How much video memory does ATI Rage 3D pro have?

[techwanabe]

I've gotten an ATI Rage 3D pro AGP 2X video card out of an old computer given to me. I don't see an amount of memory at boot up prior to POST. How can I find out how much this card has? I'm guessing it is in the range of 16 mb, possibly 32 mb.

Thanks!

 

[kylebisme]

I have seen them anywhere between 8mb and 32mb. I'd imagine rivaturner could tell you how much ram is on yours.

 

[Marsumane]

Also in the drivers it usually comments on the amount of memory.

 

[MegaWorks]

I have the Xpert 98 card, it's base on the Rage 3D chip with 8mb of memory.

 

[techwanabe]

Hm...

I already looked in the driver section - nothing there. I may have to take out the card and look for a model number.

 

[jm0ris0n]

I have a Rage3D card with 8MB of memory on it.

 

[asm0deus]

sisoft sandra will tell you everything about your computer, I have a rage 128 pro agp 4x w/ 16MB

 

[BFG10K]

Rage Pro cards usually have 4 MB or 8 MB.

 

[KevinH]

Should running dxdiag tell you what you need to know? It'll save you having to install anything if you don't care to...

 

[gwag]

rage pro 2, 4, 6, or 8. unless there is a 128 in the title.

 

[gwag]

try hitting run and typing dxdiag then enter that should tell you in there somewhere.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: gwag
try hitting run and typing dxdiag then enter that should tell you in there somewhere.

That was the charm! Turns out this card has 8 mb of video memory.

Now here is a question - there is a single mom who doesn't play video games. She has an older Gateway computer with a 950 mhz AMD processor but only 64 mb of memory. She wants to put Windows XP on her computer which she obtained. But she can't afford memory. I don't think Windows XP is going to like 64 mb of RAM. She has a video card in there with 64 mb but I don't think she'll ever us that since she is the farthest thing from a gamer. I'm not even sure why it's in there since she has so little system RAM and a slow hard drive that chatters allot. Since I need a video card with more memory and she needs more system memory, I'm going to suggest I swap her system memory and this video card for her video card. She needs the system memory more than the video memory - all she does is internet, email and word processing.

 

[Steve]

So what's the question?

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: sm8000
So what's the question?

The system: Gateway 950 mhz AMD, 64 mb system memory, slow hard drive and 64 mb GF/MX video card. The user wants to install Windows XP on that computer but can't afford more memory. From what I understand, 128 is the practical minimum for Win XP. Does it seem a reasonable trade to swap video cards (GF/MX 64 for a ATI Rage 3D 8mb) and double her system memory, considering she has no desire to ever play 3D games, considering the need for system memory and the age of the computer, speed of the hard drive etc? I do have a 16 mb Voodoo 3 3000 sitting around also, but even that would be under utilized.

 

[Fern]

Well, it does seem like the MX vid card is doing nothing for her, and she certainly could use more ram. but I'm afraid winXP with only 128MB of ram may run slower than win98se (a guess here, you don't actually mention her existing OS) with 64MB.

I take it that someone has pursuaded her that winXP is so much better than 98se? For her needs, I don't think so. But I realize I'm alone in this universe of XP fanboism. I found XP to be slow on my rig with 512MB, I cringe at the thought of only 128MB of system ram.

But yeah, in general I agree that some type of swap trading the vid card for ram makes good sense.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: Fern
Well, it does seem like the MX vid card is doing nothing for her, and she certainly could use more ram. but I'm afraid winXP with only 128MB of ram may run slower than win98se (a guess here, you don't actually mention her existing OS) with 64MB.

I take it that someone has pursuaded her that winXP is so much better than 98se? For her needs, I don't think so. But I realize I'm alone in this universe of XP fanboism. I found XP to be slow on my rig with 512MB, I cringe at the thought of only 128MB of system ram.

She doesn't have Windows 98 or 98 SE. What came on the system originally (licensed) was Windows ME (waiting for the groan!). That is what her system restore disks have. Now 99% of my experience has been with windows 98, NT and 2000. Only recently have I been using XP allot.

Now regarding Windows ME - I recently did a 5 week temp job at a university helping Students get their personal computers hooked up to the campus network. For whatever reason, a high percentage of those students had Window ME (usually older computers). Those ME machines were the biggest problem getting to talk to the network as a rule. The Computing & Media Service Office employee's of the university almost universally recommened to the ME users to upgrade to XP - they have seen allot of issues with ME over the years. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.

Now she doens't have a copy of Windows 98 or 98SE, but my long term experience with 98 has been error messages and general long term instability issues. I basically had to reboot my 98 computer every 2 or 3 days due to some issue or another, whereas my 2000 machine can go for allot longer without issues. I've got XP/SP2 running now on my older (Tualy 1.3ghz) machine and I'm liking it allot. Anyway, 98/98SE is getting very long in the tooth, and it's getting to the point were it is supported less and less. Windows ME has it's own issues and is 4 years old. This friend does have Windows XP sitting around so...

