Overkill - no way. You have 2 great cards, enjoy it. It is not overkill.
 
 
 
 

4K is going to quite possible with one GPU very soon. I'd wait but then again I don't have a lot of money. :D

So, i just upgraded to two of the EVGA Geforce GTX 1080ti SC (SLI)...
 
3D Mark TimeSpy ran a 13000 with an average of 100+ FPS at 4k..

 
So no its not overkill, its very very sweet.

HeavyHemi

Jszupiany
So here's my thoughts on the SLI thing.  Way back (I mean WAY back) I ran single cards and usually upgraded every 1.5-2 years.  Then when SLI started becoming a "thing" (anyone remember Dawn and Dusk?), I went with SLI GTX280's (~2008).  I then upgraded to SLI GTX465's (~2011), even adding a 3rd card somewhere down the line, before moving on to the SLI GTX 680's (~2014).  I didn't upgrade again until my most recent purchase, two christmas's ago, SLI 970's (~2015).  Every SLI setup I've had didn't decrease the time before upgrading and TBH the bump between cards probably would have been just as noticeable had I stuck to a single card for upgrades.  For the GTX 1080TI, I'm going back to a single card system.  SLI doesn't work in every game, I run at 1440p and I run 4 monitors.  So, I'd say it's overkill, especially if you plan on doing an upgrade every other year.  Just my $0.02.

It's too bad SLI support has declined so much. I think the 700 series was the probably apex. Maxwell had just as good of scaling but around this time is when several AAA titles came out that did not support SLI and also deferred rendering and other forms of interframe dependencies causing either no scaling or negative scaling. It's too bad, because when it works, it works well....well at least that's what I told myself with SLI OG TITAN ...I used one for PhysX when I went with the single 980 Ti.

My decision to go back to a single powerful card was when I tried Deus Ex: MD for the first time.  I usually get a new game and max everything out, do a FPS test, then back off the "known suspected settings" one a time to see what improvements I could get.  At one point I had backed everything out and had to go to medium visual settings to get anything over 60 fps.  Then when talking to a friend he suggested disabling SLI.  Boom, high visual, 90 FPS.  Then ME:A comes out and has similar issues.  Just can't justify the time or energy in checking out every AAA title I get. 

sethleigh

nvidyuh
4K is going to quite possible with one GPU very soon. I'd wait but then again I don't have a lot of money. :D

It already is. Not sure what you think isn't hitting 60fps now with a single 1080ti and a good cpu.

Btw, I tested Witcher 3 last night with my 1080ti on air (my water block came in today and I just installed it) and the lowest I saw was I think 55fps and usually it was sitting on or within a frame or two of 60 fps. With 4K there's really no need for AA, or at least not for aggressive AA, so I have no doubt the game could be pegged at the 60fps limit of my monitor.

Haven't reinstalled The Division yet, but given what frames I was getting on my 1080 SC, I have no doubt it too will be sitting on or around 60fps on this card. I haven't even yet attempted to push the overclock on the card yet either.

Just curious I'm assuming you are not running Witcher 3 maxed out correct? Don't get me wrong I know you will get better scores than me since your cpu is better but just wanted to know.


Honestly this is kind of what I mean by people saying you can use a single 1080ti for 4k. Tell us what settings you are using so we know. And here is the other thing, that game is almost 2 years old. I have said this before I think, if you don't mind turning down a few (not lots) settings, then yes a single 1080ti (matched with a high end current cpu) is just capable of 60fps in basically every title. Now if you need to have the settings maxed, then no a single 1080ti will not pull it off on all titles. And I'm guessing there will be another title coming out at some point that will drag down the fps even more with single cards.
 
Really I think it all depends on how you want to play. 4k@60fps, 3440x1440@100Hz, or heck the new Acer and Asus monitors coming that are 4k@144Hz. I mean that thing you will not be able to push without two 1080tis. So I still say not overkill, overkill is only if you are getting in excess of 144/165 fps while running maxed out on every title you play at the max resolution of your monitor.

ipaine
Honestly this is kind of what I mean by people saying you can use a single 1080ti for 4k. Tell us what settings you are using so we know. And here is the other thing, that game is almost 2 years old. I have said this before I think, if you don't mind turning down a few (not lots) settings, then yes a single 1080ti (matched with a high end current cpu) is just capable of 60fps in basically every title.

