Voltage Limits 125%? Also 1080 SLI vs 1080 TI Prices?

[TheNaitsyrk]

Hiho,

 

I've made a topic about 1080 TI single VS 1080 SLI.

 

I found out that with FE edition my voltage would be locked at 125%, and with the AORUS one I'd get 150% but for £125 more which is bonkers and spending that much on ONE GPU is insane.

 

I was thinking to maybe buy 2x GTX 1080 from EVGA since they're a lot cheaper and I'd be able to get 2 for slightly more.

 

I know that AORUS one is ultra good, I seen TechCity review, but no one shits out money like some people.

 

I know people will be shouting "BUT SLI HAS ISUESSSSSSSSSS". I had 780 TI SLI and never complained.

 

So would it be a good choice for me, a person who doesn't have problems with SLI to go for 2x GTX 1080 and in the future I'd be able to sell them for more once I upgrade?

 

[Matu20]

Ti single, simply a better buy.

[TheNaitsyrk]

Just now, Matu20 said:

Ti single, simply a better buy.

Justify.

[Matu20]

1 minute ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Justify.

Bang for buck.

[TheNaitsyrk]

Just now, Matu20 said:

Bang for buck.

£800? Not really.

[Matu20]

1 minute ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

£800? Not really.

More like $700 (for TI) vs $1000 (SLI). 

[TheNaitsyrk]

2 minutes ago, Matu20 said:

More like $700 (for TI) vs $1000 (SLI). 

Dont' forget about 2 things:

I'm not in US so I'm paying in £, so £800 here is $1000 in US. Also, I'm not paying £700 for TI I'd be paying £800 and £900 for SLI 1080. Only £100 delta.

SLI has better performance.

Once I upgrade, I can sell 2 graphic cards and not 1 = bang for my buck.

[Matu20]

Just now, TheNaitsyrk said:

Dont' forget about 2 things:

I'm not in US so I'm paying in £, so £800 here is $1000 in US.

SLI has better performance.

Once I upgrade, I can sell 2 graphic cards and not 1 = bang for my buck.

I can't forget something that I had no idea of. And you don't have to get the Aorus card, cheaper alternatives exist. Once you sell the cards you are buying now, they will be worth less than half of what you're paying.

[TheNaitsyrk]

Just now, Matu20 said:

I can't forget something that I had no idea of. And you don't have to get the Aorus card, cheaper alternatives exist. Once you sell the cards you are buying now, they will be worth less than half of what you're paying.

Sure, so will be the TI once I will want to sell it.

 

When I sold my 780 TI SLI after over 2 years of usage, I got £400 for them instead of £200 for a single one. I'd expect the same scenario here.

 

If I don't get the AORUS card I'm losing more FPS quite a few actually, since I game at 4K. Like I EXPLAINED... at the top, FE only has 125% power limit and it gets 85C toasty 24/7 + it wouldn't overclock as high.

 

That's why I'm asking WHY is single card that costs almost the same as SLI which I have no issues with, a better or worse choice than SLI. It's most definitely not bang for the buck since prices are way too high for either of them.

[| Rembo |]

i would go with the sli, simply because you get a lot more performance in your case and honestly dual gpu's looks sexy af

[Froody129]

Why are you asking this question? It seems you've already decided on SLI and you're just getting angry at people who are saying single card

[TheNaitsyrk]

4 minutes ago, | Rembo | said:

i would go with the sli, simply because you get a lot more performance in your case and honestly dual gpu's looks sexy af

It does look good, but that's truly not the point. I know I'd be losing 3GB of VRAM, I know I'm losing some performance in very few games when it comes to SLI but in the long run I think I'd be fine once I sell them, but I'm not defending SLI.

 

I don't want people to tell me "Go get SLI since you seem to be defending it". That's not the case here.

 

I just want to know whether single card would be a better choice here since I've been watching all the reviews like JayzTwoCents or TechCity and apparently single one hits 60FPS mark in 90% of the games now, and I know for a fact that 1080 SLI would too for sure. So it's just my opinion, but I need some help to decide.

 

I'm not gonna lie, I am leaning towards SLI a bit, but if someone can prove me wrong that SLI is worse then I'd most definitely go with single card, but telling me that SLI has issues is BS so that's not even a good point. No issues with that.

[TheNaitsyrk]

3 minutes ago, Froody129 said:

Why are you asking this question? It seems you've already decided on SLI and you're just getting angry at people who are saying single card

Angry? Am I shouting? I'm only asking for a good valid points why should I get single over SLI. I just need some justification without telling me that SLI has issues 'cause I'm fine with SLI "issues".

[SpriteNo5]

If you are fine with SLI issues (lack of scaling or profiles in some situations?) and the price difference is only £100 then why are you asking? You say SLI no problem, performance is better, price difference is inconsequential and resale value is better. You then ask people to prove you wrong but if the above is all true then for what you want SLI seems to be the only option, and the responses you give seems to suggest you are hugely certain that you are correct, question seems redundant.

 

 

[TheNaitsyrk]

55 minutes ago, SpriteNo5 said:

If you are fine with SLI issues (lack of scaling or profiles in some situations?) and the price difference is only £100 then why are you asking? You say SLI no problem, performance is better, price difference is inconsequential and resale value is better. You then ask people to prove you wrong but if the above is all true then for what you want SLI seems to be the only option, and the responses you give seems to suggest you are hugely certain that you are correct, question seems redundant.

 

 

Will go with SLI thanks.

[Masada02]

52 minutes ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Will go with SLI thanks.

Food for thought: with a single card solution you can take advantage of Fast-Sync. It nearly equivalent to G-Sync but doesn't require a G-Sync monitor. Coming from a bunch of SLI setups where I had to run V-Sync and deal with the input lag being able to use Fast-Sync was quite the benefit. If it wasn't for this single feature I'd choose dual cards any day of the week.

