Could this system play SINS? Any suggestions

Yes.

:NOTSURE:

All I know is that machine would destroy the one I play Sins on

Well, the first game will always start slowly (depending on your graphic cards, hard drive and drive fragmentation), subsequent games will load much faster (nearly instantly since only the map needs to be loaded, while all other assets are "preloaded" allready.)

So if you don't have any other perfomance problems, I wouldn't upgrade just because of the load time of the first game.

-----

It would also probably eat mine as a snack. And I run Sins just fine.

Is this one of those threads:
"Ive got a big fucking maschine and I want that you all know that"
....
Or was that a real question?

No, that'd be me posting about my...

Athlon 64X2 4600+ (assuming I ever replaced it with a core 2 duo CPU / motherboard :D)
8800GTX
2 GB's RAM

etc etc etc.

Lets not go there.

My desktop is an AMD sempron 3100+ 1.8 gig with 2 gigs pc3200 ram. 160 gig sata HD GF-6600GT 256 meg video card, and crappy built in sound (realtek)on an Asus K8n (socket 754) MB. Running windows xp sp2. My machine is fast approaching the low end "Industrial Art" stage.

However i can run Sins on her at max settings at a good framerate until mid to late game. It has been that way thru all 4 betas. So basically if my desktop can run it, then so can yours. Unless you're running a REALLY old system.

My laptop is an Asus walmart special. Dual core pentium (1.7/1.7 gig), 2 gigs ddr2 ram, 180 gig HD, Realtek sound (notice a pattern here), Intel 945 GPU (shares system ram like all other laptops), Running windows vista home premium (cant get rid of it, and install XP because its proprietary).

While these specs are more powerful than my desktop. Its bottleneck is its GPU which i think is ATI based tho i am not sure. I need to nerf Sins to medium settings for SP, and Low for MP. I still get some choppy framerates despite nerfing the settings.

Or was that a real question?

Patheticly, a real question. I use Microsoft Office all day long but possess little basic understanding of computers. The price of this configuration seems to be about what I have paid in the past for computers so I chose different features that way and from what I have read on this forum, like the game doesn't support quad core and there is little benefit in 4 GB of Ram instead of 3 GB. The game is not the only reason for buying a new computer, but since I was thinking of buying a new computer anyway, I might as well get one that can play the game well.

I have to buy a new computer since the memory is almost full on my existing computer and the mouse pad is too small   

You can't beat my Commodore64 with an 8-bit CPU and a whoppin 64Kb of RAM!!! Ahh yes, you can't beat the classics! Its amazing how far we have come in only 2-3 decades.

In about a decade or three, youll probably laugh at your 4GB machines because you will be carrying 64PB (Petabytes) of ram. Your cpu will have quantum physics built into it that is almost exponentially faster than today's supercomputers! Just imagine the possibilities of Sins 5!   

supcom forums that way

---->

Pfft if i can get WOW to run on a machine with half the required ram and barely the right amount of video memory you can runs sins on yours.

OT: I dont really sins having a sequal, I think its a stand alone 'verse.

What?

lol dude why are you worried at all? I'm running this with 512 RAM and a Nvidia 5200. Your computer can play any game on the market (Well, not Crisis on full, not even Multi's can do that!).

because your hard disc is full? err, ever thought of buying yourself an external hard drive for about 1/10th the price of the machine you listed above? mouse pad? if you use a laser mouse all you need is a smooth surface, such as any decent table should have.

but hey, if you want to get a new machine go ahead, I'm gonna get one as well sometime soon. just as well you knew there are some alternatives.

actully, if your tabel is one solid color (like mine) the laser mice don't work. So I have to use a mouse pad that is not one solid color.

ron stand alone universe

... your not making sense Maheshirj! Even applying that as correction to the above

into

it doesn't make sense!

Um... that'd have to one VERY uniform table...

Shadowhal, Thank you for your response but I was being facetious and self effacing regarding my general lack of computer knowledge. That was what the smile was for. I will try to less cryptic in the future and it was kind of you to reply.

My home computer must be messed up then. It is newer then some of these listed in the post.

My home computer is a Pentium dual core 2.80 GHz
1 GB Ram, Radeon X600 256 MB, 250 GB Hard drive 31 GB remaining

This is what happens when I start an existing game: Fire and Ice early game
1 1/2 minutes to reach the stardock screen,
1 minute to get to select existing game
2 1/2 minutes for game to load
2 1/2 minutes before game can be played, its frozen until then
The game resolution at 1024x768 60 hz Refresh 2 samples anit-aliasing.

Is it my video card?

That sounds more like you have computer issues, yes.

