NVIDIA RTX 5070 Review: Mid-Range Muscle or Marketing Hype?

Evaluating RTX 5070's performance and efficiency reveals its premium price may deter budget-conscious gamers

Hardware by Katmin on Jun 07, 2025

The GeForce RTX 5070 launched with bold promises of delivering performance on par with previous-generation flagship cards at a much lower price point. However, it is evident from thorough testing that these assertions are not credible.

To help you determine whether the RTX 5070 is a worthwhile investment, a comprehensive analysis of its architecture, real-world gaming performance, power consumption, and overall value is detailed below.

NVIDIA, RTX5070, Review, Mid Range Muscle, Marketing Hype,, NoobFeed

NVIDIA's Claims and Initial Impressions

When NVIDIA first unveiled the RTX 5070, there was a genuine buzz in the air. NVIDIA's Jensen Huang claimed the RTX 5070 would match RTX 4090 performance despite its $550 US MSRP—an astonishing proposition, given that NVIDIA charged at least $1,600 US for the RTX 4090 when it launched.

Many of you likely took these claims at face value, imagining a next-generation midrange GPU that could outperform much pricier cards. I, too, was eager to see how NVIDIA achieved this seemingly impossible feat. Unfortunately, that excitement was short-lived. As soon as reviewers began benchmarking the RTX 5070, it became apparent that the "RTX 4090 performance for $550" messaging relied heavily on multi-frame generation rather than genuine raw performance gains.

In other words, NVIDIA was using frame generation to smooth gameplay—essentially a more advanced form of single-frame generation—to create the illusion of higher frame rates without actually improving rendering performance.

Multiframe Generation Explained

Multiframe generation can generate up to three frames at a time, provided your monitor's refresh rate is high enough to display them. It enhances smoothness but does not reduce latency. The overhead of generating extra frames often increases latency rather than decreasing it.

The result is a smoother-looking game with occasional artifacts but no actual performance uplift. Generating frames does not lower the time required to render each actual frame; it simply inserts synthetic frames to fill in gaps.

Because of this, no matter how many frames you synthesize, the RTX 5070 cannot outperform a card that already natively renders more frames, such as the RTX 4090. All legitimate performance comparisons between the RTX 5070 and any higher-end card must be made without frame generation enabled. When you do that, the real story becomes apparent: the RTX 5070 is significantly slower than the RTX 4090.

NVIDIA, RTX5070, Review, Mid Range Muscle, Marketing Hype,, NoobFeed

Real-World Performance vs. the RTX 4090

When comparing the RTX 5070 to the RTX 4090 across a 16-game sample at 2560 × 1440 (1440p), the RTX 4090 proved to be, on average, 63% faster. Enabling ray tracing—where the RTX 5070's limitations become even more pronounced—exposes its 12 GB VRAM buffer as a critical bottleneck.

In Indiana Jones and the Great Circle (which uses path tracing extensively), the RTX 5070 managed just 13 fps at 1440p with DLSS Quality upscaling, whereas the older RTX 4070 Ti Super delivered 47 fps. That equates to the RTX 4090 being 462% faster.

Frame generation couldn't even fake a playable experience here; it would likely make performance worse because frame generation itself consumes additional VRAM. These results make it painfully apparent that the RTX 5070 cannot hold a candle to the RTX 4090. In reality, it falls closer to an overclocked version of the two-year-old RTX 4070 than to any true next-generation flagship.

NVIDIA, RTX5070, Review, Mid Range Muscle, Marketing Hype,, NoobFeed

Specifications and Architecture

On paper, for $550, you do get a Blackwell GPU featuring 6,144 CUDA cores, 192 texture mapping units, and roughly 80 ray-tracing (RT) cores—about 31% fewer CUDA cores than the RTX 5070 Ti and only 4% more than the original RTX 4070 released two years ago. It even has 14% fewer cores than the updated RTX 4070 Super.

The core clock speed remains similar, but NVIDIA compensates with a 33% increase in memory bandwidth. The RTX 5070 utilizes 28 Gbps GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus, resulting in a throughput of 672 GB/s. That extra bandwidth is beneficial, but it cannot make up for the unchanged 12 GB VRAM capacity.

Despite offering faster memory, the buffer size remains the same as the original RTX 4070 and RTX 4070 Super. In 2025, 12 GB is the baseline entry-level VRAM, not a recommended amount for a midrange GPU. As a result, in many modern titles—especially those with heavy ray tracing—you'll run out of VRAM entirely.

