dr.zeissler wrote on 2021-06-18, 06:48:

It's directly supported on some mac-software like Connectix Virtual Game Station (VGS) PS1 Emulator!

VGS is only for software, right?

kaiser77_1982 wrote on 2022-03-28, 09:02:

dr.zeissler wrote on 2021-06-18, 06:48:

It's directly supported on some mac-software like Connectix Virtual Game Station (VGS) PS1 Emulator!

VGS is only for software, right?

VGS is a software to "emulate" a playstation1 and it supports ATI rage cards very well. It needs original PS1 Games.
Btw. I really like the texture quality on the rage128pro. To my eyes it looks better than other cards of that time.

The texture quality is good. It's the 16-bit dithering that's awful. You get to choose either noise, which changes constantly, or screen door pattern.

Maybe noise looked better on a CRT. It looks terrible on an LCD though.

marxveix wrote on 2018-03-05, 22:20:

There is newer Rage128 driver available for 9x,nt, 2k and xp, driver date is from end of june 2002. […]
Show full quote

There is newer Rage128 driver available for 9x,nt, 2k and xp, driver date is from end of june 2002.

4.13.01.8006 Windows 98/ME
5.13.01.5016 Windows 2000
6.13.10.5016 Windows XP
4.3.4019 Windows NT 4.0

One of the download links for these:
http://priede.bf.lu.lv/ftp/pub/OS/grafiskasKa … TI/RAGE_128_PRO_/

Link was wrong for the latest drivers available for Rage128Pro, this is correct link and there is diference in these two links.
http://priede.bf.lu.lv/ftp/pub/OS/grafiskasKa … /RAGE_128_PRO_/

Be careful with results in 32-bit color mode.

You need to turn off 32-bit to 16-bit texture conversion. If you turn it off, you actually lose FPS, but colors on textures you see are actually true 32-bit.
You can see it on your own picture here (under OpenGL settings)
http://imgur.com/iuhFGGm

I was doing tests, and it's ON by default. With older drivers, there is not even that option listed , but it's ON anyways (i've tested two different drivers, and according results, I saw, which option it is, when it's not in Options. So it basically cannot be seen, and it cannot be turned off (at least from menu, I'm sure there is way through registers)

Not sure, if it applies only to OpenGL, but also to Direct3D.

I have feeling, that they auto-turned it on (without being seen) in first versions of drivers, so it adds FPS in GLQuake and Quake 2 results, which were used excessively for testing 3D games. In latests drivers (2002), you can turn off this feature, and actually play with real 32-bit color textures.

I've tried drivers from 2001, and they still don't have option to turn off this feature. I've used drivers from 7-05-2002, and they have checkbow to turn it off.

I did comparsion on 64-bit Ati Rage 128 Pro
GLQuake timedemo 1 Fullscreen, Windows 98 SE, drivers from 07-05-2002.

Resolution+Color depth - 32bit->16bit conversion checked - 32bit->16bit conversion unchecked
1024x768x32 - 36.5 fps - 32.4 fps
1024x768x16 - 43.0 fps - no change
800x600x32 - 55.2 fps - 48.3 fps
800x600x16 - 61.8 fps - no change

and here Ati Rage Fury Pro (128-bit)
1024x768x32 - 48.4 fps - 43.2 fps
1024x768x16 - 49.5 fps
800x600x32 - 71.3 fps - 63.6 fps
800x600x16 - 73.3 fps

W.x. wrote on 2024-04-29, 03:41:

Be careful with results in 32-bit color mode. […]
Show full quote

Be careful with results in 32-bit color mode.

You need to turn off 32-bit to 16-bit texture conversion. If you turn it off, you actually lose FPS, but colors on textures you see are actually true 32-bit.
You can see it on your own picture here (under OpenGL settings)
http://imgur.com/iuhFGGm

I was doing tests, and it's ON by default. With older drivers, there is not even that option listed , but it's ON anyways (i've tested two different drivers, and according results, I saw, which option it is, when it's not in Options. So it basically cannot be seen, and it cannot be turned off (at least from menu, I'm sure there is way through registers)

Not sure, if it applies only to OpenGL, but also to Direct3D.