Try scanning for viruses, defragging, and make sure you have clear HD space for a swap file. Check your swap file size -- when sitting at the desktop, it shouldn't be any larger than 500 MB's, and that is in fact high -- 200 or so is your aiming point. A clean boot can help avoid loading background junk if your going for a gaming session, but does disable antiviral programs and the like, so its potentially hazardous if you plan to go online.

Not likely but are you using SP1 beta? and if so has anyone else experience anything with it.

OT:
ron by standalone universe I meant its a universe in which only one story is made. The halo universe has more than one story even if the games are counted as one. I really think that rather than trying to extend sins it would do very well as just one story. Thats why I think that it would be good as one game instead of having sequels. Once again though just my opinion(might be biased from liking Asimov style short stories too much XD).

Your card isn't THAT bad, and SoaSE loads on my laptop with 512mb of RAM and a integrated graphics controller in two minutes or less. What's your CPU?

Ive got integrated and Im running on high and I experience no performance issues so his card is actually pretty good for it.

EBITAD,

Are you having someone build the computer for you, or is this some kind of 'package' deal from a retailer? If you're not comfortable building a computer yourself (it's really not so bad), you may want to check out NCIX.com (or NCIXUS.com if you're in the states) because they will build a PC for you based on the specific parts you want if you pay the $25 fee for it to be done.

Personally, I would get a Q6600 instead of the E6850 and overclock it to 3.0Ghz because it is RIDICULOUSLY easy to do that with this processor. Regardless if you've ever overclocked anything before, you should read a quick a guide on overclocking for your motherboard on where the FSB (front side bus) settings are in BIOS because literally all you need to do is adjust it from 1066MHz (standard Q6600 speed) to 1333MHz (new 'standard' FSB speed of P35, X38, etc motherboards). You don't need to play around with voltages or anything like that. What motherboard are you looking at getting? I'd recommend the Gigabyte P35-DS3L ($100), excellent board with all the basic stuff plus a few extras like FireWire, and even overlocks really well.

I would also take the Quad core because there are already games out right now that take advantage of quad cores and more are coming. For other games that don't make use of more than 2 cores, you wouldnt notice any difference between the Quad Core and the Dual Core anyway - nobody can actually notice a difference between playing a game at 110fps vs 85fps

That graphics card is pretty much the best out there right now, but if you want to save a few (hundred) bucks, look at 8800 GT 512MB or the new 8800 GTS 512MB. Personally, I like ATI's 3870 512MB cards for their CrossFire options, but in terms of single-card solutions the nVidia ones are the way to go. Another thing to consider here is your monitor and what resolution you play at. I would say that a GTX is overkill for anything less than 1900x1200, any of the 512MB cards I mentioned should play games very well at 1600 or 1280 resoltions.

Also, don't skimp out on a Power Supply Unit, it's the most important part of a system! Brands like Seasonic, Silverstone, Corsair, and some Antecs are the way to go. With a GTX in there, I wouldn't get anything less than 500W. If I were buying right now, I'd get the Antec Neo Blue 650W PSU because it's a great value and that way the system should be running under 70% load, which really extends the life of the PSU and makes it operate much more efficiently (yay electrity bills).

Edit: Almost forgot, if you really want to get 3GB of RAM instead of 4GB, make sure you get 2 sticks of 1GB, and 2 sticks of 512MB. This will keep your memory running in dual channel mode, which is what you want. That said, there's some good prices out there on 2x2 GB (4GB) RAM, but then you would need Vista 64 bit to make use of it.

Well that about does it for my lunch break, hope that helps!

Slow eyes, 85hz is tolerable as long as it's slow movement, the refresh rate is fast enough not to bug me with the flicker, but the motion still suffers from the slide show effect.

EBITAD,

I just recently bought a new computer, so I'm in an excellent position to tell you to take Kosh's advice on most of the stuff if you're building your own computer, or having someone build it for you. I highly recommend the new 512 mb GT and GTS. The only place where an ULTRA will outperform a new GTS is when you turn AA on. See here for benchmarks. Also, I can tell you that evga has them in stock (not the 512 8800 gt, though (that's the one i'm upgrading to)), and I highly recommend them as a brand because of their lifetime warranties (even with non-stock coolers, which is awesome, since the gt runs really hot) and the step-up program, which lets you upgrade to another card within 90 days of your purchase, and saved my bacon when the 8800 gt made my 8600 gts obsolete as hell for 70 bucks more.

I actually bought the motherboard Kosh recommends, and its excellent and cheap. Definitely a good buy. I'm not so sure about overclocking the processor, or getting a Q6600 for that matter, since it should be lightning fast anyway, and the 6850 puts up better benchmarks in most everything (you might want to wait for cheaper penryns, because they're just awesome).

Also, sins loads considerably faster on my old desktop with about the same stats as yours. I'm talking 4 times faster, so I think you have some serious problems with something on the software end.