Can be a bit game engine dependant but it sounds a bit of a stretch.

If you do a search on the minumum recommended specs against your specs, you can get a feel.

For example, a search
gtx 750 vs 660
will show the 660 is a fair bit faster than the 750, so probably not a good sign with the 660 as minimum spec.

I'm running it with a GTX 1050Ti and an 8th Gen i7 and without getting into tuning the game yet, I'm getting constant drops to 1-2FPS from 30-40, on medium graphics settings.

Comparably for example, Dying Light's min spec looks to be just below your spec, so might be a better fit if you like that type of game. Flies on my basic low-spec 1050ti laptop.

I use the website UserBenchmark to check relative component performance (I've long given up on memorizing the ways manufacturers number their stuff). According to the relevant comparison, your card is below the minimum requirement, i.e. 660 is better than 750, even though it's older.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-660-vs-Nvidia-GTX-750/2162vs3162

Also, 6 GB RAM may be the official required minimum, but my current gaming computer has 8 GB and the game doesn't run entirely smoothly on pretty much the lowest sensible settings (low graphics quality but somewhat increased draw distance, so I can actually see the places Henry is riding to on horseback instead of having them load into existence as he arrives).

I'd guess that even if your card was technically above minimum requirements, that plus only 6 GB ram would make the game only questionably playable.

OK. I don't buy it, until I bought new hardware. :( Thanks for your warnings. :)

@-Iota-: Thanks for the link - that's what I was looking for for some time.