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 4080 Advanced OC 16GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,290VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):320 W

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 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 4080 Advanced OC 16GB
8.2/10

Overall score

Score
8.2/ 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 79% of models
Score components

40%

8.9

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

7.8

Sentiment score

▲Better than 79% of graphics cards
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components

70%

8.2

Overall score

30%

3.7

Price

▼Worse than 82%
8.9

Technical score

Technical score
8.9/ 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 82% of models
Score components

44%

9.7

Performance

24%

8.8

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

9.4

Features

5%

4.4

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

▲Better than 82%
7.9

Reviews score

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

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 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.
▼Worse than 53%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-4080-advanced-oc-16gb
colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-4080-advanced-oc-16gb
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,290
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 4080 Advanced OC 16GB

Based on 204 owners sharing their experience in online comments

72%positive7%mixed21%negative

Owners love the big performance gains, smooth high-resolution gaming, and efficiency; the steep price is the main frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say the card costs too much for the performance, with street prices often around $1,000 to $1,800 depending on region and model.17
  • Owners say the RTX 4090 is only a modest price step up for much more performance, so some wish they had paid for the 4090 instead.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB

Technical score
Technical score
8.9/ 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 82% of models
Score components:

44%

9.7

Performance

24%

8.8

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

9.4

Features

5%

4.4

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

8.9
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components:

70%

8.2

Overall score

30%

3.7

Price

6.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
28,600 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 28,600 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 87.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
17,600 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 17,600 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 78.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
34,456 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 34,456 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 85.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
20,493 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 20,493 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 81.6% of graphics cards and equal to 1.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
51.07 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 51.07 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 84.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
16 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 16 GB of VRAM, which is more than 62% of graphics cards and equal to 28.1% 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
716.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 75.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
?
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
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)
320 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 320 W, which is higher than that of 79.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
400 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 400 W under peak load, which is higher than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
850 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 850 W PSU, which is higher than that of 83.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.9% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
320 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 320 W, which is higher than that of 75.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
320 W
Show more
Size
343.8x 147.6x 70.5 mm
Length
343.8 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 343.8 mm long, which is longer than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
147.6 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 147.6 mm tall, which is taller than 91% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3.5 slot/s, which is wider than 90.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 5.5% of graphics cards.
Weight
2,400 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 2,400 g, which is heavier than 95.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 36 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    76 vs 40
  • 36 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    76 vs 40
  • 2.11x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (798 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    798 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 4.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 48 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (112 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    112 vs 64
  • 82.3% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (294 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    294 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 120 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (304 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    304 vs 184
  • 60% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 9.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 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.
    7.9 vs 7.2
  • 36 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    76 vs 40
  • 36 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (76 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    76 vs 40
  • 2.11x higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (798 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    798 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 4.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,625 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 48 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (112 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    112 vs 64
  • 82.3% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (294 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    294 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 120 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (304 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    304 vs 184
  • 2.26x higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (51.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    51.07 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 160 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (304 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    304 vs 144
  • 93.5% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (28,600 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    28,600 points vs 14,779 points
  • 52.2% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (34,456 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    34,456 points vs 22,638 points
  • 14.8% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,205 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,205 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 92.4% higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (17,600 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    17,600 points vs 9,148 points
  • 5,376 more FP32 units
    This graphics card has more FP32 units than the average graphics card (9,728 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    9,728 vs 4,352
  • 60% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    716.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 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 ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (64 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    64 MB vs 24 MB
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Newer shader model
    This graphics card supports a newer shader model than the average graphics card (7 vs 6.8).
    7 vs 6.8
  • 2x more transistors
    This graphics card has more transistors than the average graphics card (45,900 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    45,900 million vs 22,900 million
  • 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
  • 48.8% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (320 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    320 W vs 215 W
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • 61.6 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (343.8 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    343.8 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 30.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (850 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    850 W vs 650 W
  • 22.6 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (147.6 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    147.6 mm vs 125 mm
  • 1 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3.5 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3.5 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2.48x more expensive
    COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,290 vs £520).
    £1,290 vs £520
  • 2.48x more expensive
    COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,290 vs £520).
    £1,290 vs £520
  • 8.3% worse value for money
    COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.85 vs 7.4).
    6.85 vs 7.41
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    November 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 20% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,400 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,400 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
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • 28.9% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (379 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    379 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 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
  • 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 (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
  • 48.8% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (320 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    320 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (850 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    850 W vs 650 W
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 45.5% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (320 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    320 W vs 220 W
  • 81.8% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (400 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    400 W vs 220 W
  • 33.3% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (16 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    16 W vs 12 W
  • 61.6 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (343.8 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    343.8 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 22.6 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (147.6 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    147.6 mm vs 125 mm
  • 1 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3.5 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3.5 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2.37x heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (2,400 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    2,400 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

8.0
VIK-off
✓ explicit
14/12/2022
Hands-on review · teardown and thermal tests
Verdict
COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB is a good, high-quality card that sits mid-pack rather than at the top as an overclocker.
Not graded
Brand video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
26/11/2022
Lab test · Oversized three-slot card
Verdict
The Colorful iGame RTX 4080 Advanced OC is a quiet, cool-running card whose 343.8mm length and 2.4kg weight suit only large cases.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB

  • Exceptional thermal performance with load temperatures often staying under 70°C thanks to a massive vacuum copper plate and 9-heatpipe cooler.
  • Extremely quiet operation; fans are virtually silent even under heavy load and feature a 0dB quiet mode for idle tasks.
  • High out-of-the-box performance that slightly exceeds some premium competitors like the MSI Suprim X due to higher boost frequencies.
  • Convenient physical 'One-Key Overclock' button on the rear I/O for easy performance boosts without needing software.
  • Robust build quality featuring a metal shroud, aluminum backplate, and premium 18-phase power delivery.
  • Generous accessory bundle including a 3-part GPU support stand, screwdriver with interchangeable bits, and gloves.

What customers don't like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB

  • Colossal physical dimensions (over 3 slots thick and 343mm long) that require a very large case and may block adjacent PCIe slots.
  • High weight (approx. 2.4kg) which places significant stress on the PCIe slot, making the use of the included support bracket mandatory.
  • High initial price point that makes it significantly more expensive than the previous generation, with value diminishing when compared to the RTX 4090.
  • Requires high power overhead, with a recommended 850W PSU and a peak power draw that can reach nearly 400W in OC mode.
  • Warranty and service support may be difficult to access for users in Europe or the US, as the brand primarily focuses on the Asian market.

Verdict

The Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB is a high-performance graphics card built on NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 9,728 CUDA cores and 16GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus. It offers a base clock of 2,205 MHz and a factory boost of 2,625 MHz, which can be instantly pushed further via a physical 'One-Key Overclock' button on the rear I/O. Its design is defined by a robust triple-fan cooling system with 'Hurricane Scythe' blades and a unique 'Gravity Rim' central fan with RGB lighting, supported by a heavy 3.5-slot metal shroud. Main pros include exceptional 4K gaming performance, a significant factory overclock, and excellent thermal management that keeps temperatures low even under heavy load. However, its massive 2.4kg weight and large physical footprint require a spacious case and a dedicated support bracket, while its 370W–400W power draw necessitates at least an 850W power supply.

Compare COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 4080 Advanced OC 16GB 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 4080 Advanced OC 16GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found