I'd say highly variable.
The first question is: What kind of games and at what settings and resolution.
The second question is: Which integrated graphics.

Most would probably think "Integrated? So those shoddy Intel ones?" And while that might be a good start, even they can vary a lot.

• Starting at the the i754 that was in the i815 chipset and only supports DirectX 6 fully (vertex shader 3.0 support in software, but no support for pixel shader whatsover)
• Then the GMA series, some of which add software PS 2.0 to the still existing software VS 3.0 (So they would be DX 9.0 capable on a theoretical level, but not 9.0c) There should be i900G/i915G boards with GMA900.
• And then the fully SM3 (GMA X3000), and SM4 (GMA X3500, 4500, X4500, X4500HD) supporting chips in the 30 and 40 series chipsets (Core 2 era), which already fall out of Win 9x support.

ATi and AMD have this to offer:

• There is the Radeon 300 series, based on the original Radeon/Radeon 7000, the fastest integrated one is basically a Radeon VE/Radeon 7000, with full Direct3D 7 and OpenGL 1.3 support
• The Radeon 9000 iGPUs, based on the Radeon 9200 chips with cut down TMUs and ROPs, but at a higher clock. Full D3D 8.1 and OpenGL 1.4 support.
• Then the Radeon Xpress X200/X1000/X1150, which are like a Radeon 9550/9600, but again with cut down TMUs and ROPs. D3D 9.0 and OpenGL 2.0 support.
• The Radeon Xpress X1200/X1250/2100, which are also like a 9550/9600, but this time in full.

nVidia brings this to the table:

• nForce 220-D and 415-D come with a Geforce 2 MX integrated. So both will give DirectX 7.0 and OpenGL 1.2 (Probably around 20% slower than a full GF2 MX and quite similar to an MX200) (Socket A)
• nForce 2 IGP comes with a Geforce 4 MX integrated. There is a 200 MHz version, pair that with dual channel RAM and it's pretty much a MX440 and runs past the MX420 and MX440 SE) (Socket A)
• nvidia offers 9x drivers for nForce 400, and those come with a Geforce 6100 or 6150, which means full DirectX 9.0c and OpenGL 2.1 support. At about half the performance of a full Geforce 6200 (So around Ti 4200 or FX 5200 performance) (Sockets 754, 939, AM2)

And for the other outliers:

• SiS 540, with SiS 300 graphics: DX 6.0, OpenGL 1.1 (Socket 7)
• SiS 630/730, with SiS 305 graphics: DX 6.0, OpenGL 1.1 (Slot 1, Socket 370, Slot A, Socket A)
• SiS 650/740, with SiS 315 graphics: DX 6.0, OpenGL 1.1 ( Socket 423, Socket 478,Socket A)
• SiS Mirage 1: DX 7.0 (but without T&L), OpenGL 1.3 (Socket A, Socket 775)
• SiS Mirage 2: DX 8.1, OpenGL 1.4 (Socket 754, Socket 939)
• SiS Mirage 3: DX 9.0; OpenGL 1.5 (Socket 775)
• VIA has a bunch of chipsets with Trident Blade 3D, S3 Savage4 and UniChrome based graphics. (Socket 8, Slot 1, Socket 370, Slot A and Socket A)
• ALi has the ALADDiN TNT, which comes with a Riva TNT2, so DirectX 6 and OpenGL 1.2 support. (SLot 1/Socket 370)

=|================================|=

Short overview of supported APIs:
For DX6:
- Intel up to GMA900
- ALADDiN TNT/Riva TNT2
- SiS303/315 graphics (on SiS 540, 630, 650, 730, 740 chipsets)
For DX7:
Radeon 300
- nForce 220-D/415-D
- nForce 2 IGP
- SiS Mirage 1 (no T&L!!!)
For DX8:
- Radeon 9000/9100/9100 Pro
- SiS Mirage 2
For DX9 (SM2):
- Radeon Xpress X200/X1000/X1150
- Radeon Xpress X1200/X1250/2100
- SiS Mirage 3
For DX9.0c (SM3):
- nForce 410/nForce 430

OpenGL 1.1:
- Intel 752/i754
- SiS303/315 graphics (on SiS 540, 630, 650, 730, 740 chipsets)
OpenGL 1.2:
- nForce 220-D/415-D
- ALADDiN TNT/Riva TNT2
OpenGL 1.3:
- SiS Mirage 1
OpenGL 1.4:
- Radeon 9000/9100/9100 Pro
- GMA900/GMA950
OpenGL 1.5:
- SiS Mirage 3
OpenGL 2.0:
- Radeon Xpress X200/X1000/X1150
- Radeon Xpress X1200/X1250/2100
OpenGL 2.1:
- nForce 410/nForce 430

=|================================|=

What does that mean for 9x gaming on integrated graphics?

Should be quite possible.

- If a Riva TNT is fast enough, absolutely. There are plenty of integrated options with sufficient compatibility and performance.

- If a Geforce 4 MX or Radeon 8500/9200 is enough for a game, then yes. Quite some that will deliver that level of performance of better.

- The fastest with support for the most games would probably an nForce 430 with Geforce 6150.
From what I can find from old tests is around 20-22 FPS in Far Cry, 29-33 FPS in Half Life 2 and around 75 FPS in Painkiller, all in 800x600. Dropping to 640x480 will give almost 50 fps in Far Cry.
So games around 2003-04, the time of release did run. Surprisingly good even if you manage expectations.
I'd say that is plenty for Windows 98, I doubt anyone would use that to play Oblivion or F.E.A.R anyway. But if you drop the settings far enough, even Half Life 2 should be "playable" enough 😀

Thanks for comment.
I should get that ECS board in this week.