Under those circumstances, performance plummets or simply fails to load. In effect, the RTX 5070 is just an RTX 4070 Super with a $50 discount on MSRP. You might argue it's more like a 5060, given the minimal generational improvement.

NVIDIA, RTX5070, Review, Mid Range Muscle, Marketing Hype,, NoobFeed

Gaming Performance (Rasterized, 1440p and 4K)

I tested the RTX 5070 on a system that mirrors typical high-end gaming rigs: an Intel Core i9 CPU, 32 GB DDR5 RAM, and an SSD. All games were run with high to ultra settings, default ray tracing disabled unless noted, and DLSS or other upscaling features were disabled for pure rasterized benchmarks.

In Marvel's Rivals at 1440p, the RTX 5070 was only 3% faster than the RTX 4070 Super and 15% faster than the two-year-old RTX 4070. Compared to the Radeon 7800 XT, it was 16% faster but still 6% slower than the Radeon 7900 XT.

At 4K, the RTX 5070 and RTX 4070 Super were essentially neck and neck, both managing around 44 fps on average. In Stalker 2 at 1440p, the RTX 5070 trailed the RTX 4070 Super by 9%, making it just 11% faster than the 7800 XT and 12% slower than the 7900 XT. At 4K, performance was nearly identical between the RTX 5070 and RTX 4070 Super, both delivering roughly 33 fps.

In Counter-Strike 2 at 1440p, both cards delivered almost identical frame rates. The RTX 5070 eked out a slight advantage at 4K (about 6% higher), but nothing to write home about—both cards remained well above 100 fps, making the difference imperceptible.

In Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p (no RT), the RTX 5070 again trailed the RTX 4070 Super by a small margin—2 fps on average. It was still just 7% faster than the 7800 XT. At 4K (with plain rasterization and DLSS Quality), the RTX 5070 outperformed the 7800 XT by 7% (51 fps vs. 48 fps) and surpassed the 4070 Super by 6%.

Hogwarts Legacy at 1440p was a rare win: this bandwidth-sensitive title allowed the RTX 5070 to be 21% faster than the RTX 4070 Super and on par with the 7800 XT, delivering about 75 fps. However, at 4K, it was only 8% faster than both the RTX 4070 Super and the 7800 XT, averaging 66 frames per second.

The Last of Us Part I at 1440p saw both the RTX 5070 and RTX 4070 Super clock around 90 fps. The 5070 was 2% faster than the 7800 XT. At 4K, it held a slight 4% advantage over the 4070 Super with 52 fps versus 50 fps. In Starfield at 1440p, the RTX 4070 Super outperformed the new RTX 5070 by 3% (68 fps vs. 66 fps). At 4K, the 5070 remained 6% slower, averaging 45 fps against the 4070 Super's 48 fps.

Across all 16 titles at 1440p, the RTX 5070 was, on average, just 1% faster than the RTX 4070 Super. At 4K, that average uplift rose to only about 5%, delivering "3090 light" performance—far from the claimed 4090-level results. In short, for pure rasterized gaming, the RTX 5070 behaves like a modest refresh of the RTX 4070 Super rather than a generational leap.

NVIDIA, RTX5070, Review, Mid Range Muscle, Marketing Hype,, NoobFeed

Ray Tracing Performance

Ray tracing is where the RTX 5070 falters even more. All RT benchmarks were conducted with DLSS Quality upscaling (where supported) to maximize performance. In Metro Exodus at 1440p, the RTX 5070 delivered an average of 53 fps, matching the RTX 4070 Super at 1440p and only 8% faster at 4K (53 fps vs. 49 fps).

Considering a $550 price tag in 2025, you'd expect more than midrange RT performance. In Alan Wake 2 at 1440p, the 5070 lagged 15% behind the 4070 Super (39 fps vs. 46 fps). At 4K with upscaling, it merely matched the 4070 Super's 22 fps—hardly a winning result. In Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p (RT), the RTX 5070 was 12% slower than the 4070 Super (58 fps vs. 66 fps). At 4K with DLSS Quality, both cards averaged around 31 fps.

Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered at 1440p with RT encountered CPU limitations that capped performance, but the RTX 5070 still managed to be 14% faster than the 4070 Super, thanks to the extra bandwidth. At 4K, however, it dropped to "4070 Super light" performance—91 fps vs. the 4070 Super's 98 fps—a minor consolation in an otherwise underwhelming RT lineup.

