1080 SLI vs Titan X Pascal

Lord Risky said:

A little too splenetic but a valid argument nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Well, my point was that, a person's choice of games differ from person to person. There are people who cherry pick SLI enabled games to make full use out of both cards they spent their money on (the letting hardware decide their game bunch), and perhaps those are the ones that experience the better side of SLI. Then there are those who don't care whether they support SLI or not, they want to play it, so they play it, which then finds out that some of the games might not run in SLI at all (EG Doom), or causes issues when running in SLI mode, which sours their perception of SLI.

I am one of the latter, hence my experience with SLI soured. That, and the fact that the way I setup my rig doesn't allow for SLI unless one of the cards do not come with a backplate (AFAIK only a few 1070 don't have backplate, none of the 980ti or 1080 doesn't have it).

Ironically, I chose SLI not due to the average scaling of SLI, but rather I chose SLI because I can tolerate the performance of a single 970 under 1440p, at the time that choice was made. The only game I had which both didn't support SLI, but could do with it under some cases, was Wolfenstein.

Another thing about SLI I don't like, is the degree of uncertainty. The uncertainty of mGPU support in the near future, given what we know about SLI support of games as of late, plus the fact that we know next to nothing about how EMA works under DX12 (what little one can find on the net about it doesn't paint a pretty picture either). It could very well be awesome (and I do hope it is awesome), but it could also flop badly.

I simply find that, given what we know, and what I want, mGPU is a decision that is best made when substantial number of DX12 games comes out (such that we have a better picture of how EMA really does), not at this moment in time.

I do agree with WorldExclusive on one thing at least: I wouldn't upgrade to an 1080 if I had 980ti SLI, if I find a single 980ti being enough (by most accounts, it is).

chenw said:

Is Doom garbage? Is Wolfenstein: New order and old blood garbage? Neither of them supports SLI.

I don't play Battlefield because I have been done with online player vs player type games a LONG time ago. I don't play GTA V because I can no longer play the bad guys.

If you play games that exclusively support SLI, more power to you. I don't. I play games, not marvel at the background technical jargon (I don't go "OMG! THIS GAME SCALES 10000% with SLI, I GOTTA PLAY THIS" for example). If I wanted to play "Ubisoft garbage" like AC:U, which is broken under SLI, I play it.

I let my games decide my hardware, not the otherway round. I don't go out of my way to pick games that are not "garbage", I pick the games I enjoy playing. If Ubisoft comes out with a game I like, I play it. If EA still pumps out games that I have no interest in, even if they have 100% SLI scaling, I won't play them.

Click to expand...

Yes, Ubisoft makes garbage for PC. Regardless of what you like to play, their games are trash ports.

You made a lot of personal decisions that can't be debated because they are your decisions.
But many people on this forum have decided against buying broken games from publishers/developers like Ubisoft and Microsoft.

Trash ports and Titan X cards are milking the community into thinking they need so much more power when really, well made PC games like DOOM and Overwatch (both without solid SLI support) can be made to run on almost anything at 60Hz.

Single faster card every day of the week. Better frame timings, no compatability issues, no headaches.

{NG}Fidel said:

Sometimes it just doesn't work though. That's a fact...

Click to expand...

It's not about you having problem it's about games supporting it and with dx12 it's in developers hands to implement it. I mean sli/cf support's been getting worse not better.

NKD said:

It's not about you having problem it's about games supporting it and with dx12 it's in developers hands to implement it. I mean sli/cf support's been getting worse not better.

Click to expand...

if you think CF/SLI is getting worse, then it looks outright disasterous for DX12/Vulkan mGPU. MultiGPU outside slides and paper looks dead.

Still mulling it over. I'll probably move to a single Titan X though.

I will choose the answer of : how does anyone spend more than 500 or 600 dollars on a GPU/ dual gpu?
You guys be crazy..... The most I would get is a gtx 1070 right now which is very solid for $400

sleepybp said:

I will choose the answer of : how does anyone spend more than 500 or 600 dollars on a GPU/ dual gpu?
You guys be crazy..... The most I would get is a gtx 1070 right now which is very solid for $400

Click to expand...

