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 Ti review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£380VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):180 W

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

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
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%

5.2

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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

10%

9.5

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 72% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

▼Worse than 62%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 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 80% of models
Score components

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

7.2

Power

11%

7.5

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

7.6

Connectivity

▼Worse than 80%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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-gtx-1070-ti
asus-turbo-gtx-1070-ti
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 owners say about the ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

Based on 196 owners sharing their experience in online comments

83%positive7%mixed10%negative

Owners value its lasting performance and overclocking headroom, while demanding newer games and high temperatures cause the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners at 1440p or 3440x1440 see dips below 60 fps and stutters in demanding titles, and some find the card too weak for 4K.16
  • Blower-style and some aftermarket cards reach 80–90°C under load, and owners report that a repaste or better cooling lowers temperatures by up to 22°C.11
  • High prices weaken its value5
  • Overclocks above about +200 core and +400 memory can cause crashes, and some games such as Overwatch crash until the overclock is removed.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

7.2

Power

11%

7.5

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

7.6

Connectivity

5.2
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
6,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 6,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 81.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% 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
14,670 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 14,670 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 75.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,810 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,810 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 79.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
8.19 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 8.19 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 77.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
?
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
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% 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)
180 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 180 W, which is lower than that of 57.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
180 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 180 W under peak load, which is lower than 60.8% of graphics cards and equal to 4.6% 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
240 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 240 W, which is higher than that of 52.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
180 W
Show more
Size
267x 112x 40 mm
Length
266.7 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 266.7 mm long, which is shorter than 62.8% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% 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
1,134 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,134 g, which is heavier than 57.1% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 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
  • 4.58x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (8,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    8,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 21.8% higher sentiment score
    9.5 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
  • 4.58x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (8,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    8,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 16.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (180 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    180 W vs 215 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
  • 15.5 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (266.7 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    266.7 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 31.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,721 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,721 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
  • 21 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (19 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    19 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.
  • 31.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,721 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,721 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
  • 21 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (19 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    19 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
  • 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
  • 32.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (255.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    255.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 63.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (8.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    8.19 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 16.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,607 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,607 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    November 2017
    2017 vs 2023
  • 56% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (6,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    6,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 35.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (14,670 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    14,670 points vs 22,638 points
  • 32 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (152 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    152 vs 184
  • 99.6% 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.
    0.13 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 51.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,810 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,810 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 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 HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2 vs 2.1a).
    2.0 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 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.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • 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.
  • 13 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (80 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    80 °C vs 67 °C
  • 30 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (30 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    30 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.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

  • Excellent performance for 1440p gaming and smooth 1080p ultra settings
  • Optimized for compact builds with a blower-style fan that exhausts heat directly from the case
  • High reliability featuring Auto-Extreme Technology and a dual ball-bearing fan for a longer lifespan
  • VR-ready with two HDMI ports for simultaneous headset and display connection
  • Customisable aesthetic with a backlit logo that can be swapped for personal designs
  • Power-efficient compared to older generations, offering a marked improvement in performance-per-watt

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

  • Blower-style cooling is generally louder and less efficient than multi-fan open-air designs
  • Can reach high temperatures (up to 79°C-80°C) under heavy load, typical for reference-style blowers
  • Large physical dimensions make it a 'massive' card that might not fit in all mid-tower cases
  • Price-to-performance can be awkward, as high-end 1070 Ti models often cost as much as a base GTX 1080
  • Lacks advanced lighting features for users who prefer 'disco-style' RGB effects

Verdict

The Asus Turbo GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is a high-performance graphics card built on the NVIDIA Pascal architecture, featuring 2,432 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1,607 MHz, and a boost clock of 1,683 MHz. It is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 256.3 GB/s, and includes dual VR-friendly HDMI 2.0 ports alongside two DisplayPort 1.4 outputs. Key advantages include its compact blower-style cooling system that exhausts heat out of the chassis—making it ideal for small form factor builds or multi-GPU setups—and its use of Auto-Extreme technology for enhanced reliability. However, its primary drawbacks are higher noise levels under load compared to open-air coolers and generally higher operating temperatures common to blower designs.

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

No results found