I have feeling, that they auto-turned it on (without being seen) in first versions of drivers, so it adds FPS in GLQuake and Quake 2 results, which were used excessively for testing 3D games. In latests drivers (2002), you can turn off this feature, and actually play with real 32-bit color textures.

I've tried drivers from 2001, and they still don't have option to turn off this feature. I've used drivers from 7-05-2002, and they have checkbow to turn it off.

I did comparsion on 64-bit Ati Rage 128 Pro
GLQuake timedemo 1 Fullscreen, Windows 98 SE, drivers from 07-05-2002.

Resolution+Color depth - 32bit->16bit conversion checked - 32bit->16bit conversion unchecked
1024x768x32 - 36.5 fps - 32.4 fps
1024x768x16 - 43.0 fps - no change
800x600x32 - 55.2 fps - 48.3 fps
800x600x16 - 61.8 fps - no change

and here Ati Rage Fury Pro (128-bit)
1024x768x32 - 48.4 fps - 43.2 fps
1024x768x16 - 49.5 fps
800x600x32 - 71.3 fps - 63.6 fps
800x600x16 - 73.3 fps

What driver version you are using? I know that the latest DX8 beta driver (4.13.01.8006 from 2002/06/27 also supports 8-bit palleted textures @ D3D). Older DX8 driver 4.13.7192 does not support palleted textures, also many DX6 and DX7 drivers work with 8-bit palleted textures, but not all.

4.13.01.8006 driver download:
https://soggi.org/drivers/ati.htm

marxveix wrote on 2024-05-01, 14:33:

What driver version you are using? I know that the latest DX8 beta driver (4.13.01.8006 from 2002/06/27 also supports 8-bit palleted textures @ D3D). Older DX8 driver 4.13.7192 does not support palleted textures, also many DX6 and DX7 drivers work with 8-bit palleted textures, but not all.

Not sure, but they are marked as "Ati enhanced" drivers from 07-05-2002. I have them installed, but don't know the number of drivers. But I've tried more of them, and older didn't have this checkbox. According benchmark results, it was enabled.

W.x. wrote on 2024-05-02, 23:49:

marxveix wrote on 2024-05-01, 14:33:

What driver version you are using? I know that the latest DX8 beta driver (4.13.01.8006 from 2002/06/27 also supports 8-bit palleted textures @ D3D). Older DX8 driver 4.13.7192 does not support palleted textures, also many DX6 and DX7 drivers work with 8-bit palleted textures, but not all.

Not sure, but they are marked as "Ati enhanced" drivers from 07-05-2002. I have them installed, but don't know the number of drivers. But I've tried more of them, and older didn't have this checkbox. According benchmark results, it was enabled.

Open up ATi Options or DxDiag Dispaly tab and it should be visible there:
Example here: https://www.ixbt.com/video/ati-furymaxx/drivers3.jpg

Can you upload or share download link of this driver if its Win9x driver?

I finally got my Rage 128 to work properly under Win98 - I had to modify the latest driver from AMD, added one more line to INF file for it to recognize my card PCI ID.

It's a HIS model and with only 64-bit data bus but DDR chips (32 MiB VRAM). Probably some late production from leftover chips but was very cheap and works, can't complain. Now I'm trying to figure out just how fast it is compared to more typical 128-bit SDR cards. Does anyone have 3DMark2000 results - preferably with the details, not just the final numbers - from a test run on a period-correct hardware? There's a few pages out there, and some YT videos, but they all use Semprons or even C2D CPUs for testing. Without T&L, and with 3DMark2000 specifically, the results can easily scale up 2x on such CPUs. The lowest I found was Athlon 1000 MHz on vgamuseum page but that's still twice faster than my Celeron 500.

