• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Multi gpu in 2017. Yay or nay?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Brando

Brando

Member
​
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
So I got a nice 4k monitor and everything looks fantastic but the 980ti can't quite cut it at max. I was looking forward to the 1080ti but after reading reviews of the roughly equivalent titan x it looks like it will just barely run intense graphics at 60fps right now which means when newer games with better graphics start coming out it will already be old. Should I just go for sli 1070's? looks like the price performance is pretty great but when I ask the internet it's very mixed. some people think multi gpu is dying and others says it's the future as long as you give nvidia a couple weeks to make a profile for brand new games. I need muh 4k glory asap.

welp..the math doesn't really pan out according to this video. 1070 sli only wins by around 10% over a titan x in supported games. i thought it would be at about 30%. bummer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed with a single 1080 or better if you have the budget, at 4K CMAA/FXAA should be enough unless you get ultra pixelized console ports :)
 
guess ill see how much the 1080ti costs when it comes out and how much it can oc. i forgot about imperfect scaling and that kind of ruined it.
 
At this point I'd wait to see what AMD offers as a competitor. The Vega (FURY X replacement) will be announced at the end of this week.

Outside of that, Multi-GPU is not on a lot of people's radars for development. DX12 games under AMD development have come with the DX12 Multi-GPU support but I do not believe its been fully tested/developed just yet. Most developers are leaving it to Driver/API teams rather than incorporating it into their engines.
 
It depends on the game really but I almost went sli 1070's but instead got a single 1080 hybrid. Tho I took the 4k monitor back after 2 days and went with 1440p 144hz because I'm not paying 700$ for a graphics card just to lower my settings. 4k is great it's beautiful but I'm not sold on it yet. The frame rate is just not there. Period. Games like The Division or The Witcher 3 I don't think you're going to get a constant 60 fps at 4k on a 1080. I can't stand playing at 60hz anymore anyway after having this monitor but since you already have one I would give it a few weeks and see what happens with Vega and the 1080ti before you drop close to a grand on a gpu. The heat is going to be very hard to keep up with if you go multi and the support is not always there and when it is it's usually well after the game has been released.
 
Bad scaling and not all games support SLI (As said above) I wouldnt go SLI or Xfire. Waste of money IMO. The idea is great but its not practical spending money on it instead of buying a stronger GPU.
 
M@rk said:
The idea is great but its not practical spending money on it instead of buying a stronger GPU.
Click to expand...
Well, that is kind of the problem here. A 1080/1080Ti is enough for some games at 4K, not others. So there isn't enough. What do you do then? That is the point of the thread. ;)
 
Well if you have enough to buy two graphics cards why not buy two monitors instead? I was very very strongly considering a 1,200$ 1440p ultra wide. But for less money than that I can have my 1440p 144hz 27" Asus and the 28" Asus 4k 60hz I had for two days before I decided I wanted 144hz. Which is still something I might very well do but I have a friend who wants to buy my 1440p and I haven't made up my mind yet on whether or not I want gsync or whether or not I want that beautiful Acer Predator x34. But honestly I think I'm gonna get another monitor. I paid 489 for my 27" Asus and I think the 4k I had was just under 400. That's 3/4 the price of an ultra wide and I can have the best of both worlds.
 
You can't really game on two monitors. 4K is still on a single screen (if that is the desired resolution to run). I've been quite happy with my 1440p screens, though, and my 1080 handles them very well.
 
I just meant having the option of choosing to game at 4k on some titles and 1440p on others. Seems like you can't always game on two gpu's either.
I am quite happy with my high frequency 1440p as well. It would be really nice if there able to have a monitor than could run 4k at 60hz and allow you to switch from 4k res at 60hz to 1440p res at 120hz and 1080 at 180hz or something along those lines. I don't see how that couldn't ar least in the near future be an option.
Ya I didn't mean gaming on two monitors at the same time. If you can't hardly push one 4k monitor hth are you gonna push two. But instead of spending x dollars on a second Gpu and only being able to use one on a number of titles anyway why not buy two displays instead? That way with a single Gpu you can play every game you could ever want. Some at 4k some at 1440p. And there is way more versatility all around having two monitors anyway. If have a 4k as a second screen that your browser, your monitoring software, fan software, etc is on and vise versa depending, you don't lose a lot of frame rate that way. It's done all the time and convenient and more versatile.
 
