Have problem finding edit button, wanted to add "powerful enough for gaming".

just as a very general guide - later windows 98 compatible igpu's tend to be ok with games from the 90's, even many 3d ones, sometimes even a very few later ones - if you are willing to give up some resolution, some effects and some fps.

it doesn't mean playing quake 3 at 320x200 and 10fps though, you can still get a respectable game 😀 You just have to make some compromises

i also found that almost all 2d and isometric games worked fine, again - as long as you can make some compromises

Sorry for this almost non-answer.
It depends on the game, the resolution that you want to play at, the FPS that you consider sufficient and the CPU & RAM. For example, I found that Flight Simulator 2004 played smoothly at 1024×768 on a laptop with Intel Extreme Graphics 2, a Mobile Pentium 4 2.4 and 512 MB of RAM. I installed the game on this laptop as a joke because I expected the FPS to be laughably bad, but I was surprised that it worked fine.

"Gaming" can mean Minesweeper or a WinG 16b game from 1995. They will work fine. It can also mean Quake 3 Arena or Unreal Tournament. They will positively crawl with early integrated graphics. Biggest reason isn't even the iGPU itself, it's the shared memory

Well... with most of them. There are two exceptions, both from ALi:

- ALi Aladdin 7. Complete unobtainium -So7 chipset with dual-channel SDR-SDRAM memory controller combined with an ArtX iGPU that's bascially a pre-Radeon (ATi bought ArtX shortly after the release of this chipset, turned the iGPU core into a standalone GPU and the rest is history)
- ALi AladdinTNT2. Exactly what the name suggests, a Pentium III chipset with an nVidia TNT2 core integrated. It's pretty memory-constrained, but on a P3 that's less of an issue than on a P4, and the TNT2 is an order of magnitude more powerful than any other early integrated solution. Performance is like a discrete TNT2 Vanta, not great, but marginally usable for gaming, even 2000-era gaming. Not at all common, but unlike the Aladdin 7 you do see them popping up occasionally - usually the PC Chips M754LMRT+

Weren't there some with integrated voodoo chips - banshee maybe? Or is that too old for what you want to do?

Intel extreme 2 igpu are good one in terms of performance as it perform as geforce 2 mx 200 or bit better . I had for short period such system with celeron 2ghz.

Thanks guys all for input. Intel extreme 2 was basic idea to create this post. Ati x300 is also interesting as it has 4 pixel shader/pipelines.

Isn't nforce 2 windows 98 compatible? That has Geforce 4 MX integrated, with dual channel RAM it shouldn't be that bad.

Yah the Ati x300 and related respins, think they billed some as x1100 later, are alright on anything that goes well on a Radeon 9600SE... main thing was that most of the boards it got on were a year or two later than the games it was adequate for, so as long as you reach back a little ways it's fine. But that should be kinda the top end of what you'd want to run on win98.

Add me in as another one in favor of the Intel i865 integrated graphics (Extreme Graphics 2).
It should be very decent (if not great) for most of late 90's games. Half-Life and Counter-Strike 1.5/1.6 (non-Steam) for example, run butter-smooth at 60/72 FPS almost all the time.
I would dare say i865 is quite OK even for some early 2000's games (Mafia, GTA VC, Collin McRae Rally 2/3/4, all NFS series up to Hot Pursuit 2 [haven't tried NFS Underground or Underground 2 yet] - these are just to name a few that I tried and can confirm they run well).

And since that chipset is usually bundled with a socket 478 platform, it should make for a nice Windows 98 build, especially with a faster P4. I haven't tried it yet myself, but do have a few systems I eventually plan on trying it with. Currently, all of these have some form of Windows XP on them (including the one I am posting from right now, which I still use for occasional browsing.)