Btw someone knows how VIA Chrome9 from P4M900 or K8M890 performs? Seems like there are drives for w98.

shfil wrote on 2025-01-19, 23:39:

Thanks for comment.
I should get that ECS board in this week.

Btw someone knows how VIA Chrome9 from P4M900 or K8M890 performs? Seems like there are drives for w98.

if there are win98 drivers then it should perform well for 98 games, ive got an msi P4m900 with chrome9, ive never tried the onboard so not sure if its win98 compatible, but ive got a mini VIA board with the first unichrome and it works well, i only tried a few win98 games like tomb raider II/quake II/thief 1+2 and its very usable, i mainly use it for dos games, chrome9 is an updated version of Unichrome pro II, which is an updated version of unichrome pro which is an updated version of the original unichrome which is an update of the pro savage which is a savage4/savage2000 hybrid, so it should have good compatibilty for dos/98 and decent enough perfromance.

Can someone explain me how to edit first post? (Wanna update with my findings.)

shfil wrote on 2025-02-11, 20:02:

Can someone explain me how to edit first post? (Wanna update with my findings.)

You should have a pencil icon beside the "reply with quote" option.
but this is disabled till you have made a number of posts (I forget how many)
We are pretty smart around here, if you add it below we'll see it 😉

Reviving this kind of old thread after I stumbled across it looking for comparisons of Win98 compatible iGPUs. Hope no one minds!

I've been kind of collecting Win98 suitable small / quiet systems for a while now, and noting down 3DMark scores in a spreadsheet along the way. Noticed some interesting patterns with VIA chips, especially:

VIA - PLE133 - "S3" Trident (CyberBlade?) 8Mb + VIA Eden (Samuel 2) 533Mhz on EPIA ITX board:
3DMark 99 : 1242

VIA - CLE266 - S3 UniChrome 64Mb + VIA C3 (Samuel 2) 600Mhz on EPIA-M ITX board:
3DMark 99 : 1344

VIA - PM133 - S3 ProSavage (identified as Savage 4 in 3DMark) 64Mb + Celeron 850Mhz on DigiPOS little guy:
3DMark99: 1967 / 3DMark2000: 640

VIA - KM400 - S3 UniChrome 64Mb + AMD Sempron 2600+ (Socket A) on AOpen mATX board:
3DMark 99 : 3273 / 3DMark2000: 2158

VIA - CN700 - S3 UniChrome Pro 64Mb + VIA C7 (Esther - i.e. with full speed FPU) 600Mhz on Igel thin client:
3DMark 99 : (reports single digit FPS in scores despite showing 30-40+FPS in live benchmark) / 3DMark2000: 1833

SiS - 741 - Mirage (2?) 64Mb + AMD Geode 1750+ on ASRock mATX board:
3DMark99: 6954

Intel - i855 - Extreme Graphics 2 64Mb + Intel Celeron M 1.5Ghz on Flytech Kiosk PC:
3DMark99: 6339

Definitely not scientific, and I guess it mainly shows the difference in CPU and memory bandwidth of the different platforms.

There seems precious little difference between the different VIA S3 implementations?

But the difference between the two Socket A iGPUs from VIA and SiS seems striking! Can the SiS 741 really offer twice the graphics performance of the VIA KM400 with comparable CPUs? I've got the SiS board packed away at the moment, but I recall some problems running actual games ...

Also seems clear the Intel Extreme 2 is definitely a strong performer - although wasn't there some scandal about intel cheating the benchmarks around this time?

AIMM 4MB AGP module for i815 IGP video

P3-1133MHz/256MB PC133/i815 IGP - 40 fps Quake2 OpenGL
P3-1133MHz/256MB PC133/i815 IGP + AIMM 4MB - 57 fps Quake2 OpenGL

Babasha wrote on 2026-02-03, 10:29:

AIMM 4MB AGP module for i815 IGP video

P3-1133MHz/256MB PC133/i815 IGP - 40 fps Quake2 OpenGL
P3-1133MHz/256MB PC133/i815 IGP + AIMM 4MB - 57 fps Quake2 OpenGL

That's a really interesting little expansion!

I've just been doing some more experimenting with Quake III (sorry I thought your Quake II FPS were III)

VIA - CN700 - S3 UniChrome Pro 64Mb + VIA C7 (Esther) 600Mhz - Igel thin client:
Quake 3 Arena timedemo 1: 37.5fps

SiS - 741 - Mirage (2?) 64Mb + AMD Geode 1750+ on ASRock mATX board:
Quake 3 Arena timedemo 1: 69.5fps
(on Windows ME, which turned out to give about 10% lower 3DMark scores than Win98)

This seems to put the SiS Mirage in the "good enough for almost anything Win98 games could throw at it" category?

And the C7 Esther with UniChrome Pro feels pretty usable for plenty of Win98 gaming and is entirely passively cooled!

Babasha wrote on 2026-02-03, 10:29:

AIMM 4MB AGP module for i815 IGP video

P3-1133MHz/256MB PC133/i815 IGP - 40 fps Quake2 OpenGL
P3-1133MHz/256MB PC133/i815 IGP + AIMM 4MB - 57 fps Quake2 OpenGL

I've always found AIMM on i815 a bit pointless given it has an AGP slot. But has anyone tried i810 with the 4MB display cache?
Probably more common on name brand machines, but i guess it could be also soldered on later assuming the right chipset revision and if the relevant bird seed is already there or not much to add.

It may be interesting as (officially) i810 runs the memory always at 100Mhz