, i think it was "guessing" the card as "rage 128 pro PF TMDS" or something similar.

W.x. wrote on 2021-06-02, 10:20:

Pretty confusing, if one wants 128-bit version, what he should look for. Better to avoid "Ultra" and OEM variants.

well yeah, most ones that are floating around are the OEM versions though and you really have to study these cards to figure out which is which. the .inf files have about a million different strings with these nondescript suffixes and different subsystem IDs.

was definitely quite the genius move to not have the ati rage 128 pro driver install on cards that literally have ati rage 128 pro silkscreened on them.

I bought one of these and wasn't able to get it working with any of the ATI drivers. I did managed to get it to working with these Dell drivers though.

https://www.dell.com/support/home/en-uk/drive … driverid=r38542

Kahenraz wrote on 2021-09-20, 07:37:

I bought one of these and wasn't able to get it working with any of the ATI drivers. I did managed to get it to working with these Dell drivers though.

The beta drivers from my website (*) didn't work with this card!?

(* we talked about at An interesting Rage 128 Pro which needs very late drivers)

kind regards
soggi

They detected the card but the system would get stuck at a black screen when loading Windows. I could boot into Safe Mode and the drivers appeared to be installed and I could even run some of the diagnostics from the device manager pane but I could not set the desktop color or resolution for normal operation.

Ah k, really strange situation with these late Rage 128 Pro cards.

kind regards
soggi

The hardware ID for this card is: PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5446&SUBSYS_04091002&REV_00.

Kahenraz wrote on 2021-09-20, 07:37:

I bought one of these and wasn't able to get it working with any of the ATI drivers. I did managed to get it to working with the […]
Show full quote

I bought one of these and wasn't able to get it working with any of the ATI drivers. I did managed to get it to working with these Dell drivers though.

IMG_20210920_033853_resize_11.jpg

IMG_20210920_033904_resize_78.jpg

dell.png

https://www.dell.com/support/home/en-uk/drive … driverid=r38542

Hey, just got Ati Rage 128 pro Ultra, and wonder, if you can find also these Dell drivers for Windows XP, not Win 98.
Soggi's drivers worked in my case, but it behaving strange. Normal 64-bit Rage 128 pro have 20% higher FPS in 800x600 32-bit colors, than in 800x600 16-bit colors (should be oposite). On 1024x768, it is ok. Also, overall performance under GLquake dropped by 10%. So those beta drivers looks weird. That why I want to try also dell drivers, if performance will be better.
Anyway soggi's drivers detected normal Rage 128 Pro, and also Rage 128 Pro Ultra.
Btw, got this version of Ultra, Saphire one.
http://vgamuseum.info/images/vlask/ati/rage12 … proultra1fb.jpg

Providing also results under GLQuake (stock 130/130 core/mem, overclocked 150/150)

btw, Rage 128 pro 64-bit gave same results under 800x600 32-bit, than 128-bit Rage 128 pro Ultra, with only half bandwidth, which is ultra weird.
Rest of values seems ok by comparsion, moderate drop in performance in 1024x768x16 and lower, and high drop under 1024x768x32. But 800x600x32 is weird.
How can it have same speed with 64-bit memory bus as 128-bit version. It seems, that 128-bit one have problem on that resolution, and cannot use all memory chips, so whole 128-bit bandwidth (only 64-bit bandwidth, so acting like 64-bit one)

Kahenraz wrote on 2021-09-20, 16:23:

They detected the card but the system would get stuck at a black screen when loading Windows. I could boot into Safe Mode and the drivers appeared to be installed and I could even run some of the diagnostics from the device manager pane but I could not set the desktop color or resolution for normal operation.

Got it working under win XP.

Got the same card, only 64-bit (half of the memory chips missing, and it's 64-bit). But otherwise it's just 73100-01 version, as you have. It is Rage 128 Pro (not Rage 128 Pro Ultra). The Ultra version have 73100-02 and have "Powered by Ati Rage 128 Ultra" logo at the back.
Ultra version can be found here:
http://www.512bit.net/ati/ati_rage_128ultra.html
Also here on vgamuseum
http://www.vgamuseum.info/index.php/cpu/item/ … e-128-pro-ultra
Its the (469) pn.109-73100-02 version, they have incorrectly included 73100-01 as first card on the left ((780) p.n.109-73100-01) , which is not Ultra. But regular 128 pro. (you can see it by -01 appendix, and also, at the back, there is not powered by 128 Ultra logo, but only regular 128 pro logo).