Because it's a hobby that a lot of people have and have had for many years. Why buy anything like this? Because it provides fun and entertainment. And messing around PCs has actually taught me a thing or two that's helped me earn during my career. Sure there are "wiser" things to spend money on. But as the cliché goes, you can't take it with you.

heatlesssun said:

Because it's a hobby that a lot of people have and have had for many years. Why buy anything like this? Because it's provides fun and entertainment. And messing around PCs has actually taught me a thing a too that's helped me earn during my career. Sure there are "wiser" things to spend money on. But as the cliché goes, you can't take it with you.

Click to expand...

So true when you look at it this way. I mean it's what you value more. We do things what we value and experience is something worth spending on. Now some people would say there are better things to spend money on which could be true. This is once a year type of deal. I say if it's gonna put a fat smile on your face every time you turn on the Pc. It's worth the investment. i say do it.

Geese I didn't even know doom is not a sli enabled game and ive been playing it since it came out on my gtx980s. :/

eclypse said:

Geese I didn't even know doom is not a sli enabled game and ive been playing it since it came out on my gtx980s. :/

Click to expand...

gtx980*

WorldExclusive said:

Yes, Ubisoft makes garbage for PC. Regardless of what you like to play, their games are trash ports.

You made a lot of personal decisions that can't be debated because they are your decisions.
But many people on this forum have decided against buying broken games from publishers/developers like Ubisoft and Microsoft.

Trash ports and Titan X cards are milking the community into thinking they need so much more power when really, well made PC games like DOOM and Overwatch (both without solid SLI support) can be made to run on almost anything at 60Hz.

Click to expand...

You are one remarkably stupid poster. For someone who is so busy fellating SLI you seem terribly misinformed as to who actually supports the technology.

All of Ubisoft's titles have SLI support. They perform well on the PC and achieve 4K + 60 Hz on a SLI setup. EA and Ubisoft are generally very good about supporting SLI. Other studios like id Software and Bethesda have been becoming increasingly neglectful.

DOOM can't do more than 40 FPS on a 980 Ti due to its lack of SLI support. It doesn't perform any better than a Ubisoft title... I've played most of Ubisoft's PC releases on my SLI setup so I have plenty of firsthand experience. They're just fine. I counted four crashes to the desktop in my entire playthrough of DOOM. I counted zero in Far Cry Primal. I've been through all the AssCreeds and the Far Crys and the two most recent Splinter Cell titles in 4K on my SLI setup. So you trash-talking Ubisoft is nonsense.

WorldExclusive said:

Trash ports and Titan X cards are milking the community into thinking they need so much more power when really, well made PC games like DOOM and Overwatch (both without solid SLI support) can be made to run on almost anything at 60Hz.

Click to expand...

You can't run Doom at 4k at high settings at 60+ FPS on almost anything.

We can all state we would rather have single card versus SLI - but once Battlefield 1 comes out everyone playing that will want more and more power. DICE has a great history of supporting SLI very well (up to 2 cards, at least) and pushing the envelope graphically.

That's what I'm figuring ^^^.

That and the new Titan fall.

wigglywaffles said:

You are one remarkably stupid poster.

Click to expand...

Nope, I don't justify bullshit halo cards by listening to bullshit justifications on forums.

sleepybp said:

I will choose the answer of : how does anyone spend more than 500 or 600 dollars on a GPU/ dual gpu?
You guys be crazy..... The most I would get is a gtx 1070 right now which is very solid for $400

Click to expand...

Depends on the person.

But my reason is: I work 12h shifts 5 days a week, if not more, and don't have much expenses (I spent barely one half of my income on essentials, BEFORE taking bonuses into account). So I don't care about money nearly as much as those who work 8h shifts and have more expenses than I do.

