970 SLI vs. 1080

King Mustard · 31 May 2016 at 14:50

I currently have:

i7-6700K @ 4.6 GHz
16 GB DDR4
EVGA 970 SC
EVGA 970 FTW

I game at 1440p.

I can't find any benchmarks comparing 970 SLI and a 1080.

Would you suggest an upgrade?

opethdisciple · 31 May 2016 at 14:51

If your asking if it's an upgrade, I think yes, yes it is.

Mayh3M · 31 May 2016 at 14:53

There's plenty of 980 SLI vs 1080 benchmarks. You should be able to figure it out from there. It will definitely be a solid upgrade from SLI 970s.

Outcasst · 31 May 2016 at 14:53

It's roughly a 20% improvement overall when taking all of the game benchmarks in to consideration.

Since a lot of games don't have acceptable SLI profiles on launch, you're going to have a much better gaming experience if you ditch SLI in my opinion.

elrasho · 31 May 2016 at 14:53

Mayh3M · 31 May 2016 at 14:55

SLI scaling on average is around 150%. So moving to a 1080 will give you, on average, a massive performance boost.

HazardO · 31 May 2016 at 15:11

I have SLI 970s too, I would put their performance at around the 1070/980Ti mark roughly. IMO a 1080 is too expensive to be a meaningful upgrade to 970SLI @ 1440p, and would consider either 1070 SLI or waiting for the 1080Ti. That's my take anyway. If you were at 4K, then I'd say a 1080 would be a worthwhile upgrade.

Mayh3M said:
SLI scaling on average is around 150%. So moving to a 1080 will give you, on average, a massive performance boost.

My experience is either 0% increase (game does not support SLI) or ~190%. If supported SLI is much better than 150% increase.

IvanDobskey · 31 May 2016 at 15:38

I'd always pick one fast card over SLI to be honest.

Although 1080 is stupidly overpriced

~>Dg<~ · 31 May 2016 at 15:43

1080 = basically 970 sli.

HazardO · 31 May 2016 at 15:52

IvanDobskey said:
I'd always pick one fast card over SLI to be honest.

I see a lot of people saying that they would prefer one card, and certainly the minimum, and average frame rates are likely to be more stable with a single card, but SLI has it's uses, and in my experience GSYNC removes any perceptible micro stutter.

When I got my 970s, one would not have been enough to run BF4 maxed at well over 100fps 1440p, nor would a 980. A titanX would, but that was over £1000, and it was another 6 months or so before the 980Ti turned up, and when it did it wasn't appreciably faster than a pair of 970s at that resolution and in that game. I got that performance for £600 6 months earlier.

Neither the SLI user or the big single chip user is "wrong", it's about timing of releases, and value choices.

~>Dg<~ said:
1080 = basically 970 sli.

More like 1070 is 970 sli from what I've seen, but paying £600 or so for a 20% increase seems nuts to me.

IvanDobskey · 31 May 2016 at 15:56

Sli just has too many issues, heat, power usage, lack of support and cost of buying two cards to be worth it for me.

I haven't run sli since voodoo 2 days.

HazardO · 31 May 2016 at 16:05

IvanDobskey said:
Sli just has too many issues, heat, power usage, lack of support and cost of buying two cards to be worth it for me.

I haven't run sli since voodoo 2 days.

SLI is much better than it was in the voodoo 2 days, but granted it's not as good as having a single chip that will perform at the same level (If such a thing exists when you're buying and has a sensible price).

Most of the games I've played that haven;t supported SLI haven't really needed it, but this experience really depends on which games you want to play.

Cost wise 970 SLI wasn't not far off the 980Ti , and half the price of the titanX.

Heat/power wise, a pair of 970s will use a bit more power than a titanX, but the heat is not an issue with 150W cards if they are well spaced.

IvanDobskey · 31 May 2016 at 16:46

It's not even as if you get anything like the performance of two cards added together. It's sometimes as little as 20%. Just not worth it in my opinion.

adbee · 31 May 2016 at 16:49

IvanDobskey said:
Sli just has too many issues, heat, power usage, lack of support and cost of buying two cards to be worth it for me.

I haven't run sli since voodoo 2 days.

Safe to say that you do not really have any experience of SLI then. Lol

The only real issue from your list that is actually a problem for modern cards in SLI is lack of support.

I am making the same upgrade from sli 970 to 1080 because shiny and new. But I have just sold my first 970 for £200, and hopefully will get the same for my second one.

adbee · 31 May 2016 at 16:57

IvanDobskey said:
It's not even as if you get anything like the performance of two cards added together. It's sometimes as little as 20%. Just not worth it in my opinion.

It is anything between zero and 90%. It is nowhere near as bad as everyone makes out though.

It is very frustrating though when a game does not support SLI. I remember coming home with my two 970s and none of my new games supported SLI. Gutted,

AshenEdge · 31 May 2016 at 17:02

Great thread King and words of wisdom guys

I'm in the same boat and even though I have the itch I know it makes sense to wait...

That's it I'm officially old!!!! :mad:

HazardO · 31 May 2016 at 17:03

IvanDobskey said:
It's not even as if you get anything like the performance of two cards added together. It's sometimes as little as 20%. Just not worth it in my opinion.

Yes you do, BF4 gives very close to double the frame rate. Like I said, SLI is a different beast when it's supported compared to the voodoo days.

RanxZy · 31 May 2016 at 17:08

adbee said:
It is anything between zero and 90%. It is nowhere near as bad as everyone makes out though.

It is very frustrating though when a game does not support SLI. I remember coming home with my two 970s and none of my new games supported SLI. Gutted,

Exactly, have used multi GPU setups several times and when it works it's great. Have to say though that when a big new game is released you've been looking forward to and only one GPU works on day one, it's a real downer. I would be very disappointed if I had SLI right now because I like to use DX12 games and hardly any scale with DX12 right now.

Mayh3M · 31 May 2016 at 17:56

HazardO said:
My experience is either 0% increase (game does not support SLI) or ~190%. If supported SLI is much better than 150% increase.

I wouldn't say it's much better. A 100% increase would simply be a doubling of the frame rate, which is exceptionally rare. In fact the only game I played where I had almost double the frame rate was Dragon Age Inquisition. Most AAA games that supported SLI like The Witcher 3 gave me 60 FPS where I would get 35/40 with one card (150-170% scaling).

A lot of people who have a negative view of SLI seem as though they haven't used it recently. I'm glad I did so I got to experience it at least. From a performance standpoint, it's obviously great. From a value standpoint, it's poor (since scaling is far from 200% on average). If you're a person who plays games on release then SLI might not be a good idea. Heat and noise will always need to be taken into account also when air cooling.

Cooper · 31 May 2016 at 18:48

Can people who are not currently running SLI stop giving advice they're not qualified to give.

I don't care whether you had a bad experience with it once upon a time, that was then this is now, and if you did, it's probably because you didn't set it up properly anyway and/or were running them on a cheap Mobo & PSU.

Thank you.

Its not complicated...

970SLI (in supported games @ stock clocks)= a single 980Ti or now a single 1070 + or - 5'% ('ish) depending on game.

End of story.