In Dying Light 2 at 1440p with RT, the 5070 eked out a 5% lead over the 4070 Super (44 fps vs. 42 fps). At 4K with upscaling, that advantage grew to 7% (44 fps vs. 41 fps)—still mediocre for a midrange card you'd hope would excel at RT workloads. Black Myth: Wukong at 1440p with RT saw the RTX 5070 match the 4070 Super's 46 fps. At 4K with DLSS Quality, it remained identical at 25 fps, putting it on par with a two-year-old card rather than ahead of the curve.

Indiana Jones and the Great Circle at 1440p with full RT and DLSS Quality was a showstopper for the RTX 5070. It delivered just 13 fps, whereas the 4070 Super achieved 47 fps. At 4K, the 5070 couldn't even load the game—crashes occurred immediately. Even with safe mode settings and reduced quality, performance remained abysmal, underscoring the VRAM bottleneck.

Excluding the RTX 4070 Super (since 13 fps would skew the geometric mean too heavily), the RTX 5070 landed just behind it at 1440p and barely in front at 4 K. Overall, its RT performance is effectively identical to a two-year-old GPU—hardly what you'd expect from a next-gen release priced at $550.

NVIDIA, RTX5070, Review, Mid Range Muscle, Marketing Hype,, NoobFeed

Cost per Frame (Value Comparison)

To evaluate the value, we calculated the cost per frame by dividing the MSRP by the average frame rate. At 1440p rasterization, the RTX 5070 has a cost per frame of $6.14. That's slightly worse than the RTX 4070 Super at $6.10 and much worse than the Radeon 7800 XT at just $5.11 per frame.

The RTX 7900 XT is also a better deal at $5.71 per frame. At 4K raster, the RTX 5070's cost per frame improves slightly to $7.00, but that still makes it a poor value next to the 7800 XT's $5.85. If we include ray tracing, the RTX 5070 looks even worse

At 1440p RT, it hits $9.38 per frame—worse than the 4070 Super and significantly worse than AMD's 7900 XT. At 4K RT, its cost per frame skyrockets to $12.90, placing it among the worst values in this entire generation. That makes the RTX 5070 one of the least compelling GPUs in recent memory when it comes to bang for your buck.

Operating Behavior: Temperature, Noise, and Power Consumption

There is one upside: the RTX 5070 runs very quietly. Across our gaming and stress tests, it never exceeded 67°C. Most samples hovered around 60–65°C, even in extended workloads. That thermal headroom means fans don't need to work hard, resulting in low noise levels, typically under 33 dBA, which is effectively silent in a typical PC case. Power consumption was modest as well.

During a full Cyberpunk 2077 4K run, total board power stayed around 205–210 watts. The peak power draw briefly reached 216 watts, which is slightly below the rated 220-watt TDP (thermal design power). Idle power was just 13 watts, making it a very efficient GPU in terms of thermals and power consumption. That said, efficiency alone can't justify a high MSRP if performance doesn't keep up.

NVIDIA, RTX5070, Review, Mid Range Muscle, Marketing Hype,, NoobFeed

Key-Takeaways

The RTX 5070 is not a bad card in isolation. It's efficient, compact, quiet, and delivers competent 1440p gaming performance. But NVIDIA marketed it as a revolutionary upgrade—"4090-class performance for $550"—and that simply isn't true.

Frame generation is not a substitute for actual rendering horsepower. In real-world benchmarks, the RTX 5070 performs almost identically to the two-year-old RTX 4070 Super, which launched at $599 and is now widely available for less than $500.

Worse still, the 12 GB VRAM limitation cripples the 5070 in cutting-edge ray-traced titles like Indiana Jones and the Great Circle. If your games demand more than 12 GB—and more titles will, especially with path tracing—the 5070 is a liability.

From a value standpoint, AMD's Radeon 7800 XT offers better raster performance per dollar, has more VRAM (16 GB), and can be found for under $500. NVIDIA's own 4070 Super is often cheaper and offers nearly identical performance.

If you absolutely must buy a new GPU today and have a hard $550 budget, the RTX 5070 is serviceable—but not exciting. Unless you prioritize low power consumption above all else, it's hard to recommend. In a market desperate for real generational gains, the RTX 5070 feels more like a soft refresh of old silicon than a leap forward.

Also, check our other hardware articles: