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 4070 Super Ultra W OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£580VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):220 W

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super Ultra W OC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super Ultra W OC
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 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
▲ Better than 63% of models
Score components

40%

7.8

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%

9.0

Sentiment score

▲Better than 63% of graphics cards
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 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
▲ Better than 75% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

▲Better than 75%
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 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
▲ Better than 64% of models
Score components

44%

7.8

Performance

24%

6.3

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

7.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

▲Better than 64%
?

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
  • colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-4070-super-ultra-w-oc
colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-4070-super-ultra-w-oc
Where to buy
    N/A~ £580
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super Ultra W OC

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 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
▲ Better than 64% of models
Score components:

44%

7.8

Performance

24%

6.3

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

7.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

7.8
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 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
▲ Better than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
22,956 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 22,956 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 74% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
13,981 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 13,981 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 66% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
29,959 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 29,959 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 70.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
17,016 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 17,016 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 66% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
36.77 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 36.77 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 69.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
12 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 12 GB of VRAM, which is more than 46% of graphics cards and equal to 16% 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
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
504 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 504 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 54.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
21,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 21,000 MHz, which is faster than that of 61.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 12.4% 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
1.4
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)
220 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 220 W, which is higher than that of 50.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
220 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 220 W under peak load, which is lower than 47.8% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
650 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 650 W PSU, which is lower than that of 39.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.9% 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
220 W
Show more
Size
324.9x 134x 51.2 mm
Length
324.9 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 324.9 mm long, which is longer than 77.6% 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
1,220 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,220 g, which is heavier than 62.5% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super Ultra W OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 16 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    56 vs 40
  • 52% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (574.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    574.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    56 vs 40
  • 2.4% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,565 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,565 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 62.7% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (36.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    36.77 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 80 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (224 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    224 vs 144
  • 27.2% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (205.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    205.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 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
  • 15.4% higher sentiment score
    9.0 vs 7.8
  • 16 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    56 vs 40
  • 52% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (574.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    574.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    56 vs 40
  • 2.4% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,565 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,565 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 62.7% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (36.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    36.77 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 80 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (224 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    224 vs 144
  • 27.2% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (205.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    205.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 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
  • 40 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (224 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    224 vs 184
  • 55.3% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (22,956 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    22,956 points vs 14,779 points
  • 32.3% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (29,959 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    29,959 points vs 22,638 points
  • 52.8% higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (13,981 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    13,981 points vs 9,148 points
  • 2x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (48 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    48 MB vs 24 MB
  • 10.5% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (21,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    21,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 12.5% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (504 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    504 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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
  • 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
  • 42.7 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (324.9 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    324.9 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 25% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,313 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,313 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 25% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,313 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,313 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 42.7 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (324.9 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    324.9 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

Third-party reviews

What customers like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super Ultra W OC

  • Distinctive 'Pop Shock Wave' white holographic aesthetic that changes colour under different lighting
  • Highly efficient triple-fan cooling system that maintains low temperatures, often staying around 55°C to 65°C under load
  • Extremely quiet operation with an 'Auto Stop' fan feature for silence during low-demand tasks
  • Physical 'One-Key Overclock' button on the rear I/O for an easy performance boost without needing software
  • Excellent 1440p gaming performance, often rivaling or exceeding previous-gen flagships like the RTX 3080 Ti
  • Support for advanced NVIDIA features including DLSS 3 Frame Generation and superior Ray Tracing performance

What customers don't like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super Ultra W OC

  • Large physical footprint (3-slot design) that requires a spacious case for proper fitment
  • The 12GB of VRAM is seen by some as a potential future bottleneck for ultra-high-resolution gaming
  • Limited global availability outside of Asian markets, which can complicate warranty claims and local repairs for international buyers
  • Pricing can sometimes be significantly higher than the standard MSRP depending on regional availability and import costs

Verdict

The Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super Ultra W OC is a high-performance graphics card built on the NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 7,168 CUDA cores and 12GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit interface with a bandwidth of 504 GB/s. This OC edition offers a base clock of 1,980 MHz and a boosted one-key overclock frequency of 2,565 MHz, housed in a striking white 'Pop Art' triple-fan shroud with holographic accents and customizable RGB. Main pros include its exceptional 1440p gaming performance, efficient cooling system with 'Ring-shaped' fans, and a convenient physical one-key overclock button on the rear I/O. However, potential cons include its large 3-slot width (325mm length) which may not fit in smaller cases, and a VRAM capacity of 12GB which some users find limiting for long-term future-proofing at 4K resolution compared to Ti Super models.

Compare COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4070 Super 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 4070 Super Ultra W OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found