What I do care about is my gaming, I want my games to run as smooth as possible. I was running 970 SLI, which made me rather uninterested in 980ti, and by extension, 1070. I place little interest in "same performance at cheaper price" (and thus why my lack of enthusiasm for 1070, since it's basically a $400 980ti), I am FAR more interested in "performace that was never possible berfore". 1080 unfortunately falls short of what I am looking for. Pitan X would place it at the bare threshold.

chenw said:

I am FAR more interested in "performace that was never possible berfore". 1080 unfortunately falls short of what I am looking for.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel what you are saying. That's why I bought two 1080s. Ha!
Was running 3x 980s before, and 3DMark benches are around the same, but real-world performance is much better.

"I work 12h shifts 5 days a week, if not more"
that's pretty hardcore Chenw, I hope you get to retire early for working that many hours

Love the looks of SLI in the case.

I keep pondering and considering an upgrade to the Titan, but I don't really have anything I play that would benefit from it. All my fps games I play on my 1080p 144hz g-sync monitor and everything else on my 1440p 60hz. My gtx980 SLI is still working pretty good. Overwatch is my main addiction right now and with literally everything maxed @1080p I still get 144fps solid. I think I'll just take a deep breath, let this one pass, and wait for the next big thing... maybe the full-fat Titan.

Sorry for being late to the discussion! After reviewing all the different opinions within this forum thread, I want to know exactly how many people here actually own a Titan X Pascal (P) and/or GTX1080 SLI configuration? And I mean 'actually own', which means that you aren't just speculating about performance and are providing genuine feedback. I own a Titan X Pascal, a GTX1080, and two GTX980Ti cards in SLI (to be replaced by the single Titan X (P). The GTX1080 (EVGA GTX1080 FTW Hybrid) will be used in my back-up gaming system.

My two cents is that so far, based upon my actual experience and NOT something conjured up in a YouTube video or someone's biased 'paid for' hardware review that the Titan X is the winner hands down. Price is not a consideration for me, so don't try to make that any kind of point here. I could have easily bought two GTX1080s instead of a single Titan X, but then I would have to use SLI most of the time to game at 4K/UHD and UQHD when all (or almost all) settings were maxed out. To me, it's all about NO COMPROMISE. I have nothing against SLI, but it does have it's limitations and someone made a valid point that their seems to be early on issues with DX12 games being optimized to use SLI. That's just one more thing to add to the microstutter, rendered frame sequencing latencies caused by SLI, not all games correctly support it, and scaling is all over the place with some games gaining only 10-15%, while others get almost a 100% increase. And let's not forget that 2 x GTX1080s use twice the amount of space, more power, and generate more heat vs. a single Titan X Pascal. Needless to say, I LOVE MY TITAN X!

Also, the EKWB water block and backplate I preordered earlier this month will arrive next week. I can't wait to see what this beast does when watercooled ;-)

Ninjawithagun said:

Sorry for being late to the discussion! After reviewing all the different opinions within this forum thread, I want to know exactly how many people here actually own a Titan X Pascal (P) and/or GTX1080 SLI configuration? And I mean 'actually own', which means that you aren't just speculating about performance and are providing genuine feedback. I own a Titan X Pascal, a GTX1080, and two GTX980Ti cards in SLI (to be replaced by the single Titan X (P).

My two cents is that so far, based upon my actual experience and NOT something conjured up in a YouTube video or someone's biased 'paid for' hardware review that the Titan X is the winner hands down. Price is not a consideration for me, so don't try to make that any kind of point here. I could have easily bought two GTX1080s instead of a single Titan X, but then I would have to use SLI most of the time to game at 4K/UHD and UQHD when all (or almost all) settings were maxed out. To me, it's all about NO COMPROMISE. I have nothing against SLI, but it does have it's limitations and someone made a valid point that their seems to be early on issues with DX12 games being optimized to use SLI. That's just one more thing to add to the microstutter, rendered frame sequencing latencies caused by SLI, not all games correctly support it, and scaling is all over the place with some games gaining only 10-15%, while others get almost a 100% increase. And let's not forget that 2 x GTX1080s use twice the amount of space, more power, and generate more heat vs. a single Titan X Pascal. Needless to say, I LOVE MY TITAN X!

Also, the EKWB water block and backplate I preordered earlier this month will arrive next week. I can't wait to see what this beast does when watercooled ;-)

Click to expand...

