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

MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£560VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):240 W

MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 7 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio
7.3/10

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 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
▼ Worse than 53% of models
Score components

40%

6.6

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

6.6

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 53% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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 54% of models
Score components

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

▼Worse than 54%
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 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
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

44%

5.8

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

6.4

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

▼Worse than 59%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 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
▲ Better than 85% of models

80%

8.5

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each 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.
▲Better than 85%
?

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
  • msi-geforce-rtx-3070-gaming-trio
msi-geforce-rtx-3070-gaming-trio
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 reviewers say about the MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio

Based on 2 · 5

Reviewers agree it runs cool, and most like its gaming performance, though a few find it underwhelming.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio

Based on 206 owners sharing their experience in online comments

59%positive11%mixed30%negative

Owners praise its fast gaming performance, while limited video memory and weaker high-resolution performance cause the biggest frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say the 8GB of VRAM runs out in some games and mods, causing stutter or lower settings, and worry it limits future headroom at 1440p and higher.7
  • Some owners report frame rates lower than expected in certain games, like Warzone and Apex at low settings, and a few say it barely beat their older cards.5
  • Owners say 4K at maximum settings gives only about 30 to 80 fps in demanding games, so they lower settings or accept 30 fps in some titles.4
  • Some owners report temperatures near 80 to 93 °C under heavy load, usually when fan curves are poor, and fixing fan speeds in software brings them down.4

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 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
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components:

44%

5.8

Performance

24%

5.6

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

6.4

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

6.6
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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 54% of models
Score components:

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.6

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
13,650 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 13,650 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 53% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
8,412 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 8,412 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 55.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
22,224 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 22,224 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 54.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
11,051 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 11,051 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 56.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
20.3 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 20.3 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 57% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
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
448 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 448 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 41.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% 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
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)
240 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 240 W, which is higher than that of 57.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
288 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 288 W under peak load, which is higher than 69.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
240 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
323x 140x 56 mm
Length
323 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 323 mm long, which is longer than 76.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Height
140 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 140 mm tall, which is taller than 79.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.4% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s, which is slimmer than 35.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 14.7% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,441 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,441 g, which is heavier than 71.8% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 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
  • 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
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    ▲ Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each 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.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 7.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    28 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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
    ▲ Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 video reviews, each 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.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 7.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    28 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 29.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 21.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,500 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 15.4% lower sentiment score
    6.6 vs 7.8
  • 29.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,770 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,500 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 13.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (325.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    325.7 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 3 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2020 vs 2023).
    October 2020
    2020 vs 2023
  • 10.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (20.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    20.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • 33.3% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (392 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    392 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 11.6% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (240 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    240 W vs 215 W
  • 50% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (18 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    18 W vs 12 W
  • 15 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (140 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    140 mm vs 125 mm
  • 40.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (323 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    323 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 42.1% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,441 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,441 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

9.0
Sumocomputacion
≈ estimated
27/04/2024
Benchmark review · 1080p and 1440p game tests, temperatures
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio runs cool and fast, making it a strong pick for 1440p gaming.
9.5
The Tech Tank
≈ estimated
29/10/2020
Hands-on review · 1440p, 4K, ray tracing and noise tests
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio is an excellent 1440p card that stays quiet, and a top pick for buyers.
8.0
Timmy Joe PC Tech
≈ estimated
29/10/2020
Hands-on review · synthetic and gaming tests
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio performs like an RTX 2080 Ti and is worth buying if you can find one, but its huge cooler needs a large case.
Shop video
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
25/11/2020
Benchmark test · Clock speeds and cooling
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio matches the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti in synthetic benchmarks and stays well below its temperature limit under load.
8.0
vr-italia.org
≈ estimated
08/03/2021
Hands-on test · VR and 4K gaming
Verdict
MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio is a clear upgrade over a GTX 1080 Ti for games and VR, though video export improves only slightly.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio

  • Exceptional cooling performance with low operating temperatures (often below 65°C)
  • Extremely quiet operation, described as nearly inaudible even under heavy load
  • Strong performance for 1440p gaming with high frame rates and smooth gameplay
  • High build quality with a sturdy backplate and included anti-sag bracket
  • Excellent factory overclocking that outperforms the Founders Edition out of the box
  • Attractive aesthetic with customizable RGB lighting and a sleek, neutral design

What customers don't like about MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio

  • Large physical dimensions (triple-fan design) may not fit in smaller PC cases
  • Limited VRAM (8GB GDDR6) can be a bottleneck for the latest high-texture games or 4K resolution
  • Requires MSI's Dragon Center or Mystic Light software for RGB control, which many users find bloated or difficult to use
  • Higher power consumption compared to the reference Founders Edition model
  • Higher price point than the standard MSRP for the RTX 3070

Verdict

The MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio is a high-performance graphics card built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, featuring 5,888 CUDA cores, 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 256-bit bus, and a factory-overclocked boost clock of 1770 MHz (with the 'X' variant reaching 1830 MHz). Its main characteristics include the advanced Tri Frozr 2 thermal system with three Torx 4.0 fans for optimal cooling and customizable Mystic Light RGB for aesthetics. Key pros include exceptionally quiet operation, low operating temperatures, and a significant performance lead over the previous generation's flagship at 1440p and 4K resolutions. However, cons include its massive physical footprint at 323mm in length, which occupies three slots and may require the included support bracket to prevent sag, as well as a limited power adjustment range that can restrict further manual overclocking.

Compare MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio 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 MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Gaming Trio and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found