GTX 1080Ti in SLI for 1080p

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

this forum sometimes gets rediculous...

Eh... going literal ain't the same as practical...

 

Literally speaking, yes the i7 7700k bottlenecks the 1080 Ti

Practical speaking even the locked i7 7700 paired with the 1080 Ti will give more than enough performance for whatever high end gaming you desire.

[Princess Luna]

45 minutes ago, Chaos Gamer said:

. A single 1080Ti only achieves 80fps 1080p on the newest AAA games.

This is not true, hells my old TITAN X Maxwell was perfectly capable of giving 80fps at 1080p on any AAA, see the example following for 2560x1080p so if it was 1920x1080p it'd have been even better:

 

[jeremymwilson]

The term bottleneck is usually misleading. It’s better to say at 1080p the cpu is the limiting factor. 

[MonitorFlicker]

Nowadays SLI is for absolute performance which burns money. With top tier SLI comes with top tier CPU. Unless you get a powerful CPU like 6950X or lesser 7900X, don't do SLI, especially at 1080P, especially with 7700K and below. Otherwise you probably get the same fps with one card.

[Slifan]

On 11/28/2017 at 7:14 PM, SileNTMar said:

Nowadays SLI is for absolute performance which burns money. With top tier SLI comes with top tier CPU. Unless you get a powerful CPU like 6950X or lesser 7900X, don't do SLI, especially at 1080P, especially with 7700K and below. Otherwise you probably get the same fps with one card.

 

[Slifan]

Love my sli even at

 

1080p cause

 

1 card max AA and Vsync and max settings 75 115 when it dips it lower than 2 by alot

 

Sli all set the same 18 games SLi all  do 100-144 rare a dip under 95 

[Frankenburger]

When playing games with SLI enabled, your CPU usage will generally be higher than with a single GPU. You can see this in effect in my PUBG SLI benchmark here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBX2BEfinPw

 

 

This means that in CPU bound scenarios, SLI could potentially hurt performance. You will almost certainly be CPU bound at 1080p even with a single GTX1080 Ti in most games.

 

Also, unless you're playing a game where you're GPU bound and getting below 60 FPS at 1080p with a single 1080Ti, adding a second GTX 1080Ti won't improve performance much. With SLI 1080Ti's, you want to aim for at least 4k to see some decent scaling.

 

We can see the same behavior even with vanilla GTX 1080's

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_SLI/20.html

 

As you can see, SLI scaling only offered an average of a 20% improvement at 1080p with regular GTX 1080's, while bumping the resolution to 4k yields a 71% improvement.

 

So, TLDR, I'd seriously recommend using 4x DSR when possible to give those 1080Ti's room to breathe.

[Jay Deah]

ok, real user here with 8700k, 1080ti, 1440p 165hz monitor...

 

 

...DONT DO IT

 

the single 1080ti is giving me max framerate on pretty much every game at 1440p, even PUBG!

 

i dont think youll see any benefit at all going SLI 1080ti @ 1080p, if you want to waste money then send me the $1000 and i'll post you a pair of dirty underwear or something.

[Ace McPlane]

On 11/28/2017 at 12:22 PM, Chaos Gamer said:

I know that this is way too much of an overkill, 2 1080Tis in SLI for 1080p 144hz+. Basically I could get 2 GTX 1080Tis, got them for slightly cheaper, for 1080p. But as I've heard from a lot of sources, they give diminishing returns in 1080p, but are awesome for 1440p and 4k and above, where they give nearly double the FPS (mostly). I can either spend on the second card and a better PSU, or just save the money. But if I get even a 30fps increase from SLI then I want it. The thing is that I won't be upgrading the PC until 3080s (assuming volta is the 20-series) hit the shelves which could take even 2-3 years. Until then I want to get as much performance squeezed out of my PC as possible. I'm getting a 144hz monitor and I strictly want 144fps or above at ULTRA setting for the next 2 years, but if most of the games dont utilize SLI it'll be a terrible waste. A single 1080Ti only achieves 80fps 1080p on the newest AAA games. And no, waiting for Volta won't help, cause for the price I'm getting this card, I would only get a 2060...