Price is no barrier? No compromises?

Well, duh! Get two Titan XPs then and be done with it.

And if money is truly no problem, finance some serious R&D for AMD to get them back in the game and get some amazingly powerful GPU from them.

arestavo said:

Price is no barrier? No compromises?

Well, duh! Get two Titan XPs then and be done with it.

And if money is truly no problem, finance some serious R&D for AMD to get them back in the game and get some amazingly powerful GPU from them.

Click to expand...

You missed the point. I said no SLI.

It's apparent that you have other issues as the price point came up immediately in your post.

For the games that I play at the resolution I use (1600p) at 60Hz, 1080 SLI works fine for me. I turn vsync on and get 60fps at maximum graphics detail and it's smooth. That is what I wanted. At the time I ordered my cards, the Titan X was not yet announced.
With a single 1080 I could not get the kind of performance I wanted without reducing graphic settings. The GPU was at 100% load and only able to do 45-55fps in one game, for example. I did not want to reduce settings.

For games that I play that don't support SLI (like Grim Dawn), a single 1080 can do 60 fps so it doesn't matter (luckily).
Will I want to play a game that does not support SLI and won't do 60 fps with a single 1080 at maximum graphics settings? Probably. And I will wish I had a Titan X for those cases.
But I'm not convinced a single Titan X could do 60 fps at max graphics detail in all the games I play. Maybe it could. Maybe it could when only OCed. Maybe it could with some games. I don't know.
Since I generally don't OC my stuff any more (blasphemy I know) and I already had one 1080 and had already ordered the 2nd 1080 when news of the Titan X was released, I went with 1080 SLI.
Sure, I wish I had Titan X SLI, but I cannot justify spending that much money for what little gain I would get most likely, especially since I'm not yet at 4K resolution nor going above 60Hz refresh.

I have a lot of experience with SLI, first with the Quantum 3D Obsidian2 X24, then 7900GT SLI, and the GTX 690. SLI is not perfect, but I have enjoyed its benefits greatly over the years so getting two 1080s was not a huge leap for me. I'm very happy with it.
Ask me again when I find that game that doesn't support SLI and won't do 60fps on a single 1080.

Azrak said:

For the games that I play at the resolution I use (1600p) at 60Hz, 1080 SLI works fine for me. I turn vsync on and get 60fps at maximum graphics detail and it's smooth. That is what I wanted. At the time I ordered my cards, the Titan X was not yet announced.
With a single 1080 I could not get the kind of performance I wanted without reducing graphic settings. The GPU was at 100% load and only able to do 45-55fps in one game, for example. I did not want to reduce settings.

For games that I play that don't support SLI (like Grim Dawn), a single 1080 can do 60 fps so it doesn't matter (luckily).
Will I want to play a game that does not support SLI and won't do 60 fps with a single 1080 at maximum graphics settings? Probably. And I will wish I had a Titan X for those cases.
But I'm not convinced a single Titan X could do 60 fps at max graphics detail in all the games I play. Maybe it could. Maybe it could when only OCed. Maybe it could with some games. I don't know.
Since I generally don't OC my stuff any more (blasphemy I know) and I already had one 1080 and had already ordered the 2nd 1080 when news of the Titan X was released, I went with 1080 SLI.
Sure, I wish I had Titan X SLI, but I cannot justify spending that much money for what little gain I would get most likely, especially since I'm not yet at 4K resolution nor going above 60Hz refresh.

I have a lot of experience with SLI, first with the Quantum 3D Obsidian2 X24, then 7900GT SLI, and the GTX 690. SLI is not perfect, but I have enjoyed its benefits greatly over the years so getting two 1080s was not a huge leap for me. I'm very happy with it.
Ask me again when I find that game that doesn't support SLI and won't do 60fps on a single 1080.

Click to expand...

Easy challenge - Tom Clancy's The Division @ 4K UHD all settings maxed ;-) My Titan X is able to average 57 FPS (with minimum frame rate of 36 FPS). A single overclocked GTX1080 is no where near that and minimum FPS drops below 30 FPS, which means unplayable in that portion of the game. And that is my TItan X at stock speeds using the stock blower fan. Water block and backplate will be here next week. I am going to love seeing the Titan X run at 2100Mhz and memory at +11000Mhz!

