Sorry for the scrub questions incoming, first time owning a high end card, not sure what to expect.

I've recently upgraded from a Asus gtx 770 to an Evga gtx 1080 sc

My primary objective for the upgrade is so I can get a stable 144fps on 1080p with maxed graphics settings.

Before the upgrade with the 770, I was able to run Rainbow 6 siege on 1080p low setting, at around 90~130fps. while running 1 additional monitor at 1680x1050 60hz.

Now with the upgrade to the gtx 1080 I am getting 90~144fps on medium quality. while running 2 additional monitors at 1080p 60hz, and 1680x1050 60hz.

I was under the impression that with a gtx 1080 I would be able to get a stable 144fps in 1080p with maxed graphics setting. Which is not the case. (Are the 2 additional monitors putting too much strain on the card? would it help if I put my 770 back in and run the side monitors on it?)

Is the performance I am getting normal? am I just expecting too much?

I am also noticing micro stutters from time to time while playing Starcitizen and Fractured space, not sure what is causing it, and its very frustrating. I also am not sure what program I should be using to monitor what.

I need help to get to the bottom of these issues thank you! Other PC info:

All parts running at stock clock settings, have not oc anything nor tweek any settings. Im just listing everything as i dont know what might be causing the issues.

CPU: i7-4770k at 3.5ghz (3898MHz - 55°C Max while gaming)
Cooling: H100i
Ram: 24g 1866/1600 ddr3 (2x8g 1866 + 2x4g 1600)
Mobo: Asus z87-A
GPU: EVGA gtx 1080 sc (1949MHz - 77°C Max while gaming) driver 372.90, updated with DDU
PSU: 750W

Monitors:
Main - BenQ XL2411z (1080p 144hz) - Dvi connection
Left - Asus VE247H (1080p 60hz) - Hdmi connection
Right - Samsung SynchMaster 2253bw (1680x1050 60hz) - Dvi to Displayport connection

OS - Windows 10 - up to date with updates. on 256g Crucial SSD

Games - on 500g samsung evo 850 SSD

Other storages - on two seperate 1T WD hd

Please let me know If i missed any other essential info.

sethleigh
I'm curious. Have you looked at the cpu usage percentage while running the game? I'm wondering if the 3.5ghz cpu speed is the limiting factor. As framerates rise, the importance of the cpu rises as well. At high resolutions, the gpu is doing more work because it's rendering more pixels. The cpu has a certain amount of work to do to prepare each frame for rendering, so with increased framerates the cpu has more frames to process, in addition to running the game logic itself.
 

So according to Msi afterburnner, my cpu usage average around 62% and peaked to 82% for a splic second at one point.

here are the results for Fire Strike 1.1     htt p://www .3dmark .com/fs/10 322155
 
and here are the results for Time Spy 1.0     htt p://www .3dmark .com/spy/51 7470
 
unfortunately I have no idea how to read them... but it would seem you guys are correct that the cpu is the problem?

sethleigh
 
Lebun,
This isn't quite an apples/apples comparison, but here are some links comparing your scores against my scores. Keep in mind that my 1080 SC is overclocked to 2139 MHz or so in some of these results, while yours is not overclocked at 1974 MHz, but you can see that your graphics results are in the ballpark. When you look at the detailed results, look at the graphics score specifically. In some of these tests there's a cpu-specific test that inflates my scores over yours, but your graphics scores are close. My cpu and overclocked gpu account for the difference.
 
I'd say your 1080 SC is working fine. As far as getting closer to the fps you want in your game, you probably will have to overclock your cpu to get there. And still, as Fatty said, you may not get all the way to 144fps in a particular game if it's very demanding.
 

 

Ahh I see, looking at the results im guess "Physics Score" under Fire Strike is the cpu test? which you doubled my score, but I guess it makes sense considering you have 8 cores vs my 4.
 
It would indeed seems like my cpu is the culprit.
 
Awesome, thank you guys so much for the quick and helpful response! you guys rock!

