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 4060 Ultra W OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£290VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):130 W

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W 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 4060 Ultra W OC
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 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 64% of models
Score components

40%

6.5

Technical score

25%

6.5

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

9.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 64% of graphics cards
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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–² Better than 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–²Better than 62%
6.5

Technical score

Technical score
6.5/ 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 61% of models
Score components

44%

5.9

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

9.9

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

7.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 61%
6.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.5/ 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 77% of models

6.5

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

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 77%
?

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-4060-ultra-w-oc
colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-4060-ultra-w-oc
Where to buy
    N/A~ £290
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 4060 Ultra W OC

Based on 197 owners sharing their experience in online comments

78%positive15%mixed7%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and efficiency, while limited video memory and softer upscaling remain the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say 8GB of video memory forces them to lower texture settings in some demanding games, and they expect it to limit performance in future titles.7
  • Owners say DLSS at 1080p looks softer and blurrier than native resolution, and frame generation can cause shimmering or flickering textures.3
  • Owners report stutter and frame drops below 60 fps in some demanding games, and some laptop versions dip further under load.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W OC

Technical score
Technical score
6.5/ 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 61% of models
Score components:

44%

5.9

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

9.9

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

7.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

6.5
Reviews score
6.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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–² Better than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

7.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
12,129 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 12,129 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 61.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
6,054 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 6,054 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 66.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
21,600 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 21,600 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 55.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
6,012 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 6,012 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 78.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
15.11 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 63.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% 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
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
272 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 272 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 76.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
17,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 17,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 61% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.3% 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
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% 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
1.4
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
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
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
130 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 130 W, which is lower than that of 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
130 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 130 W under peak load, which is lower than 81% of graphics cards and equal to 3.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
130 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 130 W, which is lower than that of 81.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
115 W
Show more
Size
325x 134x 48 mm
Length
325 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 325 mm long, which is longer than 77.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Height
134 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 134 mm tall, which is taller than 68.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% 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
960 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 960 g, which is lighter than 58.1% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 3% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,580 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,580 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 21.4% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 3% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,580 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,580 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21.4% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 40.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (130 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    130 W vs 220 W
  • 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
  • 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
  • 88 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (96 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    96 vs 184
  • 16 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    24 vs 40
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 39.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 34.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (247.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    247.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 9.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.5/ 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 77% of models

    6.5

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    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.
    6.5 vs 7.2
  • 88 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (96 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    96 vs 184
  • 16 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    24 vs 40
  • 34.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (247.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    247.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (48 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    48 vs 64
  • 48 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (96 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    96 vs 144
  • 23.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (123.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    123.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 33.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (15.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    15.11 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 4.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,830 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,830 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 33.8% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (6,054 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    6,054 points vs 9,148 points
  • 17.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (12,129 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    12,129 points vs 14,779 points
  • 50.2% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6,012 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    6,012 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 50% 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.
    0.24 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 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
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 39.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 10.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (17,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    17,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 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/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 42.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (325 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    325 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 9 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (134 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    134 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

9.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
31/07/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, thermals and noise tests
Verdict
COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W OC matches rival RTX 4060 cards on performance, but its cooling, quiet fans and shiny design make it a solid pick.
Brand video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W OC

  • Striking 'Ultra' design with a white shroud and color-shifting holographic highlights that change depending on the viewing angle
  • Excellent cooling performance, remaining cool and quiet even under load
  • Factory overclocked out of the box, providing a slight performance boost over reference models
  • Strong 1080p performance, capable of running modern AAA titles at high settings with 60+ FPS
  • Highly energy-efficient, drawing significantly less power than previous-generation or competing cards
  • Includes enthusiast features like a dual BIOS with a physical 'Turbo' button for easy performance switching
  • Support for modern NVIDIA features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation and AV1 encoding

What customers don't like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W OC

  • Limited to 8GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus, which may hinder longevity and performance at resolutions higher than 1080p
  • Relatively small generational performance jump compared to the predecessor (RTX 3060) in pure rasterization tasks
  • The 3-slot width and 325mm length may be too large for some compact or SFF (Small Form Factor) cases
  • Potential concerns regarding warranty and local service centers for users outside of Asia
  • Priced at a premium compared to basic entry-level RTX 4060 models due to the custom design and cooling

Verdict

The Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W OC is a high-performance 1080p graphics card based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 3,072 CUDA cores and 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with a 272 GB/s bandwidth. This factory-overclocked model offers a base clock of 1,830 MHz and a boost clock of 2,460 MHz, which can be further pushed to 2,580 MHz via a dedicated 'One-Key OC' button on the rear I/O. Its main pros include a striking holographic white shroud with customizable RGB lighting, an efficient triple-fan 'Ultra Cooling' system with a hollow back panel for superior heat dissipation, and full support for DLSS 3 and ray tracing. However, its 8GB VRAM capacity may act as a bottleneck for memory-intensive workloads at higher resolutions, and its large 325mm length and 3-slot width may pose compatibility issues for compact PC cases.

Compare COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4060 Ultra W 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 4060 Ultra W OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found