So, I had same problem, black screen after restart, when drivers were installed. But only with official Ati drivers (6.13.3279). With Soggi's beta late drivers (6.13.10.5016) it worked. Maybe under windows XP, they work, but under W98 have same problem with black screen.
Now to the point, how I removed black screen problem:
- You need to run Windows XP in diagnostic mode (not safe mode, just press F8 before start, and pick "VGA resolution, or something like it".
- This time, it will load Windows XP in 640x480, and without drivers, but it's not safe mode otherwise. You need to go to Device Manager-> video adapter->
and choose "Update driver". Now dont select any automatic stuff, only have your driver (always last option), until there is a list with cards (I had checked show only compatible hardware checkbox) and there was list:
"Xpert Rage Fury Pro/Xpert 2000 pro"
"Xpert Rage Fury Pro/Xpert 2000 pro"
"Xpert 2000 pro"
I've choosen Xpert 2000 pro (last option). Just choose it.
After it, restart computer, and no more black screen.
First two options were Rage Fury Pro/Xpert 2000 pro, after it I've tried it, they worked too.

So it seems, It probably auto-chooses wrong version of Ati rage 128 pro for this particular model of card (73100-01), so you need to manualy select it from "Vga mode windows XP".
just testing it under GLquake, it works. From first sight, it looks, that these official drivers are better than beta soggi's for Windows XP. Performance is higher about 15%. I make benchmarks and give results. Anyway, I have 64-bit version of card, so it's bit misleading, 128-bit full version should be tested in first place.

In attachment is card, I exactly have. It's incorrectly marked on Vgamuseum as rage 128 Pro Ultra, while it's Rage 128 Pro
(109-73100-01 is rage128pro , 109-73100-02 is rage 128 pro ultra, identified also by "powered by Ati Rage 128 Ultra" logo at back)

Here are the benchmarks for GLQuake for Ati Rage 128 Pro 64-bit 16MB (109-73100-01):

As we can see, Ati drivers are the mess. under 1024x768, it run at full speed only on 1st run, then it drops on every second run of benchmark.
Under 800x600x32, the performance is actually higher, than under 800x600x16 bit. That means, card is just not used at full potential under 16-bit colors. It can go by hardware itself for much better performance, but it has some driver issue, so is slowed down by something.

How much of an improvement was Ati Rage 128 pro over Rage 128 GL ?

Today, I've tested Ati Rage 128 GL (Xpert 128 with Ati code 109-51800-01 https://videocardz.net/ati-xpert-128).
Unfortunately, I have to change configuration, as it is only 3.3v AGP, so it was tested on Universal AGP motherboard 815E chipset, Tualatin Celeron 1000A, 100FSB, 100mhz SDR, so slower computer. Anyway, it's still so fast for GLQuake, that graphic card is still big bottleneck, so wouldn't be big difference, if tested on Celeron 2.4 Ghz and DDR, as previous benchmark.
I give comparation from last benchmark Ati Rage 128 pro 64-bit, and also add 128 Ultra, which I have in 128-bit version.
Unfortunately, for Rage 128 Ultra official drivers 6.13.3279 doesn't work, so I had to change to Soggi's Beta drivers, which are a bit slower. So regular 128-bit Rage 128 Pro can have slightly better results with official ones)

testing the rage 128 pro, the biggest issue i've had was that refresh rate controls were completely broken, despite the monitor pnp driver being installed and everything being enumerated it would always output at 60hz. this was under 98se with 6.31cdh40 (jan 2000) and 6.35-t1s (sep 2000) drivers. the r128tweak tool was useless here as well. also having to reboot just to switch vsync is pretty annoying and a "software controlled" option is missing too.

the temporal dither is an eyesore in my opinion, but apparently sometime between these two drivers drivers they switched to a regular ordered dither pattern, at least for direct3d, which i much prefer. OGL still seemed to use the temporal dithering and i don't think the switch in r128tweak worked to change it. 32-bit looks great of course and can be quite usable performance-wise but doesn't exactly help when a game doesn't support it.

in terms of DOS, the card forces vsync in duke3d which is annoying, nolfb switches this off but causes needless screen tearing. however the "snow" artifacts that occur during screen tint effects (damage/health pickups) were a lot less pronounced on this card than on nvidia cards.

Very nice thread. I read it all.

I just gained an ATi AIW Rage 128 PRO Ultra (this is what Everest on Windows98SE says) but Everest tell me with my sadness that I have a 64bit bus.

I am not sure tho;

Benchmark are little faster than an ATi Rage 128 PRO 32MB that I have at home...and it is for sure a 128bit card;

This is the card and this is the screenshot of Everest...what do you think? I have to try it on Windows XP and see what GPU-Z say?

I have four modules SDR and total of 32MB of RAM...it should be 128bit memory bus and then 2,144GB/sec isn't it?

Yes, each memory chip has 32 data bits.

Putas wrote on 2023-12-08, 12:07:

Yes, each memory chip has 32 data bits.

Perfect, I just wanted to be sure I have the mighty 128bit bus.

Strange that Everest will fail about that important video card.

biessea wrote on 2023-12-08, 14:43:

Strange that Everest will fail about that important video card.

Seems like Everest might be doing a lookup from a table to report the memory bus and they don't have the correct entry for this chip/card and it wasn't caught because it was less common.

Does HWiNFO show this information?

AIW line should be "full" on memory bus. That means 64-bit on Rage Pro, and 128-bit on Rage 128 / Rage 128 Pro. 4 memory chips are ok, as they are connected by 32-bit memory bus each.