HeavyHemi

rla1999
Witcher 3 has been my goto game for a while to test GPU ability but when I got my 1080 TI, I got a free game so I chose ghost recon. Great game but demanding. I get over 70 FPS minimum with all my games in 1440p except ghost recon. It's in the low to high 50s. This is how they get you. But one game below 60 FPS won't get me to get a second 1080 TI. For you 4K users, it's a different story. It's never-ending 😐

Just for giggles, I just ran Crysis at 4K all settings maxed except no AA..
 
==============================================================
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
   Play Time: 26.69s, Average FPS: 74.95
   Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 94.26 at frame 1751
   Average Tri/Sec: 13960587, Tri/Frame: 186269
   Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.92
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
   Play Time: 24.49s, Average FPS: 81.65
   Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 101.16 at frame 1002
   Average Tri/Sec: 16057609, Tri/Frame: 196664
   Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.66
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
   Play Time: 24.51s, Average FPS: 81.61
   Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 101.16 at frame 1002
   Average Tri/Sec: 16115541, Tri/Frame: 197468
   Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.64
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
   Play Time: 24.55s, Average FPS: 81.46
   Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 102.48 at frame 1015
   Average Tri/Sec: 15989822, Tri/Frame: 196294
   Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.67
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

these are good numbers for 4K.  Crysis 3 is also a demanding game. 

rla1999

HeavyHemi

rla1999
Witcher 3 has been my goto game for a while to test GPU ability but when I got my 1080 TI, I got a free game so I chose ghost recon. Great game but demanding. I get over 70 FPS minimum with all my games in 1440p except ghost recon. It's in the low to high 50s. This is how they get you. But one game below 60 FPS won't get me to get a second 1080 TI. For you 4K users, it's a different story. It's never-ending 😐

Just for giggles, I just ran Crysis at 4K all settings maxed except no AA..
 
==============================================================
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
  Play Time: 26.69s, Average FPS: 74.95
  Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 94.26 at frame 1751
  Average Tri/Sec: 13960587, Tri/Frame: 186269
  Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.92
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
  Play Time: 24.49s, Average FPS: 81.65
  Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 101.16 at frame 1002
  Average Tri/Sec: 16057609, Tri/Frame: 196664
  Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.66
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
  Play Time: 24.51s, Average FPS: 81.61
  Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 101.16 at frame 1002
  Average Tri/Sec: 16115541, Tri/Frame: 197468
  Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.64
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
  Play Time: 24.55s, Average FPS: 81.46
  Min FPS: 54.92 at frame 1972, Max FPS: 102.48 at frame 1015
  Average Tri/Sec: 15989822, Tri/Frame: 196294
  Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.67
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

these are good numbers for 4K.  Crysis 3 is also a demanding game. 

Well actually, that is the first Crysis...

Time doesn't stop today, it goes on.  With time, the trend over the last 15 years of PC gaming, the minimum requirements of every new game needs more hardware than the previous year.  In fact, what was once high-end, within 5 years becomes a future titles' minimum.  That gives you an idea of when is a right time to upgrade, depending on what quality you're willing to put up with or settle on.

Two GTX1080 Ti's may be overkill for some games and resolutions if your frame rate preference isn't high, but that won't be the case with next year's games, or the year after.  Many among us would keep hardware for 2-3 years and upgrade again, so they don't have to witness their system demonstrate impotency with a future game unable to max out details.  But if your preference bar of expectation is low, then overkill allows future-proofing where you don't have to upgrade for a long time.

Take me for instance, I owned a GTX260 (equivalent to an Intel Iris Pro HD6200) for almost 7 years because I didn't have the funds.  Only in the last two weeks upgraded to a GTX1080 Ti-- for me such a move is beyond overkill, it could be seen as a waste of money by hundreds of dollars, I could have been good with a GTX1050 Ti.  Except I may keep it another 7 years.  If I got another GTX1080 Ti for SLI, it may only add another 1-2 years.  I currently have a one year old 1440p display and intend on a 4K display before the end of the year, because I can.

Bottom line: Everyone has mentioned it, we're all different with our preferences and opinions, do not expect a one-size-fits-all rule to go by, you got to make your own.  But don't feel bad about getting too much, it will just last longer, at the cost of using more power from the wall.

TRClark911

TheWizardMan
If you're gaming in 4K it's absolutely not overkill. Although, it depends on whether the games you play support, and are optimized for, SLI. 
 
With the impending release of 4K 144HZ monitors (albeit, for the ridiculous price of $2000), you'll even be able to use 1080ti in SLI to its full potential.

LOL $2000...
 
I'll suffer just a little while longer with the 1080 Ti being the single card solution for my 4k 60hz gaming woes.

I think the "final" resolution is 8k. I don't think the human eye goes anywhere beyond 8k resolution perception. So we have plenty of more woes ahead! :D

comrade
I drive a four year old Chrysler minivan..., but I'd really like a new Dodge Charger or challenger with the Hellcat engine.  (The new Dodge Demon would also be quite acceptable!)

Heh... I wanted a Hellcat too but it wasn't worth an extra $35k to me, so I settled with the 5.7L...  0-60 in 5.3 is pretty fast for a 4500 lb car.
 
She's got the Hellcat ram air and rims which is as close as I'll ever get to one. 

HeavyHemi
What are all these strange posts I'm seeing about *overkill*.
 
There's no such thing in graphics...

Please let me know what adjective you would use then to describe not needing a 2nd 1080 Ti on a 4k 60hz gaming rig because the 1st 1080 Ti already gets 60 fps.
 
When the Asus 4k 144hz is released I'm going to seriously consider it and a 2nd Ti... but now?  Ummmm.... no.  All I see is $700 being spent to pad the 3Dmark score.

