OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£360VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):150 W

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070
6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

40%

5.1

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

9.4

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 72% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

▼Worse than 54%
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

7.4

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 82%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 53% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 53%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
  • asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
  • asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
  • asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
  • asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
  • asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
  • asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-1070
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers agree it delivers smooth frame rates in games, though little else about the card gets discussed.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Graphics cards model ranking

Ranked #964 of 2,260 models in Graphics cards (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

7.4

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

5.1
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
6,052 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 6,052 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 82.9% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
19,226 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,226 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 63.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,681 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,681 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 80% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
6.46 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 6.46 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 82.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
256.3 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 256.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 79.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
8,008 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 8,008 MHz, which is slower than that of 84.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
150 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 150 W, which is lower than that of 72.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
155 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 155 W under peak load, which is lower than 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
180 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 180 W, which is lower than that of 61.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
150 W
Show more
Size
267x 111x 38 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
111.2 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111.2 mm tall, which is shorter than 80.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.7% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
740 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 740 g, which is lighter than 75.8% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 14.4% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 13.8 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 9.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.9 vs 7.2
  • 9.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.9 vs 7.2
  • 20.5% higher sentiment score
    9.4 vs 7.8
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 14.4% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,002 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 13.8 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 32.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,683 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,683 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 25 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (15 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    15 vs 40
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 32.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,683 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,683 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 25 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (15 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    15 vs 40
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 64 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (120 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    120 vs 184
  • 46.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (202 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    202 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 21.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,506 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,506 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 71.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (6.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    6.46 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 33.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (107.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    107.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    June 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 59.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (6,052 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    6,052 points vs 14,779 points
  • 15.1% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,226 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,226 points vs 22,638 points
  • 99.7% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 52.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,681 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,681 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 56.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.21 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 97.3% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (6.5 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    6.46 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 2,432 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1920 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,920 vs 4,352
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.9% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (8,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    8,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 42.8% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (256.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    256.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 3.2x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (16 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    16 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.4 vs 6.8).
    6.4 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 68.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (7,200 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    7,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 vs 6
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (82 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    82 °C vs 67 °C
  • 31 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (31 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    31 dB vs 0 dB
  • 6.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (42 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    42 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
26/05/2017
Hands-on review · 1080p gaming and noise tests
Verdict
ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 is a top pick for 1080p, quiet and fast, though 4K buyers should look higher.
8.0
Kattmat
≈ estimated
26/08/2016
Hands-on review · first days of use, temperatures and overclock
Verdict
ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 is a good card that runs games well, but temperatures under load are a concern.
7.0
Tech Showdown
≈ estimated
13/09/2016
Comparison with GTX 1060 · benchmarks, temperature and noise
Verdict
ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 performs strongly, but the GTX 1060 wins on value, and the 1070 costs more.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070

  • Excellent value for money, often costing significantly less than other GTX 1070 variants
  • Strong performance for 1080p and 1440p gaming, capable of running many titles at ultra or high settings
  • Blower-style cooler design is effective for small-form-factor cases or builds with limited internal airflow
  • Low power consumption (150W TDP) making it compatible with most standard 450W power supplies
  • Features dual HDMI 2.0 ports, which is convenient for connecting both a monitor and a VR headset simultaneously
  • Includes a subtle backlit logo and high build quality despite its positioning as a more budget-friendly model

What customers don't like about ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070

  • The blower-style fan can become loud or 'whiney' under heavy load or high RPM settings
  • Runs hotter than triple-fan variants, typically reaching temperatures between 75°C and 85°C during intense gaming
  • More prone to thermal throttling compared to premium aftermarket coolers if case airflow is insufficient
  • Aesthetically plain 'black box' design that lacks the extensive RGB lighting found on Strix models
  • Limited overclocking headroom compared to cards with more robust power phases and cooling solutions

Verdict

The Asus Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 is a blower-style graphics card built on NVIDIA's 16nm Pascal architecture, featuring 1,920 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1506 MHz, and a boost clock of 1683 MHz. It is equipped with 8GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.3 GB/s bandwidth and a 150W TDP powered by a single 8-pin connector. Its main characteristics include a dual-ball bearing fan designed for a 4X longer lifespan, Auto-Extreme automated manufacturing for reliability, and a 'VR-friendly' I/O layout with dual HDMI 2.0 ports and dual DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Pros include its compact dual-slot design ideal for small form factor builds or SLI configurations and solid 1080p gaming performance; however, cons include higher noise levels and thermal output characteristic of blower coolers compared to multi-fan designs, and its lack of modern features like ray tracing and DLSS.

Compare ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found