Has anyone got a 2nd 1080ti for SLI?

[hobib_ali]

Has anyone bought a 2nd 1080ti for SLI?

if so what card and how are you getting along with SLI optimisation?

Whats the gaming like? is it mind blowing since you added the 2nd card on?

forget about the benchmarks, whats it like with 2 1080ti's?

the bad and the great......

 

[tyler_jrb]

Having come from it I'd say it's all about what games you play. 2014/2015 then SLI is very good (TW3, mad max, dying light, ROTTR etc etc) very nice having the second card. When playing these games I do miss it.

If you play late 2016-2017 games then optimisation is pretty crap for the most part. One of the reasons I got rid of SLI. BF1 for example was getting worse fps than single card and frequent frame drops.

Overall a single Ti is doing everything I need, cost and crap optimisation on recent titles, finally had to let SLI go.

Do I miss it? Sure on a few games like TW3. But it was more hassle that it was worth overall.

 

[LeMson]

What res and hz you running?

 

[MrRockliffe]

With Nvidia dropping official support for 3 and 4 way SLI, and newer cards being powerful enough for 4K gaming, I think developers have slowly begun to ditch support for it unfortunately. It's not something I'd recommend investing in.

 

[Kaapstad]

With Nvidia dropping official support for 3 and 4 way SLI, and newer cards being powerful enough for 4K gaming, I think developers have slowly begun to ditch support for it unfortunately. It's not something I'd recommend investing in.

Not even a Titan Xp is anywhere near fast enough for 4K.

Having said that if the settings are turned down low enough my HD 5970 is fantastic @2160p.

 

[MrRockliffe]

Not even a Titan Xp is anywhere near fast enough for 4K.

Having said that if the settings are turned down low enough my HD 5970 is fantastic @2160p.

It's not fast enough for ultra settings, but I think 99% of people would struggle to tell the difference between high/very high/ultra textures at 4K. My 970, for example, can run battlefield 4 at medium settings at 4K and average 50 FPS. This looks fantastic, and much better than high settings at 1440p, or even ultra at 1080.

 

[tyler_jrb]

It's not fast enough for ultra settings, but I think 99% of people would struggle to tell the difference between high/very high/ultra textures at 4K. My 970, for example, can run battlefield 4 at medium settings at 4K and average 50 FPS. This looks fantastic, and much better than high settings at 1440p, or even ultra at 1080.

Agreed the amount of power required for the absolute maximum settings at 4K and image quality gain is really not worth it for the cost.

For most people 4K minus AA, with high-ultra settings is enough for 60fps with a good Ti.

 

[KNiVES]

Not even a Titan Xp is anywhere near fast enough for 4K.

Having said that if the settings are turned down low enough my HD 5970 is fantastic @2160p.

The 1080ti and Titan XP do an admirable job at least, I moved up from a GTX 970 at 1920*1080 and all I wanted was to play the exact same settings but at 4k, and that's exactly what it's doing for me. It's been such a revelation. The jump to 4k even on 'just' high settings is incredible.

Can't wait to see how Volta does. It's going to be a real game changer.

 

[Panos]

Has anyone bought a 2nd 1080ti for SLI?

if so what card and how are you getting along with SLI optimisation?

Whats the gaming like? is it mind blowing since you added the 2nd card on?

forget about the benchmarks, whats it like with 2 1080ti's?

the bad and the great......

If you play games before 2016 you will be fine, many support SLI. However after Jan 2016 the games supporting SLI are just a handful.

 

[JediFragger]

Can't wait to see how Volta does. It's going to be a real game changer.

Let's hope so!! At this rate it's only going to be a matter of months before the Vega launch and the Volta one

 

[hobib_ali]

What res and hz you running?

2560x1440 144hz

I had a nightmare with my 1080 sli, fall out 4 and Wildlands giving me less FPS on sli but awesome FPS on solo cards, was thinking it might be different with 1080ti sli

 

[DONOHUE07]

It's not fast enough for ultra settings, but I think 99% of people would struggle to tell the difference between high/very high/ultra textures at 4K. My 970, for example, can run battlefield 4 at medium settings at 4K and average 50 FPS. This looks fantastic, and much better than high settings at 1440p, or even ultra at 1080.

Absolutely this, there is hardly any difference between very high and ultra on games nowadays, we just don't have anything like crysis that really raises the bar in graphical fidelity. Dropping down to very high gains you approximately 10fps and turning off AA completely from nets you another 10fps, i can't understand why benchmark sites insist of 4X AA, it's just not needed. 4k gaming does NOT need a £1200 TitanX

 

[Dinerty]

One 1080ti, SLI just isn't the future anymore, the speeds of a 1080ti at 4K with minor alterations aren't going to be noticeable at all.

 

[uksoldierboy]

New build had originally included a 4k Panel to go with the Aorus Ti Extreme, in the few games i tried, TW3, GTA V, PUBG and a few others it was very playable maxed out with 0 AA, 40-80fps depending on the game.
Sadly the monitor isn't for me, i missed my 144hz panel and the graphical increase from 1440P to 4K just isn't worth it to me over a high RR.
Now running a Acer Pred 1440P Gsync 165hz and would not go back.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

2560x1440 144hz

I had a nightmare with my 1080 sli, fall out 4 and Wildlands giving me less FPS on sli but awesome FPS on solo cards, was thinking it might be different with 1080ti sli

I wouldn't consider SLI for that resolution if I were you. However, I don't think you're justifying SLI on frame rate or resolution, are you? It's more about having the best, the fastest, the most powerful? It becomes a harder question to answer in that case, because some games will really benefit from it.

All I can offer is that I also bought into SLI to have the best. After SLI in 670, 970, 980 & 980ti... I now have a single 1080ti and I won't consider SLI for gaming again. I game at 3440*1440 by the way.

SLI is very poorly supported right now, and it's been mentioned previously, there isn't much of an incentive for software designers to spend the time and resources on it. For that reason, your SLI performance is guaranteed to deteriorate from the poor performance available just now.

 

[8 Pack]

Ofcourse many of my systems are configured with two up cards...... Performance is great.

 

[JediFragger]

SLI is very poorly supported right now,

Agreed, it's been very poor for a while now for games. If you just want to benchmark then fire away!

 

[Legend]

It baffles me why Nvidia and developers aren't more supportive of SLI. It is literally costing Nvidia millions, as I have seen countless gamers (myself included) avoid SLI because of the terrible optimisation in the last couple of years, with no sign of it improving. I have several friends who've got rid of second cards also. It's not like 3D where there is a dwindling market... they would sell thousands of extra cards if SLI actually worked properly. Seems utterly daft business sense to me, but perhaps they know something I don't!

 

[Kaapstad]

With new hi spec monitors on the horizon and ever more demanding games being launched mGPU going forward is the only solution.

If some one wants to play the latest game on a 144htz 2160p monitor (when they are available) not even a top of the range Volta Titan will be able to do the job or even get anywhere close.

 

[JediFragger]

If some one wants to play the latest game on a 144htz 2160p monitor (when they are available) not even a top of the range Volta Titan will be able to do the job or even get anywhere close.

No, but their are other advantages of a high Hz panel even if you're not running at the higher end of the frames. I won't be touching SLi/Crapfire again until their's some kind of massive overhaul of the entire thing. Just been burned too many times.

Single powerful card + Adaptive Sync is the way ahead for me!