sunkindly wrote on Today, 00:17:

For my 386, I acquired this NEC CD drive from 1988 which also came with the SCSI controller card. My hopes aren't too high for working operation but if anything it'll be a cool piece to have in a bay.

Huh, I just saved the pictures of that one, congrats I think that's quite a find 😀. I don't think I've ever seen an earlier internal CD-ROM drive - that one even has its own weird looking NEC caddy.

sunkindly wrote on Today, 02:55:

It did! […]
Show full quote

chrismeyer6 wrote on Today, 02:02:

sunkindly wrote on Today, 00:17:

For my 386, I acquired this NEC CD drive from 1988 which also came with the SCSI controller card. My hopes aren't too high for working operation but if anything it'll be a cool piece to have in a bay.

Did the drive come with the CD caddy? It's also fun seeing one of them as it brings back memories as a young kid using them in the school library computers.

It did!

The attachment IMG_7424.jpg is no longer available

Admittedly I've never used a CD caddy before, and if I did as a kid at school or something I don't remember it at all.

Yeah that's a cool caddy. Great that it came with one, since they're part of the disc clamp mechanism you can't do anything with a caddy drive without the caddy.

I recently couldn't resist a similar caddy-loading Matsushita CR-501-B drive which also came with an 8-bit SCSI card and cable. In my case it wouldn't read CDs initially but it would work after I aimed a hair dryer at its internals for a minute or two, indicating capacitor faults. Spent ages figuring out what does what and found out it's the same as the Commodore CDTV optical drive pretty much - on mine it was just the 16v 10uf capacitors had gone bad but all the other caps were fine. The mainboard has 32 electrolytic capacitors!

Once those were replaced it's now reading an audio CD fine but I haven't hooked the SCSI card up to a PC yet to test it properly

I wish you luck with getting your one working 😀

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote on Today, 02:57:

acl wrote on 2025-10-12, 21:30:

Are you really sure about your information ? I have the same card as nfraser01 and reviews from summer 2000 show pictures of the […]
Show full quote

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote on 2025-10-11, 23:05:

Nope, what you have thereis a Rage Theater Gen 1.5 […]
Show full quote

Nope, what you have thereis a Rage Theater Gen 1.5

THIS is a full clock speed, first gen ATI "R6" Radeon DDR aka the launch model.

They are quite a rare beast indeed. I actually have one in my possession but its missing a tiny transistor that is beyond my powers to solder currently.

Are you really sure about your information ?
I have the same card as nfraser01 and reviews from summer 2000 show pictures of the very same card.
The 64 and 32 MB DDR were apparently available at the same time with the 64MB version having VIVO built-in.

- Anandtech review (via archive.org) : https://web.archive.org/web/20040114065255/ht … html?i=1281&p=6
- IXBT Labs (scroll halfway through the article for a picture) : http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/radeon/index.html

AnandTech: ATI Radeon 64MB DDR (July 17th, 2000)

The attachment Capture d’écran du 2025-10-12 23-27-41.png is no longer available

Edit : Mine is an OEM one. The one from nfraser01 looks like an OEM version too. With cheaper 6NS memory instead of the 5.5 found on retail ones. But still available around the same time. Review Radeon DDR 64MB OEM with Rage Theater from Nov 2000 : http://www.dansdata.com/radeon.htm

No, I am not sure about anything. I really can't explain to you the rabbit hole you've stumbled upon by looking into the different variations of the original ATI Radeon.

That being said I've owned 200 GPUs, I've spent more time staring at GPUs than 99.9999 percent of computer enthusiast. I am reasonably positive the information I just relayed is correct.

Most people on this site are pretty knowledgeable in different areas, and many probably currently own or have owned significantly more than 200 GPUs (I, for one, haven't counted mine 😮)... if that was some kind of metric for knowledge... but it really isn't. It is always best to provide some kind of source to back up claims, especially in a community where any one member could be just as well versed in these things (or as willing to do research) as anyone else.

I am not an expert on Radeons because I didn't own one until the 9600 Pro came out and I haven't used them much since, but I am inclined to go with the original dated reviews from Anandtech and iXbitlabs from when the cards were released.

I also am not finding any records of a Radeon card being referred to as a Rage Theater Gen 1.5 aside from your post. Some ebay listings and other sites refer to these cards as ATI Rage Theater just because they read the name off of the chip, but... yeah, that's just a naming mistake.