I just started it at 4K resolution. I hit High in post-processing, and Ultra in graphics. That included hairworks on. I just rode around in a wooded area where my character happened to be, killed a wolf, rode through some broken-down buildings, etc. I was seeing around 52 fps, with it dipping down into the 40s for brief instants a couple of times.

When I turned off hairworks I was seeing 55-60fps, with it typically sitting at 58-60fps. That includes with AA and so forth still on. Since at 4K the AA settings are pretty unimportant, I have no doubt that with a couple of very minor tweaks that one would never even notice at 4K it would be hard pegged at 60fps.
 

Now if you need to have the settings maxed, then no a single 1080ti will not pull it off on all titles. And I'm guessing there will be another title coming out at some point that will drag down the fps even more with single cards.

 
I will grant that if one means literally every possible setting on its maximum possible setting, and literally every game that anyone has yet shipped, the 1080ti, at least with my current overclocked gpu and cpu settings, still isn't there.

But almost every game out there will peg 4K/60 at maximum settings, and the hardest ones, like Witcher 3, are all but there, and are in fact there with a couple of tweaks which at 4K resolution you will never even see.
 

Really I think it all depends on how you want to play. 4k@60fps, 3440x1440@100Hz, or heck the new Acer and Asus monitors coming that are 4k@144Hz. I mean that thing you will not be able to push without two 1080tis. So I still say not overkill, overkill is only if you are getting in excess of 144/165 fps while running maxed out on every title you play at the max resolution of your monitor.

Well the 4K/144 monitors aren't out yet, so I wouldn't buy cards today for the sake of the future, since when those monitors hit the shelves it's likely there will be a new generation of cards, and one with the money for those monitors when they actually ship probably won't be satisfied with a last-generation card(s).

I have no idea whether a 1080ti will peg a 1440p/144 monitor, since I don't have one. I agree it depends on what one has, what one wants, and how much money one is willing to burn to get it. I can imagine there might well be people who just won't be satisfied with a single 1080ti. I'm currently not one of them. 

TRClark911Witcher 3 is a different animal.  I run 55-60 fps with everything maxxed.  The lowest I've seen is 52 fps.  I usually average 56-57 fps over a gaming session.  As was said though, AA isn't needed at 4k and I could turn that off in addition to Hairworks and probably cap at 60 fps... it's just not something I'm worried about right now and don't care enough to bother.
 
I'm definitely not sitting here saying "ZOMG I ONLY HAVE 56 FPS THIS COMPUTER IS MEH I NEED SLI FOR THAT EXTRA 3 FPS" while tearing my eyes out or something.

No doubt there are folks who enjoy the posturing/trolling in internet e-peen discussions who will dismiss your machine as total crap because of those last 3 fps. I agree with you, though: whatever.

I haven't played BF1 since the beta but my 1080 SC was doing quite well with that. I don't recall if it was pegged or not, and I never bought the game after it shipped. I don't own a lot of the games that are out now that might challenge this gpu, other than Witcher 3 and The Division, and I'm no authority on how every single game runs.

I also didn't bother rebooting my machine into my hardcore "max OC" mode to run these tests either. I had a nice, stable OC of 4.4ghz with my i7 6900 for testing purposes after I rebuilt my machine last summer, and a nice stable OC that was sitting around 2139Mhz on my water-cooled 1080 SC, but I set up a less aggressive 4.2ghz OC for everyday use, since it's significantly easier on the hardware (less aggressive voltage boost required, etc.) and I honestly wouldn't notice the difference in anything I do, or even really in any game I play. In fact, most of the games I actually play were pegged out with my 1080 SC with no OC applied at all, so for the most part I don't even usually have an OC going either.

I'm just OCing this 1080ti to satisfy my curiosity about what it can do. I probably won't bother OCing it most of the time when I'm gaming, and certainly not when I turn on Folding. 