As for the friends Gateway computer - I could potentially bump her up yet another 64 to 192 mb if you think it would make a difference on the XP OS. This user simply does email, MS word and internet surfing for 99% of the time. Probably only opens two apps at a time generally.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

As for the friends Gateway computer - I could potentially bump her up yet another 64 to 192 mb if you think it would make a difference on the XP OS. This user simply does email, MS word and internet surfing for 99% of the time. Probably only opens two apps at a time generally.

192mb will let you get away with putting XP on there given that light usage pattern.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

As for the friends Gateway computer - I could potentially bump her up yet another 64 to 192 mb if you think it would make a difference on the XP OS. This user simply does email, MS word and internet surfing for 99% of the time. Probably only opens two apps at a time generally.

192mb will let you get away with putting XP on there given that light usage pattern.

I read on Microsofts website that Windows XP requires 64 mb memory, but recommends 128 mb minimum. As I said, I have limited experience with XP, so I'm not sure how it performs on the low end of memory - say starting at 64, and going up to 128, and then 192 etc. My Tualy system has 384 mb in it running at 1.3 ghz and it runs very zippy with XP for every day stuff. Some games lag on it naturually.

Anyway, the 64 mb MX video card is wasted on the Gateway computer they way it will be used, so the swap of an ATI Rage 3D 8 mb plus the extra system memory may be a fair deal for this user. It seams 8 mb of video memory will be sufficient for the display needs - which I doubt will higher than 1024x768 at 32 bit color depth. The card will display that I've verified.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Xp really bonks on 128mb, it is barely enough to load to desktop. Since it's an older, slower system and hdd going to the swap will be torturously sloooooow 192mb should help so she can do the light tasks without much of that. I probably have 64/128mb sticks of 100/133 laying around I can give you ubercheap if that'll help ya'll out

 

[VirtualLarry]

Awww.. please don't stick someone with a RagePro card, if you can help it. Chances are, if you need a faster card for gaming, whatever 64MB card that is in that system now, isn't going to be fast enough either. It's probably a GF4 MX or something, or a GF FX5200 or 9000/9200SE, with only 64-bit memory. (Just a guess.)

I had to suffer^H^H^H^H^H^Huse a RagePro in Win98se and W2K for a while, and .... let's just say the drivers left a lot to be desired, ok? At least with whatever 64MB card is in that system now, it probably has up-to-date drivers available.

Just the opinions of a former ATI RagePro sufferer.

(On the other hand, on my PII 450 rig, it did play DVDs pretty well through the TV-out, and supported 100Mhz AGP bus speeds. But it was slow as dog * in 3D.)

Edit: Bump up the system RAM on that machine to 192MB if you are planning on installing XP, definately.. any less, and I wouldn't recommend XP at all, stick with Win98se. RagePro is only supported by out-of-box drivers in XP, and a Voodoo3 even less so. If you could "downgrade" the OS to Win98se, I would say throw the Voodoo3 in there, it should make a nice UT gaming machine. But if sticking with XP.. hmm, honestly, the person would be better off keeping their GF4 MX. Perhaps you could convince them to pay you a few buck for doing the upgrade (and charge a few bucks for the RAM), and you could put that towards saving for a Radeon 9600 or something?

In any case, if you ever do use that RagePro in Win98se or WinME, PM me for some of their later Beta drivers that I snagged before they took them off the web. I've had better luck with them than their "release-quality" ones.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Owning 2 of them myself for my sister's machine, and my backup machine. I can tell you that they're 8MB if you got them past the year 1998

 

[techwanabe]

VirtualLarry,

I really hate to put Win 98 on that computer... I've used it enough to get frustrated withe the error messages, lockups and so on over the years. The person I am working with is a 40+ mom who cares nothing about gaming - Unreal is the farthest thing from her mind. Seriously, all she does is Internet surfing, email and word processing. For that she needs a solid reliable O/S. Certainly Windows ME, which is her original licensed copy of windows isn't all that good. The 64 mb video card is truly wasted on her computer.

BTW, I've done the XP installation on her computer and as it stands now, it has 128 mb RAM and the ATI Rage 3D Pro video card in her computer. As far as responsiveness goes, it feels and looks the same as when the 64 mb MX card was on there. Honestly, the hard drive through-put seems to be the biggest limiting factor on resonsiveness... even when buggy WinME was still on her computer, it took a long time to boot up and the hard drive chatters like crazy... it must be an old ATA33 5600 rpm hard drive - which BTW has only 9.5 gig capacity. So IMHO, the extra memory and WinXP is going to help this person out much more. Anyway, explained to her my proposal and she said "go for it".