Curiously the sticker on the back of the card says "Rage 128 Ultra" and Rage 128 Tweaker 1.5 does show "RAGE 128 PRO ULTRA" but the clocks are not great: 118 MHz core and 236 MHz memory. On the plus side the card is small and even doing 3D the chip doesn't get very hot.

Deunan wrote on 2024-07-21, 11:12:

I finally got my Rage 128 to work properly under Win98 - I had to modify the latest driver from AMD, added one more line to INF file for it to recognize my card PCI ID.

It's a HIS model and with only 64-bit data bus but DDR chips (32 MiB VRAM). Probably some late production from leftover chips but was very cheap and works, can't complain. Now I'm trying to figure out just how fast it is compared to more typical 128-bit SDR cards. Does anyone have 3DMark2000 results - preferably with the details, not just the final numbers - from a test run on a period-correct hardware? There's a few pages out there, and some YT videos, but they all use Semprons or even C2D CPUs for testing. Without T&L, and with 3DMark2000 specifically, the results can easily scale up 2x on such CPUs. The lowest I found was Athlon 1000 MHz on vgamuseum page but that's still twice faster than my Celeron 500.

Curiously the sticker on the back of the card says "Rage 128 Ultra" and Rage 128 Tweaker 1.5 does show "RAGE 128 PRO ULTRA" but the clocks are not great: 118 MHz core and 236 MHz memory. On the plus side the card is small and even doing 3D the chip doesn't get very hot.

With my old AMD K6-2+ 400MHz Rage128Pro 32MB @ 3D Mark99 = 3433 points for GPU (No OC). Rage128 Pro is DX6 card, i would stick more to older bencmarks and older games. Celeron 500MHz is much faster than any K62 or K63 CPU. Rage128Pro i use older drivers that should be faster for older CPU-s. I have tested it with 3Dmark99 and at that lower resolution 800x600x16 the score should be the same Rage128P 16MB (64bit) vs Rage128P 32MB (128bit) if i remember correctly. Almost 0 difference in Win9x OS.

Here is my old score with K6: Re: 3dmark99 MegaThread

marxveix wrote on 2024-07-21, 14:23:

With my old AMD K6-2+ 400MHz Rage128Pro 32MB @ 3D Mark99 = 3433 points for GPU (No OC). Rage128 Pro is DX6 card, i would stick more to older bencmarks and older games. Celeron 500MHz is much faster than any K62 or K63 CPU. Rage128Pro i use older drivers that should be faster for older CPU-s. I have tested it with 3Dmark99 and at that lower resolution 800x600x16 the score should be the same Rage128P 16MB (64bit) vs Rage128P 32MB (128bit) if i remember correctly. Almost 0 difference in Win9x OS.

Here is my old score with K6: Re: 3dmark99 MegaThread

Many thanks! I see some other Rage 128 results in there as well, will go through the entire thread later. I've installed 3DMark 99 MAX from PHILSCOMPUTERLAB.COM, it does say the results are not compatible with previous (non-MAX) versions so I'll keep that in mind but I get 3356 for GPU and 4442 for CPU. The individual results are quite different from what you got though (including CPU). I suppose it's the result of using the 3DNow instructions on K6-2+. One extra question, was your 400MHz CPU running at 6x66 or 4x100 in Super7 mobo? I also have a P3-600 system on a BX mobo like this Celeron 500, Windows should just work on a same chipset so I might try a comparison between the two CPUs.

But the most important thing is: Diablo 2 LOD works in D3D mode at 800x600, and that's pretty much all I wanted from this card.

Deunan wrote on 2024-07-21, 15:29:

marxveix wrote on 2024-07-21, 14:23:

With my old AMD K6-2+ 400MHz Rage128Pro 32MB @ 3D Mark99 = 3433 points for GPU (No OC). Rage128 Pro is DX6 card, i would stick more to older bencmarks and older games. Celeron 500MHz is much faster than any K62 or K63 CPU. Rage128Pro i use older drivers that should be faster for older CPU-s. I have tested it with 3Dmark99 and at that lower resolution 800x600x16 the score should be the same Rage128P 16MB (64bit) vs Rage128P 32MB (128bit) if i remember correctly. Almost 0 difference in Win9x OS.

