Can my kid's rig handle Subnautica?

[RDBruski]

Intel Core2Duo e8400 3.0ghz
8GB RAM
AMD 6670
Windows 10

The processor is fine I think, its the video card that concerns me.

[BlackWater]

Not familiar with that card to tell for sure, but upgradeing a vid card is relateivly easy, aside from cost of course.

[Demolition414]

i'd say, No. 4 core processor would be the minimum, RAM meets the minimum, and the GPU is under powered for this sort of game, i have a

i5 7400 4core 8gb
GTX 1050 ti 4gb
HDD drive

and i get around 55-60 FPS with some sharp drops.

[Linker]

I got an OC'd 1070, and still get drops... on high at 1050p
This game is not easy to run

[jcewazhere]

The core2duo is a workhorse, but it's an old one and this game uses more cpu than a lot of games. It might be up to the task. I don't know AMD GPUs that well but a quick google says it's basically equal to a gtx 650, that's on the low end of what Subnautica needs.
Can it run? Probably. Can it run well? Probably not. You'd have to turn all the graphics settings way down and even then you might not get a stable 30fps. I have a GTX 970, i5, and 16gb and Subnautica doesn't stay at 60 much. I'm happy with anything above 30 though so I keep the graphics settings high.
In theory you can buy it, try it for less than 2 hours and return it if it doesn't work well enough but Steam is sometimes derpy about that.

[scorpion22374]

Um over 550 hrs on a hp probook 6850 with an i5. 8 gigs of ram and the only issue is its onboard video sucks.

[Ancient]

Originally posted by jcewazhere:

but a quick google says it's basically equal to a gtx 650, that's on the low end of what Subnautica needs.

That's not really accurate. A GTX 650 is almost 2x the GPU. It's Nvidia equivalent would be very low end. More like a GTS 250 or a 9800 GTX:
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GeForce-GTS-250-vs-AMD-Radeon-HD-6670/m7741vsm7738
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GeForce-9800-GTX-vs-AMD-Radeon-HD-6670/m8342vsm7738

It's worse than today's mobile integrated graphics performance: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-UHD-Graphics-620-Mobile-Kaby-Lake-R-vs-AMD-Radeon-HD-6670/m320744vsm7738

There's also the issue that everything below the HD 7700 series are legacy and have no driver support anymore: https://support.amd.com/en-us/download/desktop/legacy?product=legacy3&os=Windows%2010%20-%2064

[GeoForce]

I'm running on a mid-2011 Mac Mini in Windows. This is a 2.5 gH i5 with built in Radeon 6630M GPU 8 gB RAM. On a 1920 x 1200 screen it does fine. Not perfect, but no distracting stutter or cogging.

[Zunkey]

as it stands, it will run.

but with those specs it wont be fun or enjoyable.

[Ceejay]

Basically both the gpu and cpu are beneath the minimum requirements, had only 1 been borderline you might be fine, but since both are quite a bit under the minimum it is going to struggle.

Also to be fair, people can put up with totally different frame rates. For instance I have a friend who plays fallout 4 at about 20 fps on the lowest settings, his system is well below the minimum, I think it looks awful its also a total stutterfest and for me completelty unplayable, it was even annoying me just watching, but he is happy to play it like that.

At the end of the day you have 2 hours of gameplay to get a refund so you can always try it and see.

Maybe try it while your son is out so if its bad he wont be disappointed. :)

[Kryyss]

I would say no. Turning the details down low is still going to be an issue for busy areas of the game. I have a 4.7ghz hexacore and on high settings it still hovered around 40-50 fps so there is some major workload being done by the game.