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

ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£580VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):220 W

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

ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 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
Score components

40%

7.8

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%

9.0

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 64% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

â–²Better than 75%
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 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
Score components

44%

7.7

Performance

24%

6.4

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

7.7

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

â–²Better than 64%
?

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
Loading...
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 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
Score components:

44%

7.7

Performance

24%

6.4

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

7.7

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

7.8
Reviews score
7.6
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

7.5

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
20,995 points
This graphics card scores 20,995 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 68.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
13,981 points
This graphics card scores 13,981 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 66% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
29,960 points
This graphics card scores 29,960 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 71.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
17,018 points
This graphics card scores 17,018 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 66.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
35.48 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 35.48 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 65.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
12 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
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
504.2 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 504.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 56.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
21,000 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
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
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
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)
220 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 220 W, which is higher than that of 50.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
220 W
This graphics card draws 220 W under peak load, which is lower than 47.8% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
650 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
220 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W, which is lower than that of 49.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
220 W
Show more
Size
315x 122x 60 mm
Length
315 mm
This graphics card is 315 mm long, which is longer than 70.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
112 mm
This graphics card is 112 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.5 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
?
Show more

ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 16 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    56 vs 40
  • 50.2% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (567.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    567.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    56 vs 40
  • 80 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (224 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    224 vs 144
  • 57% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (35.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    35.48 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 16 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (80 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    80 vs 64
  • 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
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 15.4% higher sentiment score
    9.0 vs 7.8
  • 16 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    56 vs 40
  • 50.2% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (567.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    567.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (56 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    56 vs 40
  • 80 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (224 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    224 vs 144
  • 57% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (35.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    35.48 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 25.7% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (202.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    202.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 16 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (80 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    80 vs 64
  • 40 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (224 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    224 vs 184
  • 1.2% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,535 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,535 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 32.3% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (29,960 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    29,960 points vs 22,638 points
  • 42.1% higher gaming score
    This graphics card has a higher gaming score than the average graphics card (20,995 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    20,995 points vs 14,779 points
  • 52.8% higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (13,981 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    13,981 points vs 9,148 points
  • 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
  • 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 (504.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    504.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 32.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (315 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    315 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 6 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (43 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    43 °C vs 37 °C
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • 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
  • 6 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (43 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    43 °C vs 37 °C
  • 32.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (315 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    315 mm vs 282.2 mm

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC

  • Excellent 1440p gaming performance, often matching the RTX 3090 in rasterization.
  • Efficient triple-fan 'Apocalypse' cooling system maintains low temperatures under heavy load.
  • DLSS 3.5 support provides massive frame rate boosts in demanding titles.
  • High-quality build with a premium aesthetic and a durable metal backplate.
  • Quiet operation at standard fan curves compared to dual-fan 4070 Super models.

What customers don't like about ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC

  • 12GB of VRAM may act as a bottleneck for some 4K textures in future titles.
  • Large physical dimensions (triple-slot/long) may not fit in smaller PC cases.
  • Occasional reports of coil whine under high load or high frame rates.
  • Price premium over the base MSRP for the 'Apocalypse' branding and cooling.
  • Significant power draw compared to the non-Super RTX 4070.

Verdict

The Zotac GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC is a high-performance graphics card built on NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 7,168 CUDA cores and a factory-overclocked boost speed of 2,535 MHz. It is equipped with 12GB of GDDR6X VRAM on a 192-bit interface, delivering a memory bandwidth of 504.2 GB/s and a floating-point performance of approximately 36.34 TFLOPS. Key characteristics include the advanced IceStorm 2.0 cooling system with triple fans, SPECTRA RGB lighting, and a durable metal backplate. Its main pros are exceptional 1440p gaming performance, support for DLSS 3.5 and full ray tracing, and high power efficiency with a 220W TDP. However, potential cons include its large physical dimensions, occupying up to three slots at 315mm in length, and the fact that 12GB of VRAM may become a bottleneck for future 4K ultra-high-resolution gaming.

Compare ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse 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 ZOTAC GeForce RTX 4070 Super Apocalypse OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found