First of all, if this is the incorrect forum I will gladly delete this thread and repost it in the appropriate place.

The question I have is related to my system and its ability to run the game.

Using http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest the only part that fails is my video card. (I knew this before I even checked) The rest of the minimum requirements pass.

My system is;
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz (2.99 GHz Performance Rated at 4.49 GHz)
1015mb Ram
Plenty of free disc space.

As I said, I'm currently running on on-board video as my last card stopped working.

What I would like to know is, would adding a GeForce 8600GT to my system allow me to play Age of Conan? Quality really doesn't matter too much. I'm limited to an 8600 due to my PSU and I cannot afford to upgrade both at this time.

The things I see working in my favour, what little there are, are that I will be running the game at 1280x1024 resolution or lower and more then likely in windowed mode.

So in the end, will the game be playable on my system or am I completely out of luck? Also, if it will run, will it run well enough (read 20ish FPS) that I wont bash my head against a wall. If it will, I will surely get some more ram in the immediate future.

Thanks.
Edit: Just for a reference, this is the card I was looking to get, or something very similar (this one seems to have much high clock speeds then others) http://www.onlinevip.com.au/produc [...] ce2cd718be

Sorry to say, but no. You need a lot more memory than 1GB to run this monster of a game. You need around 2 if on XP or 3 on vista to run it smoothly.

I installed AoC on a second machine with lower specs to try it out. I believe the machine was a single core 3.6 GHz with a 1GB of RAM and a 512 MB ATI X800 running XP. I was able to get it running but it wasn't pretty. In order to keep the frame rate up in the 20s to 30s I had to 1024 x 768 and push almost everything down the lowest settings.

Even with the new video card you linked the problem is RAM.

Now I've read accounts of people getting worse performance out of the lower settings but I haven't seen that on the two machines I've run it on.

A few buddies and I tested AoC on a 7900GS 256MB, 8800GS 512MB, and 8800GT 512MB.... all with Core2Duo processors, ranging from an E4300 to a E8400.

On an E4300 with 4GB of RAM (only about 3 addressed due to 32bit OS), and a 7900GS 256MB the game ran horribly.
We're talking lowest settings, running shader model 2.0. The frame rate didn't tend to improve too much, once in shader model 2.0, when we changed resolutions... and ranged from 20-40 FPS depending on the location in game. For example 40 FPS in a cave, but 20 in Tortage. This was playable, but overall it was a pretty ugly experience.

Bumping up to an extremely cheap 8800GS (they're like 90 dollars now), paired the E4300, the game was smooth at 1600x1200 2xAA Medium settings. The FPS was nice and stable around 30-50 FPS, with the mean just over 30. This was with a few high end settings enabled, like shadows set to everything, but bloom turned off.

Both the 8800GS and the 9600GT would be big upgrades over a 8600GT, and cards that have similar power use compared to the 8600GT, you were considering. Anything more powerful, will be more power hungry. If this is a concern, be careful with the OC versions of these cards as well, since with a 15% OC the 8800GS can have similar power use as a 8800GT at stock speeds.

So, in short, that videocard is a pretty poor choice for AoC. It would run the game, but you'd be disappointed. Look into getting a 8800GS, Radeon 3850, or a 9600GT instead. They all have low power use, with a lot more performance than the 8600GT.... and you need more RAM.

Just as a matter of personal preference, I like pointing people towards YouGamers, as opposed to systemrequirementlab:
http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10252/

If find them a little more accurate, although 3D Mark scores still only give a ballpark of real gaming performance.