[RAM555789]

1 hour ago, TheNaitsyrk said:

Will go with SLI thanks.

Just to lock you into SLI, I found this while looking around in other fourms, its a very well written statement,

Well SLI is at a cross roads no question. I find games that don't support SLI don't tend to need that much horse power to run max settings, filtering and AA (save a few games). Games that do need more horsepower then one card can provide do tend to support SLI. But this is not unversal and more game engines being released do not support SLI in it's current form. For now I do believe it is worth it if you don't mind the short comings of SLI. The rumor mill also has been churning out new bits of info saying both Nvidia and AMD are both working on ways around the game engines that don't support SLI/CF because of frame buffer/rendering needing access to the previous frame which SLI do not allow for now since the other gpu has the information and not the GPU rendering the next frame. I believe volta is supposed to launch pooled memory which would allow both cards access to the previous cards frame bypassing the technical limitation SLI has now. Regardless GTX 1000 series cards do not have this support yet but I do believe it will be fixed in the next gen cards.

[Morgan Everett]

28 minutes ago, Masada02 said:

 It nearly equivalent to G-Sync but doesn't require a G-Sync monitor. 

 

It really, really isn't, you know. 

[Masada02]

3 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

It really, really isn't, you know. 

It's a hell of a lot better than V-Sync or dealing with tearing and doesn't require buying a new monitor. And, it still doesn't allow tearing when you are below your monitors refresh rate. 

 

 

[Morgan Everett]

5 minutes ago, Masada02 said:

It's a hell of a lot better than V-Sync or dealing with tearing and doesn't require buying a new monitor. And, it still doesn't allow tearing when you are below your monitors refresh rate. 

 

Your claim was that "It['s] nearly equivalent to G-Sync but doesn't require a G-Sync monitor". But that's just not true, is it?

 

Heck, the video you linked to says the same thing! FreeSync and G-Sync are complementary technologies, that solve different problems. They're not interchangeable.

[Masada02]

Just now, Morgan Everett said:

Your claim was that "It['s] nearly equivalent to G-Sync but doesn't require a G-Sync monitor". But that's just not true, is it?

In the sense that it removes tearing while only increasing input lag slightly more than G-Sync it is true though.

[Morgan Everett]

3 minutes ago, Masada02 said:

In the sense that it removes tearing while only increasing input lag slightly more than G-Sync it is true though.

In other words, it's true if you're only highly selective and tell half the story.

 

Christ, just admit you made a mistake. It's a lot easier. And you're now making another mistake: FastSync reduces input lag versus G-Sync.

[Masada02]

Just now, Morgan Everett said:

In other words, it's true if you're only highly selective and tell half the story.

 

Christ, just admit you made a mistake. It's a lot easier.

But isn't removing tearing and getting low input lag the entire point of G-Sync and Freesync?

 

Take a chill pill man. I made a statement based on what I find useful about the feature that is true. Do you just enjoy trying to shit on people?

 

Also, if you want to get into a pissing match, please note the legal weasel word "nearly" in my original statement. Your definition of "nearly" and my definition of "nearly" could be completely different and without having first agreed on a meaning of the word for this purpose you cannot prove my statement was misleading or correct.

[Morgan Everett]

20 minutes ago, Masada02 said:

But isn't removing tearing and getting low input lag the entire point of G-Sync and Freesync?

 

Take a chill pill man. I made a statement based on what I find useful about the feature that is true. Do you just enjoy trying to shit on people?

 

Also, if you want to get into a pissing match, please note the legal weasel word "nearly" in my original statement. Your definition of "nearly" and my definition of "nearly" could be completely different and without having first agreed on a meaning of the word for this purpose you cannot prove my statement was misleading or correct.

1) No.The idea of G-Sync (and equivalents) is to take all the advantages of VSync, namely, the lack of tearing, whilst avoiding all the disadvantages, namely higher input lag and the uneven experience of playing games at variable framerates below the monitor's maximum refresh rate, e.g. 47-54 FPS on a 60 Hz display. It's of little use when the framerate is above that maximum. 

 

The point of FastSync, by contrast, is to avoid tearing and input lag when a game's framerate is (considerably) above the monitor's maximum refresh rate. It's of little use when the framerate is below that maximum. FastSync and G-Sync therefore complement each other: they're not interchangeable, or near equivalents. This is why I use them both together, in fact.

 

2) I'm perfectly chill; thanks for inquiring. I've not "shit on" you. I've corrected you.

 

3) I'm not interested in a "pissing match", whatever that is. Obviously anyone can play word games to avoid an admission of error. So what?

[Masada02]

14 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

-snip-

So you disagree with my statement about removing tearing and getting low input lag, then name those two things as the benefits? Makes sense.

 

And like I said before, while Fast Sync was designed to work above the monitors refresh rate it still removes tearing when you are below the refresh rate AND does it at a lower input lag than V-Sync. Since we have established that those 2 features are the main reasons for owning a G-Sync monitor we can conclude that Fast Sync provides a similar set of features to G-Sync without the need for a G-Sync monitor. I never said it was better than G-Sync, only that it is much better than V-Sync and provides similar features to G-Sync.

 

Maybe you never got to notice it's benefits since you use a 165hz low input lag G-Sync monitor; but when you are stuck at 60hz like me and have been dealing with tearing and input lag for years Fast Sync has made for a fantastic feature addition.

 

 

I'll say it again to the OP, buying a single card gets you the benefits of using Fast Sync and in my mind that is a worthwhile choice. If that is not necessary then using two cards in SLI and getting higher framerates is the way to go.