Not impressed by 1080 ti

[djmoney]

So recently I built a new system.  went from a I7950 (LGA1366) with a GTX 970 to an 6700K with a GTX 1080 ti  I really don't feel like much changed.  I also upgraded my Monitor from a basic 1080p 60hz to a 1440P 165hz ASUS ROG SWIFT.  

 

For a bit i had the gtx 970 on my 6700K with the ROG monitor.  

 

I saw a big improvement back in the day when i went from a gtx 560 to the gtx 970.  

 

Nothing really from the I7 950(1366) to the 6700K processor (newer IO and standers help) 

 

When I added the good monitor to the system 6700k GTX 970 combo I saw an improvement there.  

 

but when I finally added 1080 ti.  Just not impressed.  

 

$2200 of Motherboard, CPU, Ram, Graphics card and Monitor I just feel like it should be killing it more.  

 

I guess this is just the PC gamer/enthusiast dilemma

 

example I am finally getting around to playing Witcher 3 a 2 year old game.  only 105 FPS.  One a 2 year old game.  or GTA V barley breaking 100 FPS in benchmarks I have seen.  

[ELSknutson]

what were you playing?  

[Damascus]

1 minute ago, djmoney said:

example I am finally getting around to playing Witcher 3 a 2 year old game.  only 105 FPS.  One a 2 year old game.  or GTA V barley breaking 100 FPS in benchmarks I have seen.  

Playing at 1440p, probably max graphics.  The witcher is one of the most demanding games of the current game generation and you probably have GTAV cranked up so high its like playing on 4k.  

[Princess Luna]

The major problem is that sometimes we end up looking the FPS counter more than the game itself

 

Personally with a 970 I would have waited for the GTX 2080, myself I'm waiting the TITAN X (Volta) to upgrade monitor and GPU.

[Delicieuxz]

If you don't feel like much has changed by going from a 1080p 60 hz, with no adaptive-sync, powered by a GTX 970, to a 1440p 165 hz G-sync, powered by a GTX 1080 Ti setup, then something is extremely off, somewhere. The 1080 Ti offers more than double the performance of a GTX 970.

[Zando_]

What resolutions, settings vs what you played with the old card?

[bimmerman]

Not surprised you don't see a difference in CPU.

 

Also not that surprised you don't see a difference betwee a 970 at 1080p and 1080ti at 1440p-- is 100 vs 150fps really noticeable? To me, not at all, and the difference in resolution is minor as well.

[stealth80]

This is odd cause I noticed a massive difference going from 970 SLI to a vanilla 1080 at 1440P (gsync) 

[Glenwing]

well, what framerates were you getting before?

[JoostinOnline]

4 minutes ago, djmoney said:

So recently I built a new system.  went from a I7950 (LGA1366) with a GTX 970 to an 6700K with a GTX 1080 ti  I really don't feel like much changed.  I also upgraded my Monitor from a basic 1080p 60hz to a 1440P 165hz ASUS ROG SWIFT.  

That's why. You are running at WAY more demanding settings on two of the most demanding games that exist. 

 

Also keep in mind that the 6700K is going to bottleneck the 1080 Ti. There's nothing you could do about that though, there's just no CPU to match it. 

[Fraser Cow]

The 1080ti is exactly what it's supposed to be. Maybe the problem is the settings you're using and the expectations you had for it. A few years ago I went from an i7 920 @4Ghz to a 4690k @4.6Ghz and it didn't change much other than heat output, but when Battlefield 1 came around that changed.  I couldn't get a consistent frame rate with my GTX 1070 in BF1 so I upgraded to a Ryzen 1700 and now everything is perfect at medium to high settings, I never dip below 100 FPS.  If you want to go back to your old system you can send that 1080ti my way, I'll give it a good home.

[MilfShake]

what do you mean you're not impressed?

