Colorful GeForce RTX 5070 Ti NB EX VS Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC

At the foundational level, both the Colorful RTX 5070 Ti NB EX and the Colorful iGame RTX 5070 Ti Ultra W OC share identical silicon configurations: the same 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and a base GPU clock of 2295 MHz. Memory speed is also identical at 1750 MHz. This means both cards are drawing from the same hardware well — any performance difference between them comes down entirely to how aggressively each is factory-overclocked.

That is where the Ultra W OC pulls ahead. Its GPU boost clock reaches 2497 MHz versus 2452 MHz on the NB EX — a gap of 45 MHz, or roughly 1.8%. This directly cascades into every throughput metric: the Ultra W OC delivers 44.75 TFLOPS of floating-point performance against 43.94 TFLOPS, a 239.7 GPixel/s pixel fill rate versus 235.4 GPixel/s, and a texture throughput of 699.2 GTexels/s compared to 686.6 GTexels/s. In practical gaming terms, a ~1.8% clock advantage rarely produces a perceptible frame-rate difference on its own, but it does represent a measurable, consistent edge in GPU-bound workloads and compute tasks.

The iGame Ultra W OC holds the performance edge in this group, driven purely by its higher factory boost clock. The NB EX is not meaningfully slower — the two cards are close enough that real-world results will often overlap within margin of error — but if raw out-of-box GPU throughput is the deciding factor, the Ultra W OC is the objectively faster card of the two.

On the memory front, these two cards are completely indistinguishable. Both the NB EX and the Ultra W OC feature 16GB of GDDR7 VRAM on a 256-bit bus, running at an effective speed of 28000 MHz and delivering a maximum bandwidth of 896 GB/s. There is no variance across any single memory specification — they are, for all practical purposes, identical memory subsystems.

The specs here are nonetheless worth contextualizing. GDDR7 is the latest generation of graphics memory, and 896 GB/s of bandwidth represents a substantial leap over previous-generation GDDR6X implementations. For users working with high-resolution textures, large AI models, or 4K gaming with ray tracing enabled, this bandwidth headroom matters considerably — it reduces the likelihood of the memory bus becoming a bottleneck. The 16GB capacity is also meaningful: it comfortably handles modern AAA titles at 4K with maxed texture settings, and provides enough overhead for serious creative and compute workloads. ECC memory support is a minor but notable inclusion for users running professional or mixed workloads where data integrity is a concern.

This group is a definitive tie. Neither card offers any memory advantage over the other — a buyer choosing between the NB EX and the Ultra W OC on memory grounds alone has no reason to favor one over the other.

Feature parity between the NB EX and the Ultra W OC is total — every capability listed is shared identically by both cards. The headline software features are strong: DirectX 12 Ultimate ensures access to the full modern graphics API stack including hardware-accelerated ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading. DLSS support is particularly valuable, as it enables AI-driven upscaling and frame generation that can dramatically boost effective frame rates in supported titles with minimal visual cost.

Both cards also support up to 4 simultaneous displays, making either a capable choice for multi-monitor productivity or gaming setups. Intel Resizable BAR support allows the CPU to access the full GPU frame buffer at once rather than in small chunks, which can yield meaningful performance gains in CPU-bound scenarios in supported games and applications. The absence of LHR (Lite Hash Rate) on both is also worth noting — neither card carries mining-era restrictions, which is relevant for users with mixed compute workloads.

With no divergence across any feature spec, this group is another clean tie. Whichever card a buyer leans toward for other reasons — price, cooling, or the clock speed edge the Ultra W OC holds — they will not be giving up or gaining any feature advantage either way.

Port selection is identical across both cards: one HDMI 2.1b output and three DisplayPort outputs, totalling four display connections — which aligns with the four-display limit noted in the Features group. Neither card offers USB-C output, which is worth knowing for users targeting monitors or displays that rely on that connector.

HDMI 2.1b is the key callout here. It supports up to 10K resolution and high refresh rates at 4K and beyond, making it well-suited for modern gaming monitors and TVs alike. The three DisplayPort outputs round out a versatile connectivity set for multi-monitor productivity users or those mixing a TV connection with desktop displays simultaneously.

No differentiation exists between the NB EX and the Ultra W OC in this category — the port layout is a straightforward tie. Connectivity alone gives neither card any advantage over the other.

Underneath their respective cooler designs, the NB EX and the Ultra W OC are built on exactly the same foundation: the Blackwell architecture, manufactured on a 5nm process with 45.6 billion transistors, running over a PCIe 5.0 interface at a 300W TDP. The shared power envelope is particularly relevant — both cards demand the same from a system's power supply, so neither imposes a greater infrastructure requirement than the other.

The 300W TDP is a serious power draw that warrants a high-quality PSU with adequate headroom, and it signals that both cooler solutions are tasked with dissipating the same thermal load. Neither card opts for an air-water hybrid cooling configuration, meaning both rely entirely on their air cooling solutions — making cooler quality and fan design more consequential for sustained performance and noise levels, though those details fall outside the specs provided here.

Physical dimensions are effectively equivalent: the NB EX measures 330.6 × 140 mm while the Ultra W OC comes in at 331 × 139.3 mm — a sub-millimeter difference in both axes that is irrelevant for case compatibility purposes. This group is a near-perfect tie, with both cards sharing the same silicon, power requirements, and footprint. The choice between them cannot be meaningfully informed by general specs alone.