1080 vs. 1080 Ti for 1440p

[PackYourBaggins]

So with the release of the 1080 Ti, I've seen quite a drop in price for the 1080, which I've had my eye on for a long time. The 1080 Ti is obviously ridiculously strong, but is it worth it to spend the extra $150-$200 if I'm gaming at 2560x1440? I'm gonna get a G-Sync 120Hz monitor after I get my new GPU, so I'm hoping to game at well above 60FPS. Can the regular 1080 deliver this, or should I save up more for the 1080 Ti? Perhaps I should mention that I don't need to have everything on the highest settings. Even with a 1080, I still prefer performance over max settings, so I'm usually the type to tweak graphical settings for a half hour before actually playing the game. I have a 780 right now, and back when it was the fastest single card you could buy (besides the Titan), I would still run most games on a mix of high & medium settings. So maybe keep that in mind. If I can't run GTA 5 at the absolute highest settings at 1440, but still can get anywhere in between 80-110FPS, I'm ok with that, so maybe a 1080 wouldn't be a bad option? 

[Skiiwee29]

for 1440p, a 1080 is perfectly sufficient. The 1080TI will last you for many years, would anticipate 5+ easily currently. With the G-sync 120hz, the 1080ti might be a better bet imo. 

[PackYourBaggins]

Just now, legacy99 said:

for 1440p, a 1080 is perfectly sufficient. The 1080TI will last you for many years, would anticipate 5+ easily currently. With the G-sync 120hz, the 1080ti might be a better bet imo. 

I see. I wouldn't normally ask, but as it stands, the 1080Ti is in high demand, and they're very expensive right now. Cheapest I found was Nvidia's default card for $800, meanwhile the 1080 from ASUS I've had on my Amazon wishlist has dropped from $650 to $550.

[Skiiwee29]

Just now, RelentlessN7 said:

I see. I wouldn't normally ask, but as it stands, the 1080Ti is in high demand, and they're very expensive right now. Cheapest I found was Nvidia's default card for $800, meanwhile the 1080 from ASUS I've had on my Amazon wishlist has dropped from $650 to $550.

1080 is still a great card, but if you want to consistently push that 120hz g-sync the TI would be the way to go

[WereCat]

1080 is perfectly fine for 1440p 144Hz in most games, not all (on max settings).

1080ti would definitely be quite a bit better but you also pay quite a bit more.

 

Bottom line, my 1060 seems to be doing quite well at 1440p 165Hz in most of the games I play so 1080 must be really a nice card to have at this resolution, especially when you OC.

[PackYourBaggins]

1 hour ago, legacy99 said:

1080 is still a great card, but if you want to consistently push that 120hz g-sync the TI would be the way to go

Well like I said, I'm ok with lowering some settings to get above that 70-80FPS mark. I may be getting a 120Hz monitor, but I don't expect a constant 120FPS. If I gotta tweak settings & run a mix of ultra, high & medium settings, that's what I'll do. I just really don't wanna fork over the extra $300 for a Ti. 

[reniat]

52 minutes ago, RelentlessN7 said:

Well like I said, I'm ok with lowering some settings to get above that 70-80FPS mark. I may be getting a 120Hz monitor, but I don't expect a constant 120FPS. If I gotta tweak settings & run a mix of ultra, high & medium settings, that's what I'll do. I just really don't wanna fork over the extra $300 for a Ti. 

Then I would go with the 1080. If you wanted no compromises, then you'd want the 1080ti, but everyone has different ideas of what they deem acceptable in terms of performance so in this case the 1080 sounds like your sweet spot. 

[PackYourBaggins]

1 minute ago, reniat said:

Then I would go with the 1080. If you wanted no compromises, then you'd want the 1080ti, but everyone has different ideas of what they deem acceptable in terms of performance so in this case the 1080 sounds like your sweet spot. 

That's what I'm thinking as well. In almost all the games I've played on PC, there's never a discernible difference between high & ultra besides an FPS hit, so I don't think I'd really be losing anything besides bragging rights. High settings are fine with me.

[SlaughterSmurf]

2 hours ago, legacy99 said:

for 1440p, a 1080 is perfectly sufficient. The 1080TI will last you for many years, would anticipate 5+ easily currently. With the G-sync 120hz, the 1080ti might be a better bet imo. 

They said that bout my 780ti, don't listen to them. In terms of raw performance, maybe. But Nvidia's lack of proper driver support for older cards gimps them into being what I find to be about 20-50% slower than it should be.

[PackYourBaggins]

25 minutes ago, SlaughterSmurf said:

They said that bout my 780ti, don't listen to them. In terms of raw performance, maybe. But Nvidia's lack of proper driver support for older cards gimps them into being what I find to be about 20-50% slower than it should be.

