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 5070 Ti Ultra W OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£810VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):300 W

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC 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 5070 Ti Ultra W OC
8.3/10

Overall score

Score
8.3/ 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 85% of models
Score components

40%

9.0

Technical score

25%

7.8

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

8.7

Sentiment score

▲Better than 85% 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%

8.3

Overall score

30%

6.2

Price

▲Better than 75%
9.0

Technical score

Technical score
9.0/ 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 84% of models
Score components

44%

8.9

Performance

24%

9.6

Memory

12%

8.3

Power

11%

9.9

Features

5%

5.6

Design

4%

10

Connectivity

▲Better than 84%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 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 55% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, with a printed score. 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 55%
?

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-5070-ti-ultra-w-oc
colorful-igame-geforce-rtx-5070-ti-ultra-w-oc
Where to buy
    N/A~ £810
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 5070 Ti Ultra W OC

Based on 175 owners sharing their experience in online comments

78%positive11%mixed11%negative

Owners praise its speed and rendering features, while clock glitches, frame drops, and VRAM limits draw the clearest complaints.

What owners dislike

  • Unlocking voltage control in MSI Afterburner can cap boost clocks near 2500 MHz; owners fix it by turning that option off and rebooting.7
  • At native resolution or maxed settings, frame rates drop sharply, with Assassin's Creed Origins at 4K reported at only about 25 fps.5
  • Owners upgrading from a 4070 Ti say the gain is only about 10 percent, and the 9070 XT is sometimes faster in some titles.5
  • Some owners report a game showing 12 GB instead of the card's 16 GB, and heavy VRAM use in Indiana Jones until the texture pool is lowered.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC

Technical score
Technical score
9.0/ 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 84% of models
Score components:

44%

8.9

Performance

24%

9.6

Memory

12%

8.3

Power

11%

9.9

Features

5%

5.6

Design

4%

10

Connectivity

9.0
Reviews score
7.8
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%

8.3

Overall score

30%

6.2

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
13,383 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 13,383 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 57.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
19,160 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 19,160 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 85.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
32,485 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 32,485 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 81.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
18,056 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 18,056 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 68.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
44.75 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 44.75 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 78.8% 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
GDDR7
This graphics card uses GDDR7 memory, which is newer than on 79.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.4% 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
896 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 896 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 82.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
28,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 28,000 MHz, which is faster than that of 78.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5
This graphics card supports PCIe 5, which is newer than on 73% of graphics cards and equal to 27% 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
2.1b
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1b, which is more advanced than on 77.8% of graphics cards and equal to 22.2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
20 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 20 Gbps, which is slower than on 50.4% of graphics cards and equal to 7.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
300 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 300 W, which is higher than that of 72.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
300 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 300 W under peak load, which is higher than 70.3% of graphics cards and equal to 4.4% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
750 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 750 W PSU, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
300 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 300 W, which is higher than that of 68.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
300 W
Show more
Size
331x 139.3x 59.7 mm
Length
331 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 331 mm long, which is longer than 84% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
139.3 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 139.3 mm tall, which is taller than 79.5% 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
1,600 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,600 g, which is heavier than 79% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of Graphics cards.
Show more

COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 2x higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (896 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    896 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 30 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (70 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    70 vs 40
  • 30 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (70 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    70 vs 40
  • 85% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (699.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    699.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/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
  • 47.4% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 96 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (280 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    280 vs 184
  • 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
  • 8.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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 55% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, with a printed score. 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.
    7.8 vs 7.2
  • 30 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (70 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    70 vs 40
  • 30 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (70 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    70 vs 40
  • 85% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (699.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    699.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 96 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (280 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    280 vs 184
  • 58.9% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (256.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    256.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 136 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (280 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    280 vs 144
  • 32 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (96 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    96 vs 64
  • 19.5% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,295 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,295 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 98% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (44.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    44.75 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 2.09x higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (19,160 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    19,160 points vs 9,148 points
  • 43.5% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (32,485 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    32,485 points vs 22,638 points
  • 2 years newer
    This graphics card was released more recently than the average graphics card (2025 vs 2023).
    February 2025
    2025 vs 2023
  • 2.96x higher INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a higher INT8 performance than the average graphics card (716 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    716 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 2x higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (896 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    896 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 47.4% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 12x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (48 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    48 MB vs 4 MB
  • Newer GDDR version
    This graphics card uses a newer GDDR version than the average graphics card (GDDR7 vs GDDR6).
    GDDR7 vs GDDR6
  • Newer PCIe version
    This graphics card supports a newer PCIe version than the average graphics card (5 vs 4).
    5 vs 4
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1b vs 1.4a).
    2.1b vs 1.4a
  • Newer HDMI version
    This graphics card supports a newer HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1b vs 2.1a).
    2.1b vs 2.1a
  • 7 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (88 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    88 °C vs 95 °C
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • 48.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (331 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    331 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 14.3 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (139.3 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    139.3 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • 36.4% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 55.8% more expensive
    COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC is more expensive than the average graphics card (£810 vs £520).
    £810 vs £520
  • 55.8% more expensive
    COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC is more expensive than the average graphics card (£810 vs £520).
    £810 vs £520
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • 36.4% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 36.4% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 48.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (331 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    331 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14.3 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (139.3 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    139.3 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 57.8% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,600 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,600 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

8.0
HardwareVsGaming
≈ estimated
27/02/2025
Hands-on review · performance, power and thermal tests
Verdict
COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC runs cool and performs strongly, but it is only worth buying near MSRP, and waiting for prices is advised.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
thepcenthusiast.com
✓ explicit
03/03/2025
Benchmark review · White RTX 5070 Ti
Verdict
Colorful iGame RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC is a cool, quiet card with RTX 4080-level speed, but RTX 40 owners gain little from upgrading.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC

  • High performance that rivals or beats the RTX 4080 and 4080 Super in synthetic benchmarks.
  • Excellent cooling system that maintains low temperatures (around 59-61°C) even under load.
  • Quiet operation despite having a massive triple-fan 'Ultra Cooling' design.
  • Strong generational leap for users upgrading from the RTX 3070 Ti (approx. 65-71% faster).
  • Aesthetic appeal with its 'hip-hop' graffiti-themed shroud and customizable RGB lighting.
  • One-click 'Turbo' button for easy out-of-the-box overclocking.
  • Supports the latest DisplayPort 2.1b and HDMI 2.1b standards.

What customers don't like about COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC

  • Price is often significantly above MSRP, making it a poor value compared to AMD's RX 9070 XT.
  • Large physical footprint ('gargantuan' size) requires careful case clearance consideration.
  • Regression in power efficiency compared to higher-tier cards like the RTX 5080.
  • Minimal performance gains for current RTX 40-series owners.
  • Distinctive design (including pink accents) may not fit all build themes.
  • Uses the 16-pin 12V-2x6 power connector, which may require an adapter or new PSU.

Verdict

The Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC is a high-performance graphics card built on NVIDIA's Blackwell architecture, featuring 8,960 CUDA cores and 16GB of next-gen GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus. It offers a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boosted one-key overclock frequency of 2497 MHz, supported by a triple-fan cooling system and a 300W TDP. Key advantages include its striking white and pink pop-art aesthetic with customizable RGB lighting, impressive 4K gaming performance through DLSS 4 support, and efficient thermal management. However, its large 331mm triple-slot design may not fit in smaller cases, and the distinctive pink accents might not appeal to all builders.

Compare COLORFUL iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti 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 5070 Ti Ultra W OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found