 

The 1080 Ti literally doubles and sometimes triples the FPS of the 970.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_strix_geforce_gtx_1080_ti_review,12.html

 

In Sniper Elite 4, 970 gets 45 fps at 1440p, whereas 1080Ti gets 122 fps. I am VERY impressed, lol

 

And with that monitor, you should be able to take advantage of the high frame rates as well.

 

You said you get 105 fps in Witcher 3 and 100 in GTA V and you're not impressed? What did you get when you played those games with the 970 at 1440P 165Hz?

I'm gonna go ahead and say 1/2 and probably 1/3 that. So yeah the 1080Ti is exactly where it's supposed to be, the fastest gpu on the market.

 

And I'm not Nvidia fan lol...

[Daniel644]

9 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's why. You are running at WAY more demanding settings on two of the most demanding games that exist. 

 

Also keep in mind that the 6700K is going to bottleneck the 1080 Ti. There's nothing you could do about that though, there's just no CPU to match it. 

link to evidence on this claim?

[MilfShake]

17 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's why. You are running at WAY more demanding settings on two of the most demanding games that exist. 

 

Also keep in mind that the 6700K is going to bottleneck the 1080 Ti. There's nothing you could do about that though, there's just no CPU to match it. 

at 1440p 165hz max settings no i7 is gonna bottleneck 1080ti, it's all GPU dependent from there; unless you use like an i3....

[JoostinOnline]

7 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

link to evidence on this claim?

Unfortunately I'm on my phone right now, and can't do a much. However, if you take a look at benchmarks you'll see the CPU is almost always at or near full load, while a 1080 Ti isn't. 

 

Btw, I'm talking about running at 1440p. If you run at 4K+ it's going to be more evened out. Speaking of which:

@djmoney What resolution are you running the games at? Sometimes they'll set it above your native resolution and it will get downscaled. 

[JoostinOnline]

4 minutes ago, MilfShake said:

at 1440p 165hz max settings no i7 is gonna bottleneck 1080ti, it's all GPU dependent from there; unless you use like an i3....

A 1080ti can handle 1440p max settings just fine. It's a 4K graphics card.  A 6700k can't always handle all the CPU-intensive settings set to max though. 

[Cyracus]

It's worth mentioning that some people just won't notice changes at higher refresh rates, some people just won't see a difference above 60 fps, for some it's around 120 fps, some people notice changes from increased fps up to what is currently available (240 fps if memory serves) could just be that OP has a low threshold, or that they aren't playing games where higher fps really make so much of a difference

[Princess Luna]

33 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

6700K is going to bottleneck the 1080 Ti. There's nothing you could do about that though, there's just no CPU to match it. 

Wait wut? Check your information straight, I had a 6700 non k feeding the TITAN X (Pascal) just fine, the 6700k does Not bottleneck the 1080ti.... well although if we take a few of Ubishit CPU demanding titles into count.... who knows but really this is by all means not a CPU issue.

 

Also you're wrong, the more resolution you have the less the CPU is the limiting factor as increasing resolution will add taxation to the GPU but the CPU work is the same.

[Morgan Everett]

18 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Unfortunately I'm on my phone right now, and can't do a much. However, if you take a look at benchmarks you'll see the CPU is almost always at or near full load, while a 1080 Ti isn't. 

 

Btw, I'm talking about running at 1440p. If you run at 4K+ it's going to be more evened out. Speaking of which:

@djmoney What resolution are you running the games at? Sometimes they'll set it above your native resolution and it will get downscaled. 

Nah. At 1440p, with a 1080 Ti and 6700k, you're usually going to be GPU bound, assuming higher graphics settings.

[IceCold008]

43 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's why. You are running at WAY more demanding settings on two of the most demanding games that exist. 

 

Also keep in mind that the 6700K is going to bottleneck the 1080 Ti. There's nothing you could do about that though, there's just no CPU to match it. 

