ATI Rage 128 Pro doubtfull results

Mr.Scott · August 16, 2015

I'm agree with you Mr.Scott
The problem is that i hate people who insistent and they don't think that maybe there are in wrong

Hate is maybe a strong word.

Irritating for sure though.

Stermy57 · September 25, 2015

Only for you Trodas

trodas · September 25, 2015

Oh, finally something materialized, thanks a lot!

Now we can probably agree on:

1) both your and havli videos show about the same results

havli -

- 140.9 / 105.6 fps

Stermy57 -

- 139.2 / 110.8 fps

2) given that your card is better (have higher default clocks of 130/130MHz = mine: 118/140MHz, havli: 118/140MHz) it is not very surprising to see, that your results are slightly better in game 2 test (I say 5 fps), while the first test is about the same (or under the measuring error).

...

So we all can agree now (yes, I failed to present my Win98 tests at default clock, because I have troubles booting the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA into Win98 install, believe it or not... even the machine is very stable at 225x17 P4 for dual core, 227x17 for single core tasks including SuperPi 32M), it refuse too boot even from Win98 floppy and about 1 000 other DOS booting CD's I tried, so the install will be a challenge) that 254.8/185.2fps on default clock is impossible, as I say right in the beginning, yes?

http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks

I'm very sorry your mainboard is going to die. I did not fully understand what are you saing about the baseclock (you have to back with your overclocking?), but as long at it works, it is likely that I can be repaired by replacing the caps on it, so maybe I can do it for the sake or argument and thoroughness.

Since unlike you say in the video that "there is nothing more to say" - I do believe that there IS something to be sayed:

1 - default clocks cannot give the score (okay, he could forget to type the clock, that happens... still, he should correct that)

2 - your score of 162/125.4fps is withing the reachable possibility when seriously overclocking the card (177/190MHz) and CPU (157.5x20), so it is okay

Still, 224.8fps is out of the reach of possibility even with very high overclocking, hence my suspicion is at least partly valid

Stermy57 · September 25, 2015

Now we can probably agree on:
1) both your and havli videos show about the same results

havli -

- 140.9 / 105.6 fps
Stermy57 -

- 139.2 / 110.8 fps

2) given that your card is better (have higher default clocks of 130/130MHz = mine: 118/140MHz, havli: 118/140MHz) it is not very surprising to see, that your results are slightly better in game 2 test (I say 5 fps), while the first test is about the same (or under the measuring error).

I'm agree with you

Only one thing 3DMark99 is a CPU test, havli used one Pentium 4 3.06 so even if my rage 128pro is working at 130-130 vs 118-140 (havli), it has a little bit more power.

So we all can agree now (yes, I failed to present my Win98 tests at default clock, because I have troubles booting the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA into Win98 install, believe it or not... even the machine is very stable at 225x17 P4 for dual core, 227x17 for single core tasks including SuperPi 32M), it refuse too boot even from Win98 floppy and about 1 000 other DOS booting CD's I tried, so the install will be a challenge) that 254.8/185.2fps on default clock is impossible, as I say right in the beginning, yes?

I believe it, do you used a Sata drive?

I don't like Intel chipset like (865 and higher) with win98

Like I wrote some weeks ago, if I were you, I would change platform

I'm very sorry your mainboard is going to die. I did not fully understand what are you saing about the baseclock (you have to back with your overclocking?), but as long at it works, it is likely that I can be repaired by replacing the caps on it, so maybe I can do it for the sake or argument and thoroughness.

Caps are good and some of them replaced some months ago.

The problem is controller memory

http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks

Since unlike you say in the video that "there is nothing more to say" - I do believe that there IS something to be sayed:

1 - default clocks cannot give the score (okay, he could forget to type the clock, that happens... still, he should correct that)

2 - your score of 162/125.4fps is withing the reachable possibility when seriously overclocking the card (177/190MHz) and CPU (157.5x20), so it is okay

Still, 224.8fps is out of the reach of possibility even with very high overclocking, hence my suspicion is at least partly valid

You can believe or not but I think that drswizz's score is regular

I have a biostar 939 with AGP port

I will try them, in my opinion an Athlon 64 or Opteron@2.8-3.0 will give you an incredible boost

Edited September 25, 2015 by Stermy57

Stermy57 · September 25, 2015

Sorry for the last time.