And yes, I know two GTX1080s in SLI would beat the performance of a single Titan X, but that's not the point. We are focused on single card performance without any of the SLI issues.

Ninjawithagun said:

Easy challenge - Tom Clancy's The Division @ 4K UHD all settings maxed ;-) My Titan X is able to average 57 FPS (with minimum frame rate of 36 FPS). A single overclocked GTX1080 is no where near that and minimum FPS drops below 30 FPS, which means unplayable in that portion of the game. And that is my TItan X at stock speeds using the stock blower fan. Water block and backplate will be here next week. I am going to love seeing the Titan X run at 2100Mhz and memory at +11000Mhz!

And yes, I know two GTX1080s in SLI would beat the performance of a single Titan X, but that's not the point. We are focused on single card performance without any of the SLI issues.

Click to expand...

Then there is nothing to more to discuss for your particular requirements. The answer is Titan X all day long if you don't want SLI simply because it's the fastest single card solution at the moment. It's also ~$200 cheaper than 1080 SLI and has none of the SLI drawbacks.

In my view, at least right now, I think that 1080 SLI offers higher performance than a single Titan X for those games that I play that support SLI. I also do not want to spend $2400 on two Titan Xs. I also know one 1080 is not enough to max the games I play and get 60fps. So 1080 SLI it is for me.
If I had a 4K monitor then I'd possibly be looking to sell my 1080s and switch to Titan X or even Titan X SLI. It would depend on what games I'm playing and whether or not they support SLI. I don't play The Division.

Also, this thread is asking about what you would choose, SLI or single Titan X. Just because you are focused on single card performance does not mean this whole thread is.

I did just that after owning 2x Titan XM i moved to 2x 1080 SLI to now single Titan XP that does 2.05/11ghz all day long i already posted my results in previous thread 1080SLi vs Single Titan XP,

On average OC TXP is 10-15% slower then 1080SLi, which in real life performance you cant really tell, but the smoothness single GPU provides makes it actually feel much faster and smoother then 1080SLi
Not to mention if you use VR like i do there is no contest TXP just walks all over 1080SLi and all other games that have no SLi support while still keeping up in others that do support.

There is no question single Titan XP is better buy then 1080SLi any day, only better option is 2x Ttian XP if you want to play 4K at 70-100fps

I

Single big card is the way especially when Titan is so close to two 1080s.

I have 1080s in SLI- the games I play have good compatibility. In some cases the Titan X is better where the games don't have compatibility.

This is kinda a champagne dilemma, so do you homework-either way you're going to get blistering performance.

I like the look of 2 cards in the case. SLI'd 470s, 670s, 1070s, just doesn't look right with just one card in my case, like something is missing...

Am I the only one that feels this way?

I have GTX 1080 SLI and I'm more than happy with the performance. I game at 1440p Surround (7680x1440) and one 1080 would simply not be enough, at least not on newer games.

Sadly, the Nvidia Surround uses a special SLI mode once it's enabled, so there is not an easy way to switch SLI on and off without removing one of the cards (which I'm not bothering with).

But I'm able to play recent games (like GTA V, DOOM, or Rise of the Tomb Raider) at High settings, full 7680x1440 resolution, and still get in the 75 - 90 average FPS range. That would be very difficult or impossible with other setups, even the Titan XP.

Ninjawithagun said:

You missed the point. I said no SLI.

It's apparent that you have other issues as the price point came up immediately in your post.

Click to expand...

No, I was being sarcastic as hell. You missed it.

I'm not quite sure how I missed this thread before, but I see a lot of discussion about SLI lately. I'm sitting on a 980ti SLI setup right now, and had originally thought about "downgrading" to a single GTX 1080. Thinking back over the past year that I've owned my 980ti setup, I've had really mixed results with SLI, and since I don't always play a lot of AAA titles that are super graphically demanding, I thought this might be the way to go.

