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

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£420VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):240 W

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC
6.6/10

Overall score

Score
6.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

40%

6.3

Technical score

25%

6.3

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

6.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 78% of graphics cards
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

8.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
6.3

Technical score

Technical score
6.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components

44%

5.1

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

6.3

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 64%
6.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models

6.3

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, 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.
â–¼Worse than 79%
?

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
  • colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-ultra-oc
colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-ultra-oc
Where to buy
    N/A~ £420
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 COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC

Based on 244 owners sharing their experience in online comments

68%positive13%mixed19%negative

Owners praise strong gaming speed and efficient undervolting, while tuning instability causes the clearest frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners find that the undervolt makes games or benchmarks crash, black screen or freeze, even though temperatures look fine.7
  • Pressing L to lock the voltage curve keeps the card at high clocks and power draw while idle, so idle power and temperatures rise.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC

Technical score
Technical score
6.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components:

44%

5.1

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

6.3

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

6.3
Reviews score
6.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.6

Overall score

30%

8.3

Price

7.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
12,175 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 12,175 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 61.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
7,038 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 7,038 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
20,303 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 20,303 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 60.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,841 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,841 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 71.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
17.22 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 17.22 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 60.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% 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
GDDR6X
This graphics card uses GDDR6X memory, which is newer than on 57.1% of graphics cards and equal to 22.4% 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
448 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 448 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 41.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% 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 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% 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
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% 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)
240 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 240 W, which is higher than that of 57.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
240 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 240 W under peak load, which is higher than 55.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
200 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 200 W, which is lower than that of 55.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
240 W
Show more
Size
310x 131.5x 56 mm
Length
310 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 310 mm long, which is longer than 68.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
131.5 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 131.5 mm tall, which is taller than 64.7% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3 slot/s, which is wider than 70.7% of graphics cards and equal in width to 16.8% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,100 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,100 g, which is heavier than 54.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC 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
  • 16 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (80 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    80 vs 64
  • Supports LHR limiting
    This graphics card supports an LHR limiter, while the average graphics card does not. 7.5% of Graphics cards support one.
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (12 vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    12 vs 8
  • 16 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (80 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    80 vs 64
  • 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
  • Supports LHR limiting
    This graphics card supports an LHR limiter, while the average graphics card does not. 7.5% of Graphics cards support one.
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (12 vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    12 vs 8
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • 29.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 26.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,410 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,410 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 28.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (269 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    269 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 12.5% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models

    6.3

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, 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.
    6.3 vs 7.2
  • 19.2% lower sentiment score
    6.3 vs 7.8
  • 4% worse value for money
    COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.13 vs 7.4).
    7.13 vs 7.41
  • 29.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 26.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,410 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,410 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 28.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (269 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    269 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 3 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2020 vs 2023).
    December 2020
    2020 vs 2023
  • 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
  • 23.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (17.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    17.22 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 12.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (141.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    141.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 10.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (20,303 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    20,303 points vs 22,638 points
  • 17.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (12,175 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    12,175 points vs 14,779 points
  • 23.1% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (7,038 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    7,038 points vs 9,148 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
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • 33.3% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (392 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    392 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 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 (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 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
  • 11.6% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (240 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    240 W vs 215 W
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 27.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (310 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    310 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 6.5 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (131.5 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    131.5 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

8.0
Macoi Ayon
≈ estimated
11/02/2021
Hands-on review · gaming, temperatures and streaming tests
Verdict
COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC is a big step up from the old card for gaming and streaming, but the RX 5500 XT is the cheaper pick.
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC

  • Excellent cooling performance with a triple-fan design that keeps temperatures stable even under load
  • One-Key Turbo button on the I/O plate provides a simple hardware-level overclocking boost
  • Distinctive 'Vaporwave' aesthetic with a white shroud and colorful accents, popular for themed builds
  • Strong 1440p gaming performance, punchy enough to handle most modern titles at high settings
  • Solid build quality and reliable engineering compared to lower-tier 'Battle-Ax' models

What customers don't like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC

  • Limited availability in Western markets (North America/Europe), often requiring imports from Asia
  • Warranty and RMA processes can be difficult for international buyers due to a lack of local service centers
  • Physical size is quite large (triple-slot, nearly 12 inches deep), which may not fit in smaller cases
  • Stock BIOS fan curves can occasionally be aggressive, leading to audible noise if not manually tuned

Verdict

The Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC is a high-performance graphics card built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, featuring the GA104 GPU with 4864 CUDA cores and 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a wide 256-bit bus. It distinguishes itself with a triple-fan cooling system (using two 90mm and one 80mm fans) and a physical 'One-Key Overclock' button that boosts the core clock from a base of 1410MHz up to 1770MHz. Key advantages include its robust thermal design, which keeps temperatures around 62-67°C under load, and its strong 1440p gaming performance with ray tracing and DLSS support. However, its large triple-slot, 310mm-long footprint may not fit in smaller cases, it carries a higher 240W power rating compared to reference models, and 8GB of VRAM can be a limitation for some modern ultra-high texture workloads.

Compare COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC 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 COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Ultra OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found