I'm apologize but I don't like when people go around Hwbot forum to write everywhere fake, cheat even different thread ( not hier with any reason)

next time think, and try all you can.

Os, driver and so on

We are all the same hier there is no gods we are humans

Sometimes we make errors but the most aim is understand

Edited September 25, 2015 by Stermy57

trodas · September 28, 2015

I'm agree with you Only one thing 3DMark99 is a CPU test, havli used one Pentium 4 3.06

Good to hear and yes, havli used faster P4. Not a problem, I would like to scale my P4/other CPU as high, as I can. The GPUPI will stop bogging down my ASRock 775i65G R3.0 (Intel 865G) soon, so I can try the Win98/ATI Rage 128 PRO there too. 3.4GHz X6800 Core 2 Duo Extreme should be pretty fast. It get second place in 3DMark 99 on 6800 GT already: http://hwbot.org/submission/2942293_

Please note the 88 266 CPU marks.

I have troubles booting the ASRock 775Dual-VSTA into Win98 install, believe it or not...

I believe it, do you used a Sata drive?

Yes, SATA SSD and SATA DVDROM. I try PATA then...

I don't like Intel chipset like (865 and higher) with win98

This is VIA PT880 Pro chipset: http://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/775dual_vsta/

Like I wrote some weeks ago, if I were you, I would change platform

Well, this is not that easy option

I'm very sorry your mainboard is going to die.

Caps are good and some of them replaced some months ago. The problem is controller memory

I did not understand. What could be a problem with the northbridge? Either it works, or it does not...? Please specify.

Still, 224.8fps is out of the reach of possibility even with very high overclocking, hence my suspicion is at least partly valid

You can believe or not but I think that drswizz's score is regular

I respect your opinion, but I consider it invalid - unless you prove it with data - eg. reall test

The reason is quite simple: the fastest Game 1 test we saw is 140.9fps. Just using different CPU and overclocking the card could bring that to 160, maybe 180fps. But scaling all the way up to 225fps is IMHO w/o the reach of possibility. You gotta understand, that the Rage scale fps with faster CPU is not linear. The chip have it's limits and it will IMHO not produce such results on any CPU.

Now... DrSwizz have CPU score 62 212:

http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks

Now back to the note I mentioned above: my CPU score is 88 266...!

(and that is under WinXP)

I did not want to brag about it, I was just trying to point that the idea of scaling does have flaws. Basically spoken - if your idea is right, then when I run Win98 on the X6800 Extreme at 3.4GHz, then I will CRUSH DrSwizz score. I have my doubts about that, but I do everything I can to test this

Sorry for the last time. I'm apologize but I don't like when people go around Hwbot forum to write everywhere fake, cheat even different thread...

Well, appology accepted. Now I have to apologize for you, that I did not believed that the score you get is possible by other way that cheating. Clearly your score is legit and it can be done.

But you have to understand, that the moment you start talking about "some special oldtimer fastest driver no-one can get":

3DMark99 and 2000 need a good OS (Win98) and is not easy to find the right settings
At the end is very hard to find a good driver version for Rage series

I'm sure that you have downloaded the last driver from AMD sure right?

You have to search better! Some older version... The problem is that some ftp server are down

...then I started talking about cheats. Because "special driver" is something fishy When I use fastest driver for old nVidia cards, I always mention it (and GPU-Z show it). And I shared it on the web, so, anyone can download it, even it is a nVidia beta driver I have from the time I was registred develper with access to these betas.

That is IMHO the standard and a little bit more sharing and allowing others to match the hardware and finetuning skills could be only good for the comunity as whole

...also it is interesting, that novadays you did mention in the video, that non special driver is used Why not? We want max FPS! ))