But then again, this is [H], and I don't know if I could have been satisfied knowing I took such a performance "hit" in some aspects, so I was convinced to go with the Titan instead by some very thoughtful forum members who were only out for my best interests (though maybe not my wallet's ). Hopefully that'll provide the answer I'm looking for, but I do think the value proposition on that card is pretty terrible. Just the thought that a 1080ti could come out in 3-4 months that would be hundreds cheaper and perform just as well is a little cringe-worthy, but I suppose you gotta pay to play...and all that.

Just to add my 2c to this thread, I thought I'd list my experience with the games I've played over the past year with respect to SLI compatibility:

WARNING: the following contains a lot of OPINION, and should be taken as such.

The Witcher 3: SLI clearly added a LOT of graphical rendering power, but I never felt like I was getting full potential out of my setup. Most times Afterburner would show one GPU at 50-60% utilization, and the other at 80-90%. Since it never really hit 60 fps, for some reason it always locked me at 40 fps on my 4k monitor (even with some sensible graphical reductions like HW and water detail reduced). I ended up gaming in 3440x1440 using my UHD TV (no scaling - black border all the way around) just to make sure I had solid 60fps. Anecdotally, I also felt like there was a good deal of inconsistency in the play experience, and some of it seemed to stem from SLI. I never played either of the DLC packs with the hopes that a GOTY edition would release and I could upgrade my hardware this year to really get the "4k experience".

FFXIV: SLI works great. Zero issues, and definitely added a lot of rendering power. Buttery smooth in 4k res with both cards enabled, but 4k was closer to 40 fps the few times I forgot to reenable SLI after a driver update.

Diablo 3: For some reason this game just seems to have crappy optimization in general. I had a lot of stuttering in Win 7, and truthfully it did seem a little worse with SLI enabled than without. Overall though, this game just flat out doesn't need the extra horsepower even for 4k, so it's kinda moot. Still, if I feel compelled to *disable* a feature like SLI just to play a game in the best conditions, that's less than ideal.

Blade and Soul: ahh, yes. Jan of 2016 began my 4-5 month love affair with Korean MMOs. This one, and next BDO. Basically, this game runs like complete dogshit no matter what I did. SLI added almost nothing, and the game was choppy as hell even when I switched to using my RoG Swift 1440p display. 4k was unplayable. I tried tinkering with Nvidia inspector and playing with the bits and whatnot for countless hours, but nothing helped.

Black Desert Online: This game did seem to benefit from SLI to some extent, but it wasn't fantastic. Similar to BnS, optimization is just poor. What was weird was that this game just flat out would NOT use my GPUs. Utilization never wanted to go over maybe 50% on either card. It ran OK without the ultra mode enabled, especially at 1440p, but I really had to turn some settings down to run in 4k.

Inside (and several other lightweight indy games from Steam over the course of the year): Ran flawlessly, as you would imagine. Not much power required here, so SLI was moot.

Talos Principal: Ran great. SLI had no issues, and nice and smooth even at 4k.

My biggest takeaway from all this is that SLI DOES work, but it's highly circumstantial. As some posters have already said, in many cases it's a case of "it works where you'll need it, and not where you don't", so it's kind of moot that some games don't support it.

On the other hand, some part of my always wondered if it's to blame for not giving me an even better experience in games like The Witcher 3. Likely, it wasn't, but that didn't stop me from thinking it might have been at the time.

Eh, I'll stop rambling now.

single card > SLI Titan X got my vote

I'd only go Titan if I went with Titan sli!

From 980sli the Titan would beat but after playing my games in 1080 sli and the games coming in a few months that I know will support sli, no way I'll downgrade to one Titan xp!

I'm glad all you people have found justification to make it a sane purchase..

Whatever makes you happy as they say.. I'm happy right at 1080sli. Though I'm only playing at 1440, but at 164fps

I'm planing on using that extra $1100 and upgrading the rest of my rig insted.