My specs are-

i5 8600k maybe overclocked

z370e

16gb ddr4 3000mhz

PSU depends on SLI

Samsung LC24FG73 144hz 1ms VA panel with quantum dot and has a 1800R curve (the best 1080p monitor under $300, and believe me I've done my research)

One 1080ti is overkill for 1080p

Don't waste your money.

Just go with 1 and spend the rest on something that can actually take advantage of a 1080ti instead

like an Oculus Rift or a better monitor.

[jtmoseley]

On 11/28/2017 at 10:26 AM, Froody129 said:

Please don't...

 

Use the money to go with the 8700k, that'll last longer and be a really nice improvement over the i5. Anyone getting 80 fps with a 1080ti is either talking bullshit or the game is trash. A single 1080 is more than enough for 1080p144hz.

 

If it were me I would go single 1080ti and a 4k60 or 1440p144 screen and have a much much better gaming experience with much lower power consumption

Thats a complete lie. In most games I play with my 1080, I max out at around 100 fps. Nowhere near 144 when I am at ultra settings. PUBG gets like 70 fps on ultra... Do not go with the 8700k either, its a waste of money. The 8600k is fine and will be fine for like 2 more damn generations... I hate it when people say to spend 100 dollars on a useless upgrade. In games the 2700k is still good and that was soooo long ago. DO NOT RUSH PROCESSOR UPGRADES! 

 

If you only play fortnite and like CSGO and overwatch, then a 1080 is more than enough. But if you play unoptimized games like pubg, or plan to play the next generation of AAA games, then do not pretend that a 1080 is going to be nearly enough for 144hz ultra.

[Frankenburger]

6 minutes ago, jtmoseley said:

Thats a complete lie. In most games I play with my 1080, I max out at around 100 fps. Nowhere near 144 when I am at ultra settings. PUBG gets like 70 fps on ultra

Sounds like you got a busted 1080Ti.

 

A single 1080Ti should be able to pull well above 100 FPS at ultra in PUBG

 

 

Also, the higher your frames, the more likely you'll be CPU bound. If you can't hit 144 FPS with a GTX 1080 Ti at 1080p, the card is most likely being bottlenecked.

[jtmoseley]

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Sounds like you got a busted 1080Ti.

 

A single 1080Ti should be able to pull well above 100 FPS at ultra in PUBG

 

I have a 1080 buddy... Read what I said before you pull up a graph

[Frankenburger]

2 minutes ago, jtmoseley said:

I have a 1080 buddy... Read what I said before you pull up a graph

Even if I rephrased "GTX 1080Ti" into "GTX 1080", my statement will still stand.

 

Sounds like your GTX 1080 is busted. It should be pulling around 100 FPS in PUBG.

 

[jtmoseley]

44 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Even if I rephrased "GTX 1080Ti" into "GTX 1080", my statement will still stand.

 

Sounds like your GTX 1080 is busted. It should be pulling around 100 FPS in PUBG.

 

Thats still not true, does that have max anti aliasing? Every benchmark I run I am on the upper percentile. Where tf did you get that benchmark sheet?

[Aw_Ginger_Snapz]

The only way I could recommend you do this is if you are getting the second card for an insane deal, then immediately resell it for a profit because of the cryptomining craze. Other than that, you're wasting your time.

[Frankenburger]

15 minutes ago, jtmoseley said:

Thats still not true, does that have max anti aliasing? Every benchmark I run I am on the upper percentile. Where tf did you get that benchmark sheet?

They used the Ultra preset, so yes, it should be using TAA.

 

The benchmark was completed by Tech Spot https://www.techspot.com/article/1551-pubg-graphics-benchmarks/

[Mick Naughty]

Should be enough for triple 1080. If you wonna try that. 

