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 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,010VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):285 W

MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio
8.1/10

Overall score

Score
8.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 73% of models
Score components

40%

8.6

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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

10%

8.6

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 73% of graphics cards
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
8.6

Technical score

Technical score
8.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components

44%

8.9

Performance

24%

8.4

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

5.5

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

â–²Better than 76%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • msi-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-gaming-trio-white
msi-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-gaming-trio-white
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,010
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 MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio

Based on 209 owners sharing their experience in online comments

78%positive9%mixed13%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming speed and generous memory, while demanding games and unstable tuning expose its main limits.

What owners dislike

  • Aggressive undervolt or overclock curves can cause crashes, black screens or driver failures, and some owners found the set voltage did not hold.8
  • Applied curve settings sometimes don't hold: core clocks drop below the target, voltage stays above the set value, and memory clocks reset after applying.4
  • At 4K or 240Hz settings, owners often need DLSS or frame generation, and path-traced games can drop to around 30–40 fps.3
  • Some owners' undervolt presets cost noticeable frame rate, around 5–15%, in games like Red Dead Redemption 2 and Resident Evil Requiem.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio

Technical score
Technical score
8.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components:

44%

8.9

Performance

24%

8.4

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

5.5

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

8.6
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
24,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 24,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 74.9% of graphics cards and equal to 1.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
15,641 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 15,641 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 74.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
31,838 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 31,838 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 78.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
34,597 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 34,597 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 98.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
44.1 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 44.1 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 75.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% 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
672.3 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 672.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 73.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% 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
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)
285 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 285 W, which is higher than that of 67.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
285 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 285 W under peak load, which is higher than 65.6% of graphics cards and equal to 3.5% 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
280 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 280 W, which is higher than that of 63.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
285 W
Show more
Size
337x 140x 52 mm
Length
337 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 337 mm long, which is longer than 90.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1% 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
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
1,601 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,601 g, which is heavier than 79.6% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 6.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,670 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,670 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21.9% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,340 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,340 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 26 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (66 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    66 vs 40
  • 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
  • 82.3% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (689 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    689 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 26 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (66 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    66 vs 40
  • 50.1% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (672.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    672.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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
  • 6.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,670 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,670 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21.9% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,340 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,340 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 26 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (66 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    66 vs 40
  • 82.3% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (689 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    689 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 26 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (66 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    66 vs 40
  • 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
  • 55.4% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (250.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    250.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 95.1% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (44.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    44.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 80 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (264 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    264 vs 184
  • 120 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (264 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    264 vs 144
  • 40.6% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (31,838 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    31,838 points vs 22,638 points
  • 71% higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (15,641 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    15,641 points vs 9,148 points
  • 62.4% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (24,000 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    24,000 points vs 14,779 points
  • 2.87x higher compute score
    This graphics card has a higher compute score than the average graphics card (34,597 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    34,597 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 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
  • 50.1% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (672.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    672.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 54.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (337 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    337 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 32.6% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (285 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    285 W vs 215 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 94.2% more expensive
    MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,010 vs £520).
    £1,010 vs £520
  • 94.2% more expensive
    MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,010 vs £520).
    £1,010 vs £520
  • 2.8% worse value for money
    MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.21 vs 7.4).
    7.21 vs 7.41
  • 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
  • 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 FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • 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
  • 32.6% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (285 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    285 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
  • 10 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (105 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    105 °C vs 95 °C
  • 27.3% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (280 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    280 W vs 220 W
  • 54.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (337 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    337 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 57.9% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,601 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,601 g vs 1,014 g

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio

  • Excellent 1440p and solid 4K gaming performance due to the 16GB VRAM and 256-bit memory bus upgrade.
  • Highly efficient and quiet cooling system using MSI's TRI FROZR 3 design and TORX FAN 5.0.
  • Premium build quality with a sturdy metal backplate and an included white GPU support bracket.
  • Striking white and silver aesthetic that fits well in themed PC builds.
  • Comprehensive feature set including support for DLSS 3.5, frame generation, and superior ray tracing performance.
  • Silent operation during low loads thanks to the 'Zero Frozr' fan-stop feature.

What customers don't like about MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio

  • Large physical dimensions (337mm length) may not fit in smaller or some mid-tower cases.
  • The 'White' theme is heavily blended with silver, which some users found disappointing if they wanted a pure white card.
  • Commands a price premium over MSRP models despite similar raw performance in many scenarios.
  • High power consumption compared to lower-tier cards, requiring a recommended 700W PSU.
  • Minimal performance gains at 1080p compared to the non-Super version, making it poor value for lower resolutions.

Verdict

The MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio is a high-end graphics card featuring the NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture with 8,448 CUDA cores and an upgraded 16GB of GDDR6X VRAM on a 256-bit memory bus. It offers a boost clock of up to 2610 MHz and utilizes the TRI FROZR 3 thermal design with three TORX 5.0 fans and a nickel-plated copper base for efficient, quiet cooling. Main pros include exceptional 1440p and competitive 4K gaming performance, support for DLSS 3.5 with Frame Generation, and a sleek white-and-silver aesthetic ideal for themed builds. Some cons noted by users include its large triple-slot physical footprint (337mm length), a high price point compared to its predecessor, and a design that incorporates more silver than a purely 'all-white' finish.

Compare MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super 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 4070 Ti Super Gaming Trio and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found