Azrak said:

For the games that I play at the resolution I use (1600p) at 60Hz, 1080 SLI works fine for me. I turn vsync on and get 60fps at maximum graphics detail and it's smooth. That is what I wanted. At the time I ordered my cards, the Titan X was not yet announced.
With a single 1080 I could not get the kind of performance I wanted without reducing graphic settings. The GPU was at 100% load and only able to do 45-55fps in one game, for example. I did not want to reduce settings.

For games that I play that don't support SLI (like Grim Dawn), a single 1080 can do 60 fps so it doesn't matter (luckily).
Will I want to play a game that does not support SLI and won't do 60 fps with a single 1080 at maximum graphics settings? Probably. And I will wish I had a Titan X for those cases.
But I'm not convinced a single Titan X could do 60 fps at max graphics detail in all the games I play. Maybe it could. Maybe it could when only OCed. Maybe it could with some games. I don't know.
Since I generally don't OC my stuff any more (blasphemy I know) and I already had one 1080 and had already ordered the 2nd 1080 when news of the Titan X was released, I went with 1080 SLI.
Sure, I wish I had Titan X SLI, but I cannot justify spending that much money for what little gain I would get most likely, especially since I'm not yet at 4K resolution nor going above 60Hz refresh.

I have a lot of experience with SLI, first with the Quantum 3D Obsidian2 X24, then 7900GT SLI, and the GTX 690. SLI is not perfect, but I have enjoyed its benefits greatly over the years so getting two 1080s was not a huge leap for me. I'm very happy with it.
Ask me again when I find that game that doesn't support SLI and won't do 60fps on a single 1080.

Click to expand...

Unless your running 4k A single 1080 or Titan XP is plenty. 1600p is less pixels then my 3440x1440 res by a good amount and I have no problem pushing 60FPS in division maxed out and every other game I play no problem. I do not even have my 1080 FTW OCed yet. Personally if I had a 4k monitor I would get a Single Titan XP or wait for Volta which will be the true 4k GPU.

raidflex said:

Unless your running 4k A single 1080 or Titan XP is plenty. 1600p is less pixels then my 3440x1440 res by a good amount and I have no problem pushing 60FPS in division maxed out and every other game I play no problem. I do not even have my 1080 FTW OCed yet. Personally if I had a 4k monitor I would get a Single Titan XP or wait for Volta which will be the true 4k GPU.

Click to expand...

Your system must be better than mine. In Far Cry 4 at 2560x1600 with all graphics options enabled at their highest settings, including GameWorks features, I was at 100% GPU usage with a single 1080 and getting 45-60fps. Adding the 2nd card in SLI allowed me to turn vsync on and get 60fps all the time, everywhere, with around 65% GPU usage on both cards. I do not play The Division so I do not know how that would perform on my system.

Azrak said:

Your system must be better than mine. In Far Cry 4 at 2560x1600 with all graphics options enabled at their highest settings, including GameWorks features, I was at 100% GPU usage with a single 1080 and getting 45-60fps. Adding the 2nd card in SLI allowed me to turn vsync on and get 60fps all the time, everywhere, with around 65% GPU usage on both cards. I do not play The Division so I do not know how that would perform on my system.

Click to expand...

I would OC your CPU to at least 4.2GHz. I have a 5820K @ 4.5GHz which may make the difference. I don't have far cry primal but if you look at the benchmark below they were getting 80FPS on average with a resolution that was pretty close to the same as your monitor.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 review

raidflex said:

I would OC your CPU to at least 4.2GHz. I have a 5820K @ 4.5GHz which may make the difference. I don't have far cry primal but if you look at the benchmark below they were getting 80FPS on average with a resolution that was pretty close to the same as your monitor.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 review

Click to expand...

I'm not playing Primal. My games queue is a bit old, so I'm playing the original FC4. Why would OCing the CPU help? The GPU was already at 100% usage. Having a faster CPU throw data to the GPU at a faster rate won't help, will it?
The Guru3D charts show that they used Very High settings. I'm using Ultra and then setting the other 5 options (Shadows, AO, Godrays, Fur, AA) even higher per [H]'s description of them on this page Game Settings - Far Cry 4 Video Card Performance Review . Literally the highest graphical settings the game offers on Nvidia cards.