Cool GTX

lebun
 
Ahh I see, looking at the results im guess "Physics Score" under Fire Strike is the cpu test?
Awesome, thank you guys so much for the quick and helpful response! you guys rock!

Yes CPU drives the Physics score
 
Why 144 fpm? 
 
The human eye cannot distinguish anything that fast--> over 90 fps is just bragging rights

I read some good articles lately about this, which I linked in another thread. It's not just the refresh itself, the framerate (and other things like how the backlighting is modulated) affect the motion blur when things are changing position on your screen for whatever reason (you're turning in a game or whatever). It does appear that 144hz makes a difference. There are diminishing returns though, and I'd happily settle for 120hz. 

m0demb0y

Cool GTX
The human eye cannot distinguish anything that fast--> over 90 fps is just bragging rights

Get out of here with that console BS. Depending on how you define a "frame" (image persistence is involved as well), humans can distinguish somewhere around 400-500 fps. Good explanation here: http://www.100fps.com/how...mes_can_humans_see.htm

Glad I amused you; now I'll try to at least share some of the science
 
 
You can not process an image faster than approximately 13 ms
 
 
144fps = [1.00seconds / 144] = signal of 0.00694 seconds (that's fast)  about 7ms
 
100ms = 0.10 seconds
10ms = 0.01 seconds
1ms = 0.001
 
The human brain can achieve the remarkable feat of processing an image seen for just 13 milliseconds, scientists have found. This lightning speed obliterates the previous record speed of 100 milliseconds reported by previous studies.
In the study, scientists showed people a series of images flashed for 13 to 80 milliseconds. Viewers successfully identified things like a "picnic" or "smiling couple" even after the briefest of glimpses.
"The fact that you can do that at these high speeds indicates to us that what vision does is find concepts," study leader Mary Potter, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT in Cambridge, Mass., said in a statement." That's what the brain is doing all day long — trying to understand what we're looking at."
 
sorce:  http://www.livescience.co...ages-record-speed.html
 
What is the Different speeds of Visual Perception?  
sorce: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/19918/what-limits-the-speed-of-human-perception
 

 
Photometry of the Eye
The photometric properties of the human eye are complicated. This is due to the detection system.
If the duration of a signal is shorter than 100 ms, the eye summarizes the stimulus to a signal which is proportional to the time. This is Bloch’s law.
 
source:  https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527403809_c01.pdf
 

Bad science is bad science...
 
Let me quote from one of your links CoolGTX:
But Potter's team found that although people's performance declined on average as the time was reduced, they still performed better than chance when identifying images flashed for as little as 13 milliseconds, the speed limit of the computer monitor they used.
 
So they tested down to 13 ms, didn't go below because they couldn't be bothered to get a high refresh rate monitor. You are trying to prove you can't see more than 60 FPS by using a 60 Hz monitor, which makes no sense.
 
Here's a study specifically looking at gap detection across age ranges: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826883/figure/F2/
Young people can be down well below 10 ms, round about 3 ms. They used a 1000 Hz source as good science would. These results jive with the Air Force studies showing pilots could identify planes from images flashed at 1/220th second (4.5 ms).

Cool GTX
I asked why OP was insisting on 144 FPS, back in Post 16 (Not 144 Hz Monitor)

Seems pretty obvious, he has a 144 Hz monitor, wants to run his games at max refresh rate to prevent tearing.
 

Cool GTX 
I mentioned 90 FPS as a limit that most can not see a difference above.
 
Re the fighter pilots: it also stated with training they learned to distinguish the shape of aircraft --> Not the same thing

 
It is the same thing, they used their eyes to see something you claimed was impossible to see: "The human eye cannot distinguish anything that fast--> over 90 fps is just bragging rights" You didn't claim only "most can not see a difference", you said the human eye was incapable of such a thing, which is plainly untrue. Glad to see you updated your claim to something more reasonable, though I also disagree that most people can't tell the diff.