[Ace McPlane]

Now that I think of it, you could probably get an Oculus Rift and a Vive for the price of a 1080ti right now,

so yea.. I think you could get a lot more fun for your money.

SLI is barely supported now.

It's just not worth doing anymore sadly unless you just want bragging rights.

 

In fact, with some games... it can actually mean a drop in performance!

 

[Frankenburger]

16 minutes ago, stateofpsychosis said:

SLI is barely supported now.

SLI is known to work in 4 out of every 5 games without the need of manual fixes. Also, if you're playing at 4k or higher, you'll often see SLI scaling above 70%

 

https://babeltechreviews.com/the-50-game-gtx-1070-ti-sli-review/3/

 

Quote

eighty percent of our 50 games – 40 games – generally scale positively with SLI and most of them give solid performance increases depending on the resolution. 4K often sees the most benefit where it is mostly needed.

[Ace McPlane]

7 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

SLI is known to work in 4 out of every 5 games without the need of manual fixes. Also, if you're playing at 4k or higher, you'll often see SLI scaling above 70%

 

https://babeltechreviews.com/the-50-game-gtx-1070-ti-sli-review/3/

 

Yea, 4 out of 5 maybe if you play the lowest common denominator games only

If your game library consists of only the games that are trendy like pubg.

 

When you consider the massive library of games out there from every genre in the PC world..

yea SLI is not at all supported with 4 out of 5 games.

Not even close.

I'm not even including retro or indie stuff either, because of course that stuff doesn't count,

but there are a lot of genres out there and a lot of people are into more than just what's trendy with kids these days.

To say that it's supported with 4 out of 5 games would be pretty presumptuous don't you think?

 

Pretty much nothing in VR supports SLI for example and that's the future.

 

Either way, I don't really care about the stats,

the guy has a 1080p panel..

we should NOT be suggesting that they get 2 1080ti's.

It's just not worth it for the OP no matter what arguments you come up with unless they had a 4K panel.

 

They'd be much better off buying a new monitor or buying something else cool like a rift or vive.

They'd have a lot more fun with that than the completely unnoticeable different that a 2nd 1080ti would make with a 1080p system.

 

I just don't want to see someone waste good money that could be spent on something that would actually be a lot of fun... especially with how bad the GPU prices are right now and the fact that the next generation isn't that far from coming out which will likely bring about a price drop for the pascal cards.

[Frankenburger]

31 minutes ago, stateofpsychosis said:

Yea, 4 out of 5 maybe if you play the lowest common denominator games only

Except the 50 games they benchmarked are almost all AAA games from big time studios. The 4 out of 5 games statistic is a pretty relevant statistic in that regard, regardless if you agree with it or not.

[Ace McPlane]

18 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Except the 50 games they benchmarked are almost all AAA games from big time studios. The 4 out of 5 games statistic is a pretty relevant statistic in that regard, regardless if you agree with it or not.

Because 50 games covers everything or is even close to enough?

Not for me.

Of course the cherry picked AAA games are going to support it more on average, but that says nothing about the rest of the games out there that would be like 99% of all games compared to just 50 cherry picked ones. There are a lot of high quality games for PC that aren't listed there and that's a gigantic understatement.

 

I honestly feel sorry for anyone who's taste in games is that limited. 

There are so many great genres other than first person shooters and whatnot out there. People who just play what's trendy ought to expand their horizons and try more stuff out.

 

Either way, this is silly.

Let's not make the OP waste money.

 

They're not running a 4K monitor or anything so 2 1080ti's just doesn't make sense no matter how you cut it. Can you honestly say that they'd even notice a difference with that upgrade on a 1080p monitor? The frame rate may be a bit higher, but without the 2nd card, the frame rate at max settings with that card would still be quite high and it would be very hard to notice a difference. I just can't justify telling this guy to waste money like that.