Anyway... this thandor page has what looks like the exact same PCB layout (some caps are different) from nfraser01's post, except that the label on the back says that it is a "SAMPLE ONLY- NOT FOR QUALIFICATION", and it is dated March 31st, 2000, which is before the Radeon hit retail:
https://thandor.net/object/117
It also has the same designator printed on the PCB: PN 109-70700-00A

The number is higher than the SGRAM one you posted, likely because this is the top tier 64MB VIVO model. This would also explain why the reviewers got this model. Thandor's oldest SGRAM model is a sample from July of 2000.

Also note, this particular one doesn't have the Radeon logo printed on it because ATI had not yet even finalized or released the name Radeon (as opposed to Radeon 256, or something else) until after the first run of cards were made. The review samples in the Anandtech and iXbit reviews have the Radeon logo as well as the "Sample Only" label, but are otherwise basically identical.

This preview at Anandtech has an ATI stock photo that is also the same card, and no mention of SGRAM is made in the article as far as I can tell.

So, yeah... I would say that nfraser01's card is the original Radeon, particularly the top model, the "Radeon DDR 64MB VIVO". The SGRAM models came some time after the original release, unless there is a picture somewhere of an SGRAM model from before April of 2000.

EDIT: By the way, I was curious about this myself when I saw you guys discussing it. Doing this research was fun. 😀

sunkindly wrote on Today, 00:17:

For my 386, I acquired this NEC CD drive from 1988 which also came with the SCSI controller card. My hopes aren't too high for working operation but if anything it'll be a cool piece to have in a bay.

I don't even think I KNEW about CD-ROMs in 1988 - and got my own first 4 speed in 1996. Wow! 🤣

Ozzuneoj wrote on Today, 05:07:

Most people on this site are pretty knowledgeable in different areas, and many probably currently own or have owned significantl […]
Show full quote

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote on Today, 02:57:

acl wrote on 2025-10-12, 21:30:

Are you really sure about your information ? I have the same card as nfraser01 and reviews from summer 2000 show pictures of the […]
Show full quote

Are you really sure about your information ?
I have the same card as nfraser01 and reviews from summer 2000 show pictures of the very same card.
The 64 and 32 MB DDR were apparently available at the same time with the 64MB version having VIVO built-in.

- Anandtech review (via archive.org) : https://web.archive.org/web/20040114065255/ht … html?i=1281&p=6
- IXBT Labs (scroll halfway through the article for a picture) : http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/radeon/index.html

AnandTech: ATI Radeon 64MB DDR (July 17th, 2000)

The attachment Capture d’écran du 2025-10-12 23-27-41.png is no longer available

Edit : Mine is an OEM one. The one from nfraser01 looks like an OEM version too. With cheaper 6NS memory instead of the 5.5 found on retail ones. But still available around the same time. Review Radeon DDR 64MB OEM with Rage Theater from Nov 2000 : http://www.dansdata.com/radeon.htm

No, I am not sure about anything. I really can't explain to you the rabbit hole you've stumbled upon by looking into the different variations of the original ATI Radeon.

That being said I've owned 200 GPUs, I've spent more time staring at GPUs than 99.9999 percent of computer enthusiast. I am reasonably positive the information I just relayed is correct.

Most people on this site are pretty knowledgeable in different areas, and many probably currently own or have owned significantly more than 200 GPUs (I, for one, haven't counted mine 😮)... if that was some kind of metric for knowledge... but it really isn't. It is always best to provide some kind of source to back up claims, especially in a community where any one member could be just as well versed in these things (or as willing to do research) as anyone else.

I am not an expert on Radeons because I didn't own one until the 9600 Pro came out and I haven't used them much since, but I am inclined to go with the original dated reviews from Anandtech and iXbitlabs from when the cards were released.

I also am not finding any records of a Radeon card being referred to as a Rage Theater Gen 1.5 aside from your post. Some ebay listings and other sites refer to these cards as ATI Rage Theater just because they read the name off of the chip, but... yeah, that's just a naming mistake.

Anyway... this thandor page has what looks like the exact same PCB layout (some caps are different) from nfraser01's post, except that the label on the back says that it is a "SAMPLE ONLY- NOT FOR QUALIFICATION", and it is dated March 31st, which is before the Radeon hit retail:
https://thandor.net/object/117
It also has the same designator printed on the PCB: PN 109-70700-00A

The number is higher than the SGRAM one you posted, likely because this is the top tier 64MB VIVO model. This would also explain why the reviewers got this model. Thandor's oldest SGRAM model is a sample from July of 2000.