While this may be true about their drivers, I gotta say I've had my 780 since the summer of 2013, and it's lasted me until now and still going. Yes, the driver support for Kepler GPUs is almost non-existent, but I don't think saying the 1080Ti could last 5 years is that far fetched. 

[StormEye]

I currently have 2 x 980ti in SLi, and I believe this has higher raw performance than 1080 even if a game does not support SLi correctly.

 

I also run a 1440P monitor.

 

From my observation, there is no way 1080 will be able to maintain minimum 70~80 fps on max settings for many of more demanding games. 1080ti will be required for that.

 

I'm waiting for my order of 2 x ASUS Strix 1080ti OC Edition (arriving next week) so that I can SLi and go minimum 120+fps, at least for good year or so.

[PackYourBaggins]

2 hours ago, StormEye said:

I currently have 2 x 980ti in SLi, and I believe this has higher raw performance than 1080 even if a game does not support SLi correctly.

 

I also run a 1440P monitor.

 

From my observation, there is no way 1080 will be able to maintain minimum 70~80 fps on max settings for many of more demanding games. 1080ti will be required for that.

 

I'm waiting for my order of 2 x ASUS Strix 1080ti OC Edition (arriving next week) so that I can SLi and go minimum 120+fps, at least for good year or so.

Did you only read part of what I wrote? 

 

7 hours ago, RelentlessN7 said:

Perhaps I should mention that I don't need to have everything on the highest settings. Even with a 1080, I still prefer performance over max settings, so I'm usually the type to tweak graphical settings for a half hour before actually playing the game. I have a 780 right now, and back when it was the fastest single card you could buy (besides the Titan), I would still run most games on a mix of high & medium settings. So maybe keep that in mind. If I can't run GTA 5 at the absolute highest settings at 1440, but still can get anywhere in between 80-110FPS, I'm ok with that, so maybe a 1080 wouldn't be a bad option? 

 

[jjohnthedon1]

Hears the dealio,#i have 1440p 144hz and gpu power

 

most games crap out at 100 fps anyway meaning no matter how much gpu CPU is 100 fps is the limit e.g. Witcher 3 

after 110 they just down clock even tho usage is below 99 and CPU is at 60

 

1080 won't be enough but the ti will

justbdint expect to sit at locked 120hz in anything accept shooters like ow csgo and battlefield 

 

but gsync will take take of everything

 

get the 1080ti

 

 

[PackYourBaggins]

13 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Hears the dealio,#i have 1440p 144hz and gpu power

 

most games crap out at 100 fps anyway meaning no matter how much gpu CPU is 100 fps is the limit e.g. Witcher 3 

after 110 they just down clock even tho usage is below 99 and CPU is at 60

 

1080 won't be enough but the ti will

justbdint expect to sit at locked 120hz in anything accept shooters like ow csgo and battlefield 

 

but gsync will take take of everything

 

get the 1080ti

 

 

I've asked around quite a few places about the 1080 vs. 1080Ti for 1440p, and it's split right down the middle for answers I've got. I'm more conflicted than I was before I started asking questions.

[i_build_nanosuits]

15 minutes ago, RelentlessN7 said:

I've asked around quite a few places about the 1080 vs. 1080Ti for 1440p, and it's split right down the middle for answers I've got. I'm more conflicted than I was before I started asking questions.

then ask the question to yourself...do you want it to last longer? do you care about maxing out the settings? or would you be happy to play on high instead of ultra in a year and a half from now and pocket the money? decisions you have to take for yourself bro.

 

I have an overclocked GTX 980ti which is just a little bit faster than a GTX 1070 and right now, i'm playing all my games on ultra at around 90FPS with some sort of anti-aliasing...it's perfect...

[jjohnthedon1]

13 minutes ago, RelentlessN7 said:

I've asked around quite a few places about the 1080 vs. 1080Ti for 1440p, and it's split right down the middle for answers I've got. I'm more conflicted than I was before I started asking questions.

Ok so my 980tis get about 5/10 fps more than a oced 1080ti in everything I play 

 

it's not worth having a 1080 because honestly it doesn't get much over 70 fps 

which is basically 60 if we're honest 

1080ti will get u close to 100 in everything and it's a big difference and will last you look get

 

for the sake of 100 dollars more 

 

in 3 years would u pay 100 more for a 30 percent performance upgrade once ur 1080 wasn't cutting it yes u would 

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Ok so my 980tis get about 5/10 fps more than a oced 1080ti in everything I play 

 

it's not worth having a 1080 because honestly it doesn't get much over 70 fps 

which is basically 60 if we're honest 

1080ti will get u close to 100 in everything and it's a big difference and will last you look get

 

for the sake of 100 dollars more 

 

in 3 years would u pay 100 more for a 30 percent performance upgrade once ur 1080 wasn't cutting it yes u would 

what are you talking about? you use 16xMSAA or supersampling and shit?!

cause honestly...i'm getting 90FPS in every games i use the max settings except anti-aliasing and maybe reflection MSAA and those kind of shit and for example battlefield 1 on the full ultra preset i get 90 to 110FPS in multiplayer maps...?! on a SINGLE card...