I haven't tried anything on the ATI Xpress 300 or Xpress 1000-series IGPs, but I do have a few motherboards with ATI RS482 chipset (Radeon Xpress 200 IGP), and it seems to be about on par or slightly better than i865. The main difference between the two is the DirectX feature level support - i865 is only DX7 -compliant, whereas x200 is DX9(a/b) -compliant... which shouldn't matter too much with late 90's games, as most were still DX7-based. Also with X200, I seem to get overall more stable (and higher) FPS in most games. As for OpenGL performance, I don't remember if I tested it or not anymore (been a while.)

On the nVidia side of things, I recommend to stay away from any hardware with nForce 4 and later chipsets, as most of these are not reliable chipsets. The GeForce 6100/6150 series of chipsets are probably the worst in that regard. If you have one, make sure to put a fan (small or big, it doesn't matter) on top of the heatsink to keep it cool. This should help prolong its life quite a bit. Otherwise, from a feature standpoint, I don't mind them at all. Not sure how the driver situation is with the GF 6100/6150 chipsets and Windows 98. Anyone tried it and care to share some details?

This is the 3dmark 99 and 2000 of my Asus P4P800-VM with pentium 4 2,8 ghz with intel Extreme graphics 2.

momaka wrote on 2025-01-12, 11:02:

I would dare say i865 is quite OK even for some early 2000's games (Mafia, GTA VC, Collin McRae Rally 2/3/4, all NFS series up to Hot Pursuit 2 [haven't tried NFS Underground or Underground 2 yet] - these are just to name a few that I tried and can confirm they run well).

This is about where I stopped playing games as well.
I've a few PC/laptops that just have an onboard Intel Extreme Graphics, mainly for use when I have friends come over for a few network games like Diablo 1/2 RTS's like AOE or C&C titles and Need for Speed.

Personally I'd want something better for Need for Speed games if it was my only retro rig, but agree it's perfectly playable if you don't need high resolutions/detail.
RTS's and the like don't need anything more, Even something like C&C Generals or Empire Earth that make use of a bit of 3d.
Intel also have pretty good dos compatibility if that's needed.

I have an Asrock 775i65G motherboard that has intergrated graphics.
I have an X800XL in it at the minute, but at some point I when I get a chance I would like to see how the onboard performs with a Voodoo2 or 2.

ratfink wrote on 2025-01-10, 13:07:

Weren't there some with integrated voodoo chips - banshee maybe? Or is that too old for what you want to do?

This would be really great, but there never was any chipset with an integrated 3dfx GPU. There were only a very, very few boards with a onboard 3dfx Voodoo3 (and dedicated VRAM, separately soldered).

---------

When it comes to ATI...

There's no IGP driver for Win9x, only chipset drivers - if I remember correctly. Have a look at my ATI drivers page -> https://soggi.org/drivers/ati.htm.

---------

BTW I guess this thread is about IGPs and NOT onboard GPUs!?

kind regards
soggi

Well what's the Xpress 200 series listed in Radeon driver at the top if it's not the IGP?

Though I have seen the thing described under many variations of x, xpress and express and numbers from 200 to 1100, intermingling with the discrete card designations, depending on board or system manufacturer, confusing as hell.

Also confusing, is that both integrated and onboard versions of some chipsets can appear, like SiS 6326, mostly it's integrated, but there's a slot 1 PC Chips board with an onboard implementation with it's own RAM.

b0by007 wrote on 2025-01-12, 12:00:

This is the 3dmark 99 and 2000 of my Asus P4P800-VM with pentium 4 2,8 ghz with intel Extreme graphics 2.

Cool! I suppose that's the stock settings for both benchmarks?

