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

INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£560VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):200 W

INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 3 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2
7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 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 60% of models
Score components

40%

7.3

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%

9.3

Sentiment score

▲Better than 60% 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%

7.7

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

▲Better than 75%
7.3

Technical score

Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 55% of models
Score components

44%

6.7

Performance

24%

6.2

Memory

12%

7.9

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

▲Better than 55%
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%

8.1

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 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
  • inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
  • inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
  • inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
  • inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
  • inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
  • inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
  • inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
inno3d-geforce-rtx-4070-twin-x2
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2

Based on 202 owners sharing their experience in online comments

80%positive10%mixed10%negative

Owners praise its fast, efficient gaming and DLSS gains, while VRAM limits and uneven results remain the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners find it can't hold 60 fps at max settings with ray tracing in demanding AAA games, especially at 4K or in Cyberpunk Overdrive.4
  • Owners say the 8GB limit causes memory shortfalls in some games, and 12GB can limit 4K in newer AAA titles, so DLSS helps.3
  • Some owners report hotspot near 95°C at 4K, memory near 100°C on some cards, and laptop versions throttling in thin chassis.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2

Technical score
Technical score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 55% of models
Score components:

44%

6.7

Performance

24%

6.2

Memory

12%

7.9

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

7.3
Reviews score
7.9
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%

7.7

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
15,446 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 15,446 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 52.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
11,156 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 11,156 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
26,919 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 26,919 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 63.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
28,995 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 28,995 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 93% of graphics cards and equal to 2.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
29.15 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 29.15 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 57.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% 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)
200 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 200 W, which is lower than that of 50.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
200 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 200 W under peak load, which is lower than 53.4% 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
200 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 200 W, which is lower than that of 55.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
200 W
Show more
Size
250x 118x 42 mm
Length
250 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 250 mm long, which is shorter than 67.6% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.4% of graphics cards.
Height
118 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 118 mm tall, which is shorter than 66.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% 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
850 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 850 g, which is lighter than 66.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.9 vs 7.2
  • 32.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (250 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    250 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 2.4x higher compute score
    This graphics card has a higher compute score than the average graphics card (28,995 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    28,995 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 50% larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (36 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    36 MB vs 24 MB
  • 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%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.9 vs 7.2
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 2.4x higher compute score
    This graphics card has a higher compute score than the average graphics card (28,995 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    28,995 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 20.5% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (455.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    455.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 40 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (184 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    184 vs 144
  • 6 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (46 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    46 vs 40
  • 29% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (29.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    29.15 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 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
  • 50% larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (36 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    36 MB vs 24 MB
  • 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
  • 32.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (250 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    250 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 7 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (118 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    118 mm vs 125 mm
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 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 RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 1.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,475 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,475 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • 1.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,475 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,475 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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 shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
gadgetpilipinas.net
≈ estimated
16/10/2023
Hands-on review · Hidden power connector
Verdict
The Inno3D RTX 4070 Twin X2 OC White Stealth gives a cleaner build with its hidden power plug, but the cable and cover plate hamper airflow and servicing.
8.0
comptoir-hardware.com
≈ estimated
09/10/2023
Lab test · Power and noise
Verdict
The Inno3D RTX 4070 Twin X2 stays very quiet under 4K stress, but it runs close to its power limit and its hotspot hits 82°C under load.
9.0
techgaming.nl
✓ explicit
06/10/2023
Video review · Stealth design
Verdict
The Inno3D RTX 4070 Twin X2 OC White Stealth is a compact white card that runs cool and quiet, and its hidden power plug suits vertical builds best.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2

  • Extremely compact dual-slot design ideal for Small Form Factor (SFF) builds
  • Effective cooling performance with load temperatures often staying under 65°C
  • Virtually silent fan operation even under heavy gaming stress
  • Innovative 'Stealth' hidden cable management on specific models for cleaner builds
  • High power efficiency, delivering 3080-level performance at significantly lower wattage
  • Competitively priced as an MSRP-tier entry-level model

What customers don't like about INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2

  • Locked power limits prevent significant manual overclocking gains
  • Lacks premium aesthetics like integrated RGB lighting
  • Uses some cheaper materials like plastic shrouds and fan stickers compared to high-end brands
  • Limited brand availability and shorter warranty periods in certain regions (e.g., North America)

Verdict

The Inno3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2 is a compact dual-slot graphics card built on the NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 5,888 CUDA cores and 12GB of high-speed GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus. It operates with a base clock of 1920 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz, delivering 504 GB/s of bandwidth with a power-efficient 200W TDP that requires only a single 8-pin power connector. Key advantages include its small 250mm length, making it ideal for SFF and ITX builds, along with 4th Gen Tensor cores for DLSS 3 frame generation and 3rd Gen RT cores for advanced ray tracing. While it offers excellent thermal performance and quiet operation due to its dual 88mm scythe fans and metal backplate, potential drawbacks include the lack of RGB lighting for aesthetic-focused users and a no-frills design with visible branding stickers.

Compare INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2 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 INNO3D GeForce RTX 4070 Twin X2 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found