Last edited:
Good for some not for all, but the original discussion remains the same.

New games under the DX12 API shouldn't have any issues with Multi-GPU once the drivers can take advantage of the API. Does that mean you should invest in the second 1080 for 4K now? I'd still say no. I'd say suffer for now with the games that can't run at full blast in 4k, and wait till the market matures. Software is way ahead on the 4K platform this time around.
 
this is getting ridiculous. somebody was supposed to have announced some kind of 4k card by now. HURRY UP DAMMIT! I can only play a game for the first time once and I want it to be in 4k on this badass monitor. 4k is like your eyes are floating on a cloud of t!t&&$
 
I'm pretty sure there are still some sweet spots for multi gpu in 2017 with a lot of cash to burn, already having a strong PSU and strong water cooling etc., especially in certain specific games, but I don't think I could ever justify buying two NIB cards at full retail price.

With a single card you don't suffer CF/SLI-specific issues, your electricity bill is less, your PSU is cheaper, your system runs cooler and quieter, you can OC more, troubleshooting is easier, UPS (if any) will work longer. All of this translates into money one way or the other, beyond direct price comparison.

You could still multi later with that single card.
 
Ya, it might not be the most conventional but there are people who do it and some games scale well. And I think nothing looks cooler than sli. Lol that is another reason I almost did it. I hear that the titan xp is a 4k beast. Expensive but I hear it is a 4k beast. Also I was just reading something about Vega and how on Doom Which was Vulkan was getting like 75-80 fps beating the titan in side to side gaming or testing by 15 fps this was a day ago at ces nothing else was reall y announced that I heard like date and sale price but it was announced. Unlike the 1080 ti
 
Vega is so close.... I would wait if possible. At the current State of the Resolution, there is a gap between GPU and monitor that will likely be addressed in the near future. Vega might be the answer to that.
 
Rainwater said:
Ya, it might not be the most conventional but there are people who do it and some games scale well. And I think nothing looks cooler than sli. Lol that is another reason I almost did it. I hear that the titan xp is a 4k beast. Expensive but I hear it is a 4k beast. Also I was just reading something about Vega and how on Doom Which was Vulkan was getting like 75-80 fps beating the titan in side to side gaming or testing by 15 fps this was a day ago at ces nothing else was reall y announced that I heard like date and sale price but it was announced. Unlike the 1080 ti
Click to expand...

Don't want to offend anyone's feelings or sound ignorant (or scratch that, the latter I don't care about), but it seems to me the cool factor is the main reason for SLI/CF, followed by old habits dying hard, like people who've been using SLI/CF back since when it was still a l33t hack. These days if you write it out it just can't seem to be the better alternative to a single card except for narrow niches.
 
You're not offending me. I'm not suggesting SLI nor did I decide to go SLI. I considered it because it looks sick but besides that, these days really the ONLY reason to consider SLI is for 4k. A single 980ti or gtx 1070 will make 1440p it's b****. A 1080 will obliterate 1440p and even handle some 4k. But for me, I don't like playing at 60 fps second anyway so even if SLI worked perfectly I wouldn't do it just to play 4k. When they start selling these 144hz 4k displays that is when I might start gearing up for it but until then one Gpu and a 1440p 100-165hz monitor is where it's at for my taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magellan
SLI over Fourth-generation NVIDIA NVLink: would it have been better?
Replies
6
Views
725
MaddMutt
MaddMutt
Voodoo Rufus
eVGA Z97 Classified and slot selection
Replies
5
Views
712
Voodoo Rufus
Voodoo Rufus
E
Targeting specific GPU and or setting default GPU in Windows 10
Replies
0
Views
507
eco_bach
E
Al_bundy
Alucryl - 3DFX - CNC - Retro pc
Replies
2
Views
375
EarthDog
EarthDog
R
Still Considering New Laptop
Replies
8
Views
854
DeadSmiley
DeadSmiley
Back