HeavyHemi
How about *humor*.

Thought so...  LOL cuz gaming in 4k 60hz with a pair of 1080 Ti cards is kinda like gaming in 1080p with a 1080 Ti card... not necessary to achieve top performance.
 
By all means though, do it for future proofing. 
 
 

HeavyHemi
It's a matter of preference as *necessary* is subjective to the individual. I don't like reducing settings to maintain a min of 60 FPS. A pretty common baseline. Several titles out there require to you made some noticeable graphical compromises to maintain that. Frankly, more of a reason for me not getting another, is SLI support declining among newer titles. If it were still as well supported, getting two would be an easy choice for *top performance* at 4K. I think we just have different expectations. There's really no right or wrong when you're dabbling in the top end.

Yeah I guess so... different expectations.
 

MSim
It would be overkill if you was running 1080p, but not for 4k.

The only possible 1080p monitor that would need a 1080ti would be the crazy Asus ROG Swift PG258Q that runs at 240Hz. But the people that would be buying that monitor wouldn't be playing at maxed out settings so it would still be pointless.    

HeavyHemi
 
It's a matter of preference as *necessary* is subjective to the individual. I don't like reducing settings to maintain a min of 60 FPS. A pretty common baseline. Several titles out there require to you made some noticeable graphical compromises to maintain that. Frankly, more of a reason for me not getting another, is SLI support declining among newer titles. If it were still as well supported, getting two would be an easy choice for *top performance* at 4K. I think we just have different expectations. There's really no right or wrong when you're dabbling in the top end.

 
I agree. there is no right or wrong; just a matter of preference.  We each have our reasons to pick the GPU we decided on.   At the end of the day, as long as we are all satisfied, it's all that matters.   I don't like reducing settings either.   
 

TRClark911

HeavyHemi
It's a matter of preference as *necessary* is subjective to the individual. I don't like reducing settings to maintain a min of 60 FPS. A pretty common baseline. Several titles out there require to you made some noticeable graphical compromises to maintain that. Frankly, more of a reason for me not getting another, is SLI support declining among newer titles. If it were still as well supported, getting two would be an easy choice for *top performance* at 4K. I think we just have different expectations. There's really no right or wrong when you're dabbling in the top end.

Yeah I guess so... different expectations.
 

Nothing wrong with that
 
 

Unless overclocked heavily, I haven't seen a single review of a new title hitting 4k 60hz nonstop. Playable at close to 60fps but not 100% of the time.
As for overkill, it just depends on your end goal. I have a 2560 x 1080 screen for gaming but 90g of the time my pc is folding and crunching for team EVGA and the more cards the better.

ipkha
Unless overclocked heavily, I haven't seen a single review of a new title hitting 4k 60hz nonstop. Playable at close to 60fps but not 100% of the time.
As for overkill, it just depends on your end goal. I have a 2560 x 1080 screen for gaming but 90g of the time my pc is folding and crunching for team EVGA and the more cards the better.

I play overwatch at 4K at 100% render scale at 70 FPS nonstop. It fluctuates between 69-71 FPS.

Systom
Pointless, 4k 120hz monitors don't exist yet.
Then again, SLI is pretty pointless as well, horrible support, if ever, and if it does support it, crappy scaling.
Been down the SLI road before, not worth it in my opinion.

Good to know because I don't think it's worth it either. 

Systom
Pointless, 4k 120hz monitors don't exist yet.
Then again, SLI is pretty pointless as well, horrible support, if ever, and if it does support it, crappy scaling.
Been down the SLI road before, not worth it in my opinion.

Sure they do...
 
http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/dell-up3017q-30-inch-4k-120hz-oled-monitor/
 
I'm at 4K and like everyone else, we need to reduce settings to run many newer titles. So, MORE performance, would not be overkill at all IMO. I think where we're having a slight disconnect is needing SLI to achieve it.  I agree there is validity in the argument that SLI is as not nearly as well supported as it used to be. Perhaps that colors the perception of it's 'performance to value'. So let me pose it this way, if for say another $500 you could get a single GPU a mythical GTX 1180 Ti Ubertron with 50% improvement, would that then still be overkill? I fundamentally have an issue with the term 'overkill'. We have folks that spend quite a sum to get an extra 100mhz our their processor but somehow GPU's, which take all that expensive CPU horsepower and translate it to the screen, get tagged as 'overkill'.   I guess what I'm saying is....Where is Volta?

Razrback16
@ OP - as some others said, no, it depends on what resolution you game at though. I play at 4k - Just got my 1080 Ti cards installed this past Thursday and they're great. Don't regret buying (2) at all - playing Witcher 3 in 4k resolution at a steady 60fps with plenty of overhead on the GPUs for future proofing. If I was playing in 1440p, then it would be overkill. :)

I'll have my 1080ti stepup either late this week or early next week (my 1080SC2 upgrade arrives tomorrow, but thanks to auto-registration I'm already at Step 5 in the stepup queue) so I'll load up Witcher 3 again and see for myself, but I was in the 40s already with one OCed 1080 SC, and fully expect 60fps at 4K/full quality with the 1080ti. Since that and one or two others were the only games I ever play that weren't already pegged at 60fps on my 4K monitor, I'd say that at least for a similar setup, two 1080ti really is overkill. Now, if someone were trying to drive dual 1440p 144hz monitors or something, I'd agree it's probably not overkill, but short of something like that, yeah.

I wouldn't buy two 1080ti right now in anticipation of a future 4K 144hz monitor, since by the time that actually shows up, and can be afforded by mere mortals, one or two generations of replacements for the 1080ti will almost certainly already be out.

In the meantime, I'm going to do some soul-searching and find a way to make myself survive with only one 1080ti.