ATI aiw RAGE 128 Pro

[TechHead87]

I temporarily replaced my Nvidia Geforce A6200 with an ATI AIW RAGE 128 Pro. Does anyone know of any sites that compare the two cards (or can anyone here compare them?). I'm just doing this to see how they matchup to each other.

I installed the new drivers for the ATI, but there seems to be some lag (while using the start menu, switching from Firefox to WinAmp, etc.

 

[Golflad]

they will not compare the entire aiw series are built for only media except for a few of the newer pcie you could just run a program lik 3d mark or glexcess the higher he score the better suited to gaming a card is and the play a dvd at as high a res as your monitor and program will allow

 

[BenSkywalker]

You are talking about a TNT1 level part- you wont find any comparisons as the GeForce6200 is half a dozen or so generations beyond the Rage128- you are talking orders of magnitude difference in performance.

 

[Golflad]

Well said my point just a little more blount
Cheers

 

[Rhonda85]

ATI AIW Rage 128 pro specs:

core speed 125mhz, fill rate 250M texels/sec. , mem bandwidth 2.29GB/sec.


GeForce 6200 (128bit) specs:

core speed 300mhz, fill rate 1200M texels/sec. , mem bandwidth 8.83GB/sec.

The AIW rage128pro was fast in 1998 and is still a great card if 3D games are not important. I have one in my daughters PC and it works great for her, lots of features.

 

[Stumps]

hmmm if memory serves me correctly a Nvidia TNT used to pwn the ATI Rage 128, way back in 1998...
Last time I ran 3dmark 2001 was on the following platform.

Dell P4 1.8ghz, i845, 256MB PC133, ATI RAGE 128 Ultra 16mb : 560 3Dmarks @1024x768x32

I believe that a Geforce 6200 on a similar platform would score around 6000-7000 3dmarks

Just for a bit of a comparision I have tested a AMD system with a GF FX 5200 128mb awhile back, the system was as follows

AMD Athlon T-bird 1.4ghz, ABit KT7A-RAID, VIA KT133A, 256mb PC133 CL2, Leadtek Geforce FX 5200 128mb : 6300 3dmarks @1024x768x32 default settings

the AMD system performed very similar to the 1.8ghz Dell so I believe it's a fair comparision, both ran WinXP sp1

 

[beggerking]

if i recall correctly rage 128 pro isn't even a GPU...

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: beggerking
if i recall correctly rage 128 pro isn't even a GPU...

yep, thats right, it's only a fixed Instruction set graphics chip that predates even the mighty Geforce 256...hmmm does the word DINOSAUR ring a bell?

from memory the Rage 128 was a middle of the range graphics chips that was easily trampled by the Nvidia TNT and 3Dfx Voodoo 2....but they were an OEM's favorite, very popular in brand name PC's even as late as 2001 in some Dells...long after the TNT and Voodoo2 had dissapeared from retail store shelves.

I believe they were also plagued with ****** drivers, especially in Super 7 AGP based systems, I have a Gigabyte Rage 128 pro 32MB in a box that I have tried to setup in many a K6-2 based system, but have failed when it came to the AGP/GART driver compatibility.

The 16mb rage in my sisters Dell seems to work well...just don't throw any 3D games like Quake 2 or 3 at it....it can barely make 30FPS at 1024x763x32.

 

[LED]

I installed the new drivers for the ATI, but there seems to be some lag (while using the start menu, switching from Firefox to WinAmp, etc.

Newest drivers are from June of 2001...and @ the site there a link to enable some hot fixes for acceleration of media programs...I just pulled one out that was waiting for a 9800 AIW to be fixed and had to reinstall the drivers ...


Comparison??? forget about it as NVidia was the top dog in 3D while Matrox, ATI did beautiful 2D while 3DFX had a superb balance with 2/3D

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Originally posted by: Stumps
... it's only a fixed Instruction set graphics chip that predates even the mighty Geforce 256...hmmm does the word DINOSAUR ring a bell?

From memory the Rage 128 was a middle of the range graphics chips that was easily trampled by the Nvidia TNT and 3Dfx Voodoo 2. But they were an OEM's favorite, very popular in brand name PC's even as late as 2001 in some Dells...long after the TNT and Voodoo2 had dissapeared from retail store shelves.

I believe they were also plagued with ****** drivers, especially in Super 7 AGP based systems, I have a Gigabyte Rage 128 pro 32MB in a box that I have tried to setup in many a K6-2 based system, but have failed when it came to the AGP/GART driver compatibility.

I may still have one of those also. It aggravated me so much, I didn't try another ATI product until last year. Mine was initially installed in a P-II/400 box with an Intel-made 440BX Slot-1 system board. I have avoided Intel MB's ever since (as a matter of fact, I had such comparatively better luck with AMD that the P-II could've been my last Pentium for an equal period, save that I'd already also had a P3 in an Asus MB by the time I got so pissed at the 440BX plus Rage 128 combo).

Wasn't there just a plain "Riva" or plain "Vanta" VGA chip set before the TNT? Because I think I eventually downgraded the P-II to something older than the Rage 128, and finally managed to play a game or two on that PC, that the terrible ATI drivers of the period had blocked me on at every turn!

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: beggerking
if i recall correctly rage 128 pro isn't even a GPU...

yep, thats right, it's only a fixed Instruction set graphics chip that predates even the mighty Geforce 256...hmmm does the word DINOSAUR ring a bell?

from memory the Rage 128 was a middle of the range graphics chips that was easily trampled by the Nvidia TNT and 3Dfx Voodoo 2....but they were an OEM's favorite, very popular in brand name PC's even as late as 2001 in some Dells...long after the TNT and Voodoo2 had dissapeared from retail store shelves.

I believe they were also plagued with ****** drivers, especially in Super 7 AGP based systems, I have a Gigabyte Rage 128 pro 32MB in a box that I have tried to setup in many a K6-2 based system, but have failed when it came to the AGP/GART driver compatibility.

The 16mb rage in my sisters Dell seems to work well...just don't throw any 3D games like Quake 2 or 3 at it....it can barely make 30FPS at 1024x763x32.

Yes, buggy drivers. I think its the same AIW I had at the time... very bad reception on tuner, but awesome picture quality...

 

[Stumps]

at that time matrox had the crown for image quality so the ATi's was often overlooked, but the rage 128 did have better image quality than 3Dfx's or Nvidia's cards, but because the 3d perfomance wasn't upto scratch...and the major delays when it first arrived on the market meant that nobody wanted a rage 128 PRO...Actually this trend with ati continued until the 9500-9700pro was released.