Complete BS the higher the resolution the less CPU bottleneck you get. I myself run a 4770k at stock speed with a gtx 1080ti at 1440p 144hz. And i can tell you my limiting factor is my GPU. It needs more power. And i play all the lastest AAA games. Not once is my CPU been a bottleneck yet. GTX 1080TI is best suited for 1440p and 4k. At 1080p yes its too powerful and is going to get bottlenecked hard at 1080p. The card is just too powerful at that resolution thats why alot of people say get a 1070 or 1080 for 1080p. 

[DoctorZeus]

i think it's just you.

 

i went from two r9 290s to a 1080 and then to a 1080 ti and it feels excellent. 

 

i had an i7 950 that i changed for an x5675 and that feels better too.

 

recently i went to an Acer Xb27h1u and overall the experience is way better than what I had before.

 

 

[Damascus]

1 hour ago, IceCold008 said:

1070 or 1080 for 1080p. 

What kind of person recommends a 1070 or 1080 for 1080p???  They are  overkill  for it, 1070 is a 1440p card and 1080 is a ultra 1440/medium to high 4k card.

 

1060/580 will pretty nicely max out 1080p.

[bimmerman]

14 minutes ago, Damascus said:

What kind of person recommends a 1070 or 1080 for 1080p???  They are  overkill  for it, 1070 is a 1440p card and 1080 is a ultra 1440/medium to high 4k card.

 

1060/580 will pretty nicely max out 1080p.

but mah 300fps that I can't see.....

 

/sarcasm

[.:Wumbo:.]

I have a 1080ti aswell. I used to play on a laptop with an 840m and was severely disappointed in it. The 1080ti for me is perfect for playing Recon Wildlands at 1080p ultra settings. I think to run 1440p, you will need either a better CPU or SLI. The 1080ti should have no problem running 1440p, just depends on optimization. 

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Wait wut? Check your information straight, I had a 6700 non k feeding the TITAN X (Pascal) just fine, the 6700k does Not bottleneck the 1080ti.... well although if we take a few of Ubishit CPU demanding titles into count.... who knows but really this is by all means not a CPU issue.

 

Also you're wrong, the more resolution you have the less the CPU is the limiting factor as increasing resolution will add taxation to the GPU but the CPU work is the same.

 

2 hours ago, Morgan Everett said:

Nah. At 1440p, with a 1080 Ti and 6700k, you're usually going to be GPU bound, assuming higher graphics settings.

 

2 hours ago, IceCold008 said:

Complete BS the higher the resolution the less CPU bottleneck you get. I myself run a 4770k at stock speed with a gtx 1080ti at 1440p 144hz. And i can tell you my limiting factor is my GPU. It needs more power. And i play all the lastest AAA games. Not once is my CPU been a bottleneck yet. GTX 1080TI is best suited for 1440p and 4k. At 1080p yes its too powerful and is going to get bottlenecked hard at 1080p. The card is just too powerful at that resolution thats why alot of people say get a 1070 or 1080 for 1080p. 

You have all three missed the point I'm trying to make.  I NEVER said that CPU performance had anything to do with resolution.  I'm talking about a balance in component power.  When you are running at lower resolutions with CPU intensive settings (like PhysX, if you don't have a dedicated card), the CPU will still run at full load, but the GPU won't.  When you increase the resolution to a certain point (depends on the game/settings), both the CPU and GPU will run at full load.  At that point, they are evened out, and neither would be considered a bottleneck.

 

Let me put it a different way.  Say you are using an i3-6100 and GTX 1080 Ti and you want to play Mass Effect 3 at 1080p.  You could max out the settings, and it would run just as well as it would with an i7-6700K.  However, the i3-6100 would still be considered a bottleneck.  If you go to a newer game like GTA V at 1080p and max out the settings, the CPU is going to seriously struggle.

 

Right now they're both top of the line.  When I say the 6700K is a bottleneck, I mean the 1080 Ti will stay relevant longer.