Also note, this particular one doesn't have the Radeon logo printed on it because ATI had not yet even finalized or released the name Radeon (as opposed to Radeon 256, or something else) until after the first run of cards were made. The review samples in the Anandtech and iXbit reviews have the Radeon logo as well as the "Sample Only" label, but are otherwise basically identical.

This preview at Anandtech has an ATI stock photo that is also the same card, and no mention of SGRAM is made in the article as far as I can tell.

So, yeah... I would say that nfraser01's card is the original Radeon, particularly the top model, the "Radeon DDR 64MB VIVO". The SGRAM models came some time after the original release, unless there is a picture somewhere of an SGRAM model from before April of 2000.

EDIT: By the way, I was curious about this myself when I saw you guys discussing it. Doing this research was fun. 😀

Thank you, very thorough and interesting.

Additionally i think that wikipedia is wrong here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_gra … eon_R100_series

The Radeon DDR Vivo is on a separate line, with the 2001 date of release. While it's clear that the Rage Theatre chip has been on the 64M versions since the initial release and even on pre-release samples.
Maybe the wikipedia contributor meant AllInWonder instead of VIVO (they exist, but still not sure about the 2001 date. pictures)

Wikipedia correctly depicts 64M DDR OEM versions to have slower memory (6ns instead of 5.5ns like nfraser01'card and mine (see pict below)) but on the VIVO line with the date of 2001, while there are evidences that this card was available in 2000 too (http://www.dansdata.com/radeon.htm).

So wikipedia seems wrong on two things :
- Having a separate line for VIVO seems not correct (maybe a confusion with AIW version)
- Listing 64M DDR OEMs as 2001 is incorrect

pete8475 wrote on Yesterday, 21:48:

PcBytes wrote on Yesterday, 17:03:

PD2JK wrote on Yesterday, 15:25:

I wouldn't say that an Intel Dakota isn't interesting. The version with sound perhaps? Congrats anyway. 😀

- ASUS CUBX TOP

I've never heard of a TOP variant of the CUBX and can't find anything online. Can you post a pic of it?

My bad I copied it from another website I posted it on where people would "rate" the boards. It's a standard CUBX w/ CMD controller instead of Promise.

Epox 8RDA+ as a cold spare, caps need to be replaced. What's up with the upside down logo on the heatsink by the way, always wondered...

Geforce4 Ti 4600, one or more memory chips probably need a reflow since there are artefacts. If it's working as it should, I'll install some heatsinks on them.

acl wrote on Today, 09:05:

Thank you, very thorough and interesting. […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on Today, 05:07:

Most people on this site are pretty knowledgeable in different areas, and many probably currently own or have owned significantl […]
Show full quote

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote on Today, 02:57:

No, I am not sure about anything. I really can't explain to you the rabbit hole you've stumbled upon by looking into the different variations of the original ATI Radeon.

That being said I've owned 200 GPUs, I've spent more time staring at GPUs than 99.9999 percent of computer enthusiast. I am reasonably positive the information I just relayed is correct.

Most people on this site are pretty knowledgeable in different areas, and many probably currently own or have owned significantly more than 200 GPUs (I, for one, haven't counted mine 😮)... if that was some kind of metric for knowledge... but it really isn't. It is always best to provide some kind of source to back up claims, especially in a community where any one member could be just as well versed in these things (or as willing to do research) as anyone else.

I am not an expert on Radeons because I didn't own one until the 9600 Pro came out and I haven't used them much since, but I am inclined to go with the original dated reviews from Anandtech and iXbitlabs from when the cards were released.

I also am not finding any records of a Radeon card being referred to as a Rage Theater Gen 1.5 aside from your post. Some ebay listings and other sites refer to these cards as ATI Rage Theater just because they read the name off of the chip, but... yeah, that's just a naming mistake.

Anyway... this thandor page has what looks like the exact same PCB layout (some caps are different) from nfraser01's post, except that the label on the back says that it is a "SAMPLE ONLY- NOT FOR QUALIFICATION", and it is dated March 31st, which is before the Radeon hit retail:
https://thandor.net/object/117
It also has the same designator printed on the PCB: PN 109-70700-00A

The number is higher than the SGRAM one you posted, likely because this is the top tier 64MB VIVO model. This would also explain why the reviewers got this model. Thandor's oldest SGRAM model is a sample from July of 2000.

