Geforce 9600 GT (1.7G of Video Memory, somehow.)
Intel Quad-Core, 2.4Ghz.
3G RAM

For extra information, I can run Metro 2033 at med-high, with around 4x AA, and both games have the same system requirements. I'm also running it at 1600x900 resolution.

That "1.7 GB of video memory" is almost certainly counting system RAM. The video card is on the weaker side, IIRC, but there -are- people playing with that card right now.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was very confused when I saw that in DXDIAG.

The way dxdiag reports video memory in Vista and Windows 7 is misleading. It includes main memory that Windows is using for backing store.

If the card is the 1GB model (the 9600 GT came in 512MB and 1GB models), it should play very well at medium to high. If it's the 512MB model, you may have to settle for medium.

And I'm assuming having 60 fps really isn't that important in this game.

Here's something for you:
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/

Oh, how many times I have wished I could take that site and shove it where the sun don't shine. It's junk. It has about as good a chance of telling you whether marginal hardware could run the game as you do at the rigged dice poker in TW1.

Take only the word of people who have actual experience with the game. NEVER that site. It's not a shooter. 30 fps is plenty.

OK, I admit, that was google's first. Sorry for that.
Anyway, I heard some bad things about the 9600. The minimum req for the game is 8800, and the 9600 is actually weaker than that... I can agree with that. If you have a smooth gameplay without significant fps drops, it really does not matter if it's 30 or 300.

The 9600 GT is very close to the 8800 GT 512, and it was available with 1GB, which the 8800 wasn't. It's a stronger card than the HD 3850, which is also stated to be a minimum.

The minimum specs for this game are very conservative. Systems that are minimum or slightly short of minimum are usually good for medium settings, especially if your screen resolution is not too high.

You may be right.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. :)

And I'll be running this game at 1600x900, whereas most benchmarks are tested at 1920x1080, so I have an advantage there.

Im running it on a somewhat similar system- same cpu but my card is the 8800 gts 640mb.
it looks and runs great, but i do have it on the near the lowest settings, when you look at the settings put things that depend on the gpu to the lowest but things that depend on the cpu to medium. I also find it difficult to play on my native 1600x1080 so I went down to 1300x780?
you dont need to change the texture downscaling but.

What, you have to be kidding.

Frame-rate affects input lag.

Whether it's a shooter or not has no relevance.

30 fps is just alright/playable. 40 is what I call smooth.

Remember if you're getting 30 on average, there are more graphically intensive area where you lose 10+ fps or so, and some of those take place during boss fights. So beware.

It depends on the game and the setup.

For some games, 30 is fine. I played Crysis on 30 and never had a problem.

However, games that rely on QTE's need a decent frame-rate.

There are numerous threads here with this issue.

Other games like Fahrenheit and Prince of Persia also had similar issues.

Anyway, nvidia de-bunked this myth that you acutally only need 30, or that the human eye can't see more than 60.

Frame-rate affects how smooth and responsive the game is.

There is no blanket rule that says only a shooter needs more than 30.