Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 5080 Ultra W OC VS Inno3D GeForce RTX 5080 X3 OC

Both cards are built on an identical hardware foundation: the same 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, 112 ROPs, and a base clock of 2295 MHz. Memory bandwidth potential is also equal, with both running at 1875 MHz GPU memory speed. This means the two cards are essentially the same silicon configured at the same starting point, and any performance gap will come entirely from how aggressively each manufacturer's factory overclock pushes the boost behavior.

That is where a small but consistent separation emerges. The Colorful iGame GeForce RTX 5080 Ultra W OC reaches a GPU turbo of 2655 MHz, compared to 2640 MHz on the Inno3D GeForce RTX 5080 X3 OC — a 15 MHz advantage. Modest as that gap sounds, it compounds across every derived metric: the iGame edges ahead with 57.09 TFLOPS of floating-point throughput versus 56.77 TFLOPS, a texture rate of 892.1 GTexels/s versus 887 GTexels/s, and a pixel fill rate of 297.4 GPixel/s versus 295.7 GPixel/s. In practice, these differences — roughly 0.5% across the board — will not be perceptible in any real-world workload or benchmark result.

In summary, the iGame Ultra W OC holds a technical edge on paper thanks to its slightly higher turbo clock, but the margin is so slim that these two cards are effectively performance-identical for any practical purpose. The decision between them should rest on cooling design, acoustics, price, and build quality rather than the negligible compute gap shown here.

Memory is one area where there is absolutely nothing to separate these two cards. Every single spec is identical: 16GB of GDDR7 across a 256-bit bus, running at an effective speed of 30,000 MHz and delivering 960 GB/s of bandwidth. That bandwidth figure is particularly significant — GDDR7 at this scale represents a substantial leap over previous-generation GDDR6X implementations, enabling the GPU to feed its thousands of shading units without the memory bottlenecks that could throttle high-resolution or data-heavy workloads.

The 256-bit bus width paired with GDDR7 hits a sweet spot for a card at this tier: wide enough to sustain the 960 GB/s ceiling, yet efficient enough to avoid the power and die-area costs of a wider bus. For users working at 4K or pushing into AI inference and content creation tasks, the 16GB frame buffer provides comfortable headroom, while ECC memory support on both cards adds a layer of data integrity that professional and compute-oriented users will appreciate.

This group is an unambiguous tie. Since every memory specification — capacity, type, speed, bandwidth, bus width, and ECC support — is shared between the iGame Ultra W OC and the X3 OC, memory performance will play no role in differentiating the two cards. Buyers can focus their decision entirely on other factors such as cooling, acoustics, and price.

Feature parity is total here. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate — the current ceiling for gaming API compatibility, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable-rate shading across all titles that leverage it. Alongside ray tracing and DLSS support, these capabilities position both cards identically for the modern and near-future game library, with no advantage on either side.

A few other shared traits are worth contextualizing. Intel Resizable BAR support on both cards allows the CPU to access the full VRAM pool simultaneously rather than in small chunks, which can yield measurable frame-time improvements in CPU-bound scenarios. The ability to drive up to 4 displays simultaneously covers virtually every multi-monitor use case, from productivity arrays to immersive gaming setups. Neither card carries an LHR limiter, though this is largely a non-issue in the current market context.

As with the memory group, this comparison yields a clear tie. Every feature — from API support and AI upscaling to display output count and RGB lighting — is shared identically between the iGame Ultra W OC and the X3 OC. No feature-based argument can be made for choosing one over the other; the decision remains anchored in physical design, thermal performance, and pricing.

The port configuration on both cards is identical and follows the current standard layout for high-end NVIDIA cards: three DisplayPort outputs and one HDMI 2.1b port, totaling four simultaneous display connections — consistent with what was established in the Features group. The absence of USB-C, DVI, and mini DisplayPort outputs is entirely expected at this tier and reflects where the market has moved.

The inclusion of HDMI 2.1b is the most noteworthy shared specification here. This version supports the bandwidth needed for 4K at 144Hz or even 8K output over a single cable, making it future-proof for high-refresh-rate displays and next-generation TVs without requiring an adapter. The three DisplayPort outputs similarly handle high-bandwidth multi-monitor scenarios with ease, giving users flexible options for configuring single or multi-display setups across both gaming and professional use cases.

There is nothing to differentiate the two cards in this category — every port type, count, and version is a perfect match. This group is a tie, and connectivity should not factor into any purchasing decision between the iGame Ultra W OC and the X3 OC.

Sharing the same Blackwell architecture, 5nm process node, and an identical transistor count of 45.6 billion, both cards are built from the same silicon DNA. PCIe 5.0 support on both is standard for this generation, ensuring neither card will face any interface bottleneck on a modern platform. The meaningful differences in this group, however, come down to two practical concerns: power draw and physical size.

On TDP, the iGame Ultra W OC is rated at 380W versus 360W for the X3 OC — a 20W gap that directly ties back to the slightly higher boost clock seen in the Performance group. That extra power headroom is what enables Colorful's factory overclock, but it comes at a cost: users will need a power supply with sufficient overhead, and the card will generate marginally more heat under sustained load. The X3 OC's lower TDP makes it a more efficient choice relative to its output, and potentially friendlier to tighter PSU configurations.

The size difference is equally tangible. The iGame measures 331 × 139.3 mm while the Inno3D comes in at a noticeably more compact 300 × 120 mm — over 30mm shorter and nearly 20mm slimmer. In practical terms, the X3 OC will fit more comfortably in mid-tower cases where clearance is tight, whereas the iGame's larger footprint may present installation challenges in smaller builds. For users prioritizing case compatibility and power efficiency, the X3 OC holds a clear advantage in this group; the iGame's size and power premium only make sense if its marginally higher boost clock is a priority.