GPU overkill not exist.
To be honest I would not ask here because people will say No, but I would install GTX1080Ti SLI on 1080p without problem and increase AA to max, clean picture as reality. Off course only until I replace monitor. But small resolution would not stop me to enjoy in SLI.
Only I think even GTX1080 SLI is great choice.
Example 3840x2160 could eat performance of TITAN Xp SLI easy.
Only if owner increase max AA and plan to play new games for 12-24 months.
Usually some new game show up from time to time and need 50-60% more GPU performance than most graphic demanding games, and all configurations are capable to offer only 30-35 fps on highest settings. Because of that GPU overkill not exist.
Always is more welcomed special now when 60 fps is not limitation any more and people search for 120 and 140 fps.

sleevo
power user (plural power users)

1. (computing) A person who makes heavy use of computers, running many applications and capable of using advanced functionality.
2. (computing) A computer user who seeks and uses products having the most features and the fastest performance.
3. Enthusiast

EVGA is Here: Enthusiast
For those who think 2 cards are an overkill then maybe you should move on over the MSI 

Vlada011
If someone use 4K monitors than shouldn't ask at all about overkill.
He should ask is it enough GTX1080Ti SLI. That's much better question.
Because GTX1080Ti SLI is enough but not with enabled AA.
With AA Off GTX1080Ti SLI is just perfect for 4K. It's good because resolution is high and than even x2 AA is enough.

This x1000. If the 1080ti is capable of handling any resolution+quality thrown at it, then yes, you might have an argument that 2 1080ti's might "overkill". But as of now, a single 1080ti will noy do 4k 144hz, much less 12k for surround screen set ups, and much less at 144hz or more. 

Overkill means you are using more than what is required, but even 4 1080ti's in sli wouldn't be overkill for a 12k setup. 

sethleigh

TRClark911Witcher 3 is a different animal.  I run 55-60 fps with everything maxxed.  The lowest I've seen is 52 fps.  I usually average 56-57 fps over a gaming session.  As was said though, AA isn't needed at 4k and I could turn that off in addition to Hairworks and probably cap at 60 fps... it's just not something I'm worried about right now and don't care enough to bother.
 
I'm definitely not sitting here saying "ZOMG I ONLY HAVE 56 FPS THIS COMPUTER IS MEH I NEED SLI FOR THAT EXTRA 3 FPS" while tearing my eyes out or something.

 
 
 
No doubt there are folks who enjoy the posturing/trolling in internet e-peen discussions who will dismiss your machine as total crap because of those last 3 fps. I agree with you, though: whatever.

Haha... yeah.  
 
... and for those people who say SLI would be needed for 4k 144hz... of course it would.  Problem is though 4k 60hz is what people like myself are running right now... and for that, it's not needed.
 
 

So I already tested the Witcher 3 with just the single 1080ti fe. The results are earlier in the thread so I will include them here for ease.
 
     1440p
     Two test runs
     Min = 56fps & 57fps
     Max = 84fps & 74fps
     Avg = 70.3fps & 65.978fps
 
     2160p (using DSR)
     Min = 34fps & 34fps
     Max = 53fps & 47fps
     Avg = 39.978fps & 40.511fps
 
So I have since gotten my second 1080ti fe installed and ran a few more tests
 
1440p (completely maxed settings including hairworks and AA)
Min = 76fps
Max = 110fps
Avg = 91.3fps
 
2160p (using DSR) (completely maxed settings including hairworks and AA)
Min = 51fps
Max = 58fps
Avg = 55.9fps
 
2160p (using DSR) (Everything maxed except AA turned off)
Min = 66fps
Max = 83fps
Avg = 73.9fps
 
5120x2880 (using DSR) (Everything maxed except AA turned off) (I just did this for the hell of it and to see how it would do.
Min = 44fps
Max = 62fps
Avg = 51.6fps
 
This is of course all run on my system with a i7-4770k@4.25Ghz with 32GB ram. So I'm sure I could get at least a few more fps with a newer chip like the 7700 or 6800 or something like that. So take the results how you will. But I think if you ask me having the second card is certainly not overkill.

Loving my overkill SLI...

bcavnaugh
You could add on is it worth having a Dedicated PhysX Card?
It is asked with every New Graphics Model that is released.

It makes a significant difference for me at 4K. That was always the issue with PhysX for me. Was the eye candy worth the FPS hit... I've always had a suitable PhysX GPU around. But for those without one and suffering the FPS loss...that's a toss up.

 
It would give you a little extra with two. If you can afford it, go for it.