Here is my old score with K6: Re: 3dmark99 MegaThread

Many thanks! I see some other Rage 128 results in there as well, will go through the entire thread later. I've installed 3DMark 99 MAX from PHILSCOMPUTERLAB.COM, it does say the results are not compatible with previous (non-MAX) versions so I'll keep that in mind but I get 3356 for GPU and 4442 for CPU. The individual results are quite different from what you got though (including CPU). I suppose it's the result of using the 3DNow instructions on K6-2+. One extra question, was your 400MHz CPU running at 6x66 or 4x100 in Super7 mobo? I also have a P3-600 system on a BX mobo like this Celeron 500, Windows should just work on a same chipset so I might try a comparison between the two CPUs.

But the most important thing is: Diablo 2 LOD works in D3D mode at 800x600, and that's pretty much all I wanted from this card.

K62+ 400MHz was 4x100 by default and at it, it was. Yes, i was using 3DNow instructions @ 3DMark99Max. P3 is better and you can use SSE.

I have results with older Rage3 card only with faster CPU at the moment:
AMD K62+ 400Mhz = 3DMark99Max + Rage XL AGP 1380 GPU points
Intel Pen 3 600MHz = 3DMark99Max + RageXL AGP 1577 GPU points

I can try 3DMark99Max with Pentium 3 600Mhz with Rage128Pro an post results?

marxveix wrote on 2024-07-21, 18:50:

I can try 3DMark99Max with Pentium 3 600Mhz with Rage128Pro an post results?

If/when you have some free time, please do. As expected Windows 98 didn't mind too much being moved from ZX to BX mobo so I've already run the P3 tests. My results are 4560 3DMarks / 9150 CPU 3DMarks. And 1723 3D marks in 3DMark2000. That's why I was looking for period-correct CPU results, this is quite a bit more.

I'll probably leave that Rage 128 in the Celeron mobo, the other option is to put Radeon 7000 in there, or GeForce2 MX400 but that card runs so hot compared to Radeon. Back in the day I had Savage4 Pro, so I'm quite OK with Rage performance.

EDIT: I tested the Radeon 7000 I have, mostly to check if I repaired it fully or not. That card is AGP but clocked at 133MHz like PCI models, with a tiny heatsink (but it does not get hot). Performance with Celeron 500MHz in 3DMark 99 is terrible, below Rage 128 at just 2133 3DMarks. It's a bit better in 3DMark2000 at 1393. That's with Catalyst 3.4, I also tried the latest AMD driver which is Catalyst 6.2 and it got better in 99 to 2484 3DMarks, but at the same time 3DMark2000 (and 2001 SE) would crash with this driver. So I had to revert to 3.4.

So in the end if one needs a DX 6.0 card, that has table fog support, Rage 128 is a much better choice. For some reason non-M64 TNT2 from NVidia are hard to get these days, at reasonable prices anyway, and I've already mentioned that GF2MX (and GF4MX) tends to run quite hot without active cooling which I don't like. And it seems that Debian Woody does support Rage 128 in its XFree server, which is nice because I want to dual-boot like I did back in the day.

I read tests from 1999 about Rage 128 pro, and at Anandtech and Tomshardware in the photos is a heatsink+fan like on fury maxx
But i never see this version on ebay/other craigslists.

Someone has it?

I don't think I've ever seen one like that either.

Anandtech had often pre-released versions. Manufacturers often sent their products for review even before release of final product. Maybe, they've removed active cooler at the end.

The one on the right seems as Rage Fury MAXX version. I've always seen them with fans.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/133fak4 … x_locally_from/

To clarify, I meant only the Rage Fury. My Rage Fury Max has those fans as well. They are noisy and quite terrible, at least at this age.

Probably promotional stuff. Or something exclusive only to retail cards.