I just ran 3DMark99 yesterday on my Dell Optiplex 170L, which has similar system specs... but for whatever reason I got higher results?
The machine has a 2.8 GHz P4 Prescott HT (with HT enabled) and 2 GB PC3200 RAM @ 400 MHz (standard 3, 3, 3, 8 timings). IGP is Intel i865 (Extreme Graphics 2).
OS is Windows XP SP2 and I ran 3DMark99 under Windows 98/ME compatibility mode with Startup Hangup Patch 1.0 (otherwise 3DMark99 wouldn't run.)
Had sound enabled for the benchmark, but none came through. I doubt that was the reason for the different results, but perhaps I'm wrong here? Anyways, here's a screenshot of it:

soggi wrote on 2025-01-13, 06:07:

BTW I guess this thread is about IGPs and NOT onboard GPUs!?

Good question. Given that not that many boards have an onboard GPU (at least in desktop land), I don't see why not include those here too. Obviously those rare boards with the VooDoo 3 would be "good enough for Windows 98". 😉

chinny22 wrote on 2025-01-13, 00:50:

I've a few PC/laptops that just have an onboard Intel Extreme Graphics, mainly for use when I have friends come over for a few network games like Diablo 1/2 RTS's like AOE or C&C titles and Need for Speed.

If my memory serves me right, I remember there being quite a bit of a performance difference between Intel Extreme Graphics (i845) and Extreme Graphics 2 (i865) - the latter seems to perform a lot better with the games I mentioned above. IIRC, i845 did just about OK up to Need For Speed High Stakes. Half-Life and Counter-Strike 1.5 (GoldSource engine) had much worse FPS than with i865. And I don't remember if I could even get CMR4 running at all.

chinny22 wrote on 2025-01-13, 00:50:

This is about where I stopped playing games as well.

Yeah, for me it was around 2006-ish where I stopped caring about newer games... more or less. I still followed up with games like Portal, Portal 2, and the Half-Life 2 episodes... but that's about it. All others lost me. Started playing older games again after that and didn't return until 2018-ish to try a few newer games again... but never really came back fully into gaming anymore.

I just ran 3DMark99 yesterday on my Dell Optiplex 170L, which has similar system specs... but for whatever reason I got higher r […]
Show full quote

I just ran 3DMark99 yesterday on my Dell Optiplex 170L, which has similar system specs... but for whatever reason I got higher results?
The machine has a 2.8 GHz P4 Prescott HT (with HT enabled) and 2 GB PC3200 RAM @ 400 MHz (standard 3, 3, 3, 8 timings). IGP is Intel i865 (Extreme Graphics 2).
OS is Windows XP SP2 and I ran 3DMark99 under Windows 98/ME compatibility mode with Startup Hangup Patch 1.0 (otherwise 3DMark99 wouldn't run.)
Had sound enabled for the benchmark, but none came through. I doubt that was the reason for the different results, but perhaps I'm wrong here? Anyways, here's a screenshot of it:

I think is the OS. I use Windows 98, becouse the motherboard has full driver support for win98, with chipset, agp, onboard sound card with sound blaster compatibility etc.
I use 512 mb ram, dont know the brand, but I didnt modified timings and stuff. In bios I switch only hdd drive type to "Compatible" for win98, oposed to "Native" for WinXP.
Maybe drivers for WinXP are better optimized and give better performance.

Was digging more into topic of x200. Seems only first generation is supported, while desktop cards with second gen are supported.

https://msfn.org/board/topic/158640-compatibl … r-for-ati-x1250 (topic with someone trying to use second gen)

Additionally these integrated gpus according to amd linux developer don't have vertex shaders. (wikipedia is wrong here) Lost link, but it was in comments on phoronix.

I've noticed I have one board with refresh of x200 (x1150), MSI RC410M (MS 7173) with RC410 chipset to be specific. I will try in free moment if Catalyst 6.2 can cooperate with this refresh. (One cap is bulky though)

Unfortunately I will need to do recapping, board isn't stable enough to boot anything.

Meanwhile I've noticed that ECS RC410-M2 may be interesting, as it seems like the southbridge (uli M1573) has drivers for w98 (not like the one from ati).

Also lga775 with P4M900 and am2 with K8M890 may be interesting, both have VIA Chrome9 IGP.