[i_build_nanosuits]

30 minutes ago, RelentlessN7 said:

I've asked around quite a few places about the 1080 vs. 1080Ti for 1440p, and it's split right down the middle for answers I've got. I'm more conflicted than I was before I started asking questions.

Here man, if you want to look how a single GTX 980ti ( or GTX 1070) perform in games...check out my youtube channel i play quite a few games and i always show my settings at the beginning of the video, and afterburner monitor is always up there showing all the stats during the videos...it's all in 2560x1440 on a single GTX 980ti and an overclocked haswell core i7 chip

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/YansaG/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

GTX 1080 is a good 20-25% faster than what you see there...

Also you should factor in about 3 to 5% more FPS for the performance hit of recording the footage with nvidia shadowplay.

[BSpendlove]

20 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

what are you talking about? you use 16xMSAA or supersampling and shit?!

cause honestly...i'm getting 90FPS in every games i use the max settings except anti-aliasing and maybe reflection MSAA and those kind of shit and for example battlefield 1 on the full ultra preset i get 90 to 110FPS in multiplayer maps...?! on a SINGLE card...

Same here, things like Wildlands makes my 2 1080ti's run around 75-85fps ultra except AA at 3440x1440. I've seen GTA V on ultra hit around 100fps in the city (but without AA or reflection MSAA)... I still not tried what a single 1080ti is like on those games but people are getting some weird numbers on youtube with these games and being an owner of 2x1080ti's, some seem rather fishy (my oc is also around 2057mh core on both MSI gpu's)

[jjohnthedon1]

27 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

what are you talking about? you use 16xMSAA or supersampling and shit?!

cause honestly...i'm getting 90FPS in every games i use the max settings except anti-aliasing and maybe reflection MSAA and those kind of shit and for example battlefield 1 on the full ultra preset i get 90 to 110FPS in multiplayer maps...?! on a SINGLE card...

Play watchdogs 2 and wildlands then come back 

I'm 144hz locked in bf1

[SteveGrabowski0]

8 hours ago, RelentlessN7 said:

I see. I wouldn't normally ask, but as it stands, the 1080Ti is in high demand, and they're very expensive right now. Cheapest I found was Nvidia's default card for $800, meanwhile the 1080 from ASUS I've had on my Amazon wishlist has dropped from $650 to $550.

Here is an aftermarket 1080 Ti for $700:

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1330062-REG/evga_11g_p4_6393_kr_geforce_gtx_1080_ti.html

 

Versus a $550 1080 I would probably get the 1080 Ti, considering you'd be paying 27% more for 28% more performance at 1440p with both at reference clocks (according to the techpowerup benchmark in the 1080 Ti review). But why do you want a $550 GTX 1080 when there are lots of good 1080s for $500? At that point the 1080 Ti is 40% more expensive for 28% more performance.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Play watchdogs 2 and wildlands then come back 

I'm 144hz locked in bf1

watchdogs 2 use temporal filtering, FXAA all max settings...85 to 100FPS consistently

[MadyTehWolfie]

Depends on the game and settings you want to play at and the hz of your monitor, you might need the 1080ti over the 1080.

[jjohnthedon1]

5 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

watchdogs 2 use temporal filtering, FXAA all max settings...85 to 100FPS consistently

There's no temporal filtering with sli 

does it look just as good ? 

[PackYourBaggins]

8 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

then ask the question to yourself...do you want it to last longer? do you care about maxing out the settings? or would you be happy to play on high instead of ultra in a year and a half from now and pocket the money? decisions you have to take for yourself bro.

 

I have an overclocked GTX 980ti which is just a little bit faster than a GTX 1070 and right now, i'm playing all my games on ultra at around 90FPS with some sort of anti-aliasing...it's perfect...

Well what I do know is that I'm ok with having to turn down a few settings to get better performance. I don't need to play every game maxed out, and I don't feel like I need to stay locked at 120FPS. My 780 has lasted me nearly 4 years to this point at 1080p mixing high & medium settings (outside of some poorly optimized Early-Access games), so if I did get a 1080, I'd feel confident it'd last just as long, if not longer than my 780 has, but I'm still kinda undecided. I would really love the 1080Ti, no doubt, but they are pricey, and the 1080's price has gone down a lot, so I'm still torn.