Also note, this particular one doesn't have the Radeon logo printed on it because ATI had not yet even finalized or released the name Radeon (as opposed to Radeon 256, or something else) until after the first run of cards were made. The review samples in the Anandtech and iXbit reviews have the Radeon logo as well as the "Sample Only" label, but are otherwise basically identical.

This preview at Anandtech has an ATI stock photo that is also the same card, and no mention of SGRAM is made in the article as far as I can tell.

So, yeah... I would say that nfraser01's card is the original Radeon, particularly the top model, the "Radeon DDR 64MB VIVO". The SGRAM models came some time after the original release, unless there is a picture somewhere of an SGRAM model from before April of 2000.

EDIT: By the way, I was curious about this myself when I saw you guys discussing it. Doing this research was fun. 😀

Thank you, very thorough and interesting.

Additionally i think that wikipedia is wrong here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_gra … eon_R100_series

The Radeon DDR Vivo is on a separate line, with the 2001 date of release. While it's clear that the Rage Theatre chip has been on the 64M versions since the initial release and even on pre-release samples.
Maybe the wikipedia contributor meant AllInWonder instead of VIVO (they exist, but still not sure about the 2001 date. pictures)

Wikipedia correctly depicts 64M DDR OEM versions to have slower memory (6ns instead of 5.5ns like nfraser01'card and mine (see pict below)) but on the VIVO line with the date of 2001, while there are evidences that this card was available in 2000 too (http://www.dansdata.com/radeon.htm).

So wikipedia seems wrong on two things :
- Having a separate line for VIVO seems not correct (maybe a confusion with AIW version)
- Listing 64M DDR OEMs as 2001 is incorrect

The attachment Radeon.jpeg is no longer available

Yeah, sadly, the extremely convoluted, contradictory and ever-changing naming of ATi's products back in the day seems to have made a mess of any efforts to catalog them. I think what really messed this up badly was that different driver versions will refer to the same card differently. So, you could find a DDR SDRAM model like yours in a PC with a driver saying "Radeon 7200", and then find an SGRAM model in a system with an older driver on it saying it's a "Radeon DDR", or vice versa. I guess you could even have SDR models with certain driver versions and they'd show up as a Radeon 7200 as well. Nice. 😕

Thandor likely has the most accurate record of these things, but at the same time the cards there generally are bare cards so they are not shown with retail boxes or other things, so we don't have the exact name that would have been on the BOX for the card when it was sold. Still, he's very logical and reasonable about how he catalogs the cards by the date of manufacture and what the manufacturer was calling them at that time. Like this one for example, which is basically identical to your card as well:
https://thandor.net/object/413

The Radeon 64MB DDR has been produced until summer of 2001 and after the release of the Radeon 8500 the cards were renamed to Radeon 7200. Because this card is dated 14th week of 2001 I named it Radeon 7200 DDR as well. I have similar cards (Engineering samples; i.e. Rage 6, Radeon 256, Radeon 32MB DDR) with different names but technical they are pretty much identical.

So... I guess technically you could go by the manufacture date of the card itself, if you're that much of stickler, but that's really splitting hairs when absolutely everything on the card is identical to the pre-release model.

The fact of the matter seems to be that ATi produced Radeons first of all with DDR SDRAM as shown, and then produced some with DDR SGRAM at some point a few months later. It's possible that they designed the second PCB for DDR SGRAM while designing the SDR model, because it was cheaper to produce these models in large enough quantities to fit demand (thandor mentions here how these models have fewer caps and components). They apparently kept making the DDR SDRAM models though, since they were made in 2001 as well.

One thing that seems to be hard to find well documented\dated pictures of is an original 32MB Radeon using DDR SDRAM. It seems most of the pictures of 32MB models are SGRAM models. It seems that ATi wanted reviewers to get the best example for such a critical release and did not send out many\any 32MB models for review. So even if people were buying them on release day with 32MB DDR SDRAM and no VIVO, there aren't really any pictures to show that.

This one is really funny. Someone is selling what are apparently original Radeon DDR 32MB cards in sealed boxes, and on the back of the box it shows the same picture as Anandtech's preview (with SDRAM), but the ebay seller jammed in a random picture of an SGRAM model since the box is sealed. 🤣 What is actually inside the box is, of course, a mystery.

Thermalwrong wrote on Today, 03:46:

I wish you luck with getting your one working 😀

Thanks! If it doesn't work off the bat I'll likely open it up as you did yours and poke around.

The SCSI card has a bunch of dip switches so hopefully I'll be able to find some documentation...I'll post a photo of the card later.

What year is that drive from?