Pyro411
Sadly I don't have a 1080Ti, however I have 2x1070Ti Ultra Silent cards and would probably upgrade to a 2080 Super if the single card performance beats the two in SLI and EVGA launches a killer trade in program... if not... I'll wait for PCIe v6.x to mature and hit the desktop market then build a new system with new card on that platform.

 just wait man...  just wait...
these super versions are silly... they just have a bit more cores and bit more clock...
you cant sin in waiting right now... major game releases like cyberpunk 2077 are just April 2020!! you have time!
you are fine right now| besides AMD announced  hybrid ray tracing etc.. etc.. etc...!! 
 
i came from 760 to a 1080 TI!! now that's an upgrade!! AND not gonna touch my 1080Ti so soon. no freaking way! 

Unless you own the 2,000. 4k 144hz monitor, there's no need to upgrade from the 1080ti.
What games are you even playing? None exist that require that sort of power unless you have that monitor.
I'm not gonna bother mentioning RTX either until it's matured properly.
Outside of being an enthusiast with OCing/numbers & scores, it's bizarre to me how many people upgrade and can't answer that simple question...wasted money & unused power.
So many people don't seem to understand the correlation between graphics card and monitor, and then the games that actually back it.
Same goes for SLI and what games actually support it and how well it's even scaled.
NO ONE should have supported Nvidia's crazed 2080ti price scheme, NO ONE, in my opinion.

HeavyHemi

Systom
Unless you own the 2,000. 4k 144hz monitor, there's no need to upgrade from the 1080ti.
What games are you even playing? None exist that require that sort of power unless you have that monitor.
I'm not gonna bother mentioning RTX either until it's matured properly.
Outside of being an enthusiast with OCing/numbers & scores, it's bizarre to me how many people upgrade and can't answer that simple question...wasted money & unused power.
So many people don't seem to understand the correlation between graphics card and monitor, and then the games that actually back it.
Same goes for SLI and what games actually support it and how well it's even scaled.
NO ONE should have supported Nvidia's crazed 2080ti price scheme, NO ONE, in my opinion.

Ah no. The majority of newer titles out there cannot be played at 4K and maintain a min FPS of 60 never mind 144 without reducing settings with a 1080 Ti.  So I'd  say your basic premise is wrong.
I'm not sure what your understanding is...but in general, you cannot have to much GPU power. Your sole argument you're making, is cost. And while you maybe be of the opinion that it's not worth the cost, others do, ie enthusiasts. Enthusiasts are not budget conscious for the most part. Lastly, unless you need this professionally, then it is simply more than you would like to spend on your HOBBY.

Hence unless you have those specific monitors...allow me to be more clear: I would never choose 4k resolution at 60fps versus 1440 at 144hz. ALWAYS frames first in my opinion, but to each their own.
That said, and my point being, if you're at 1440/100+hz the 1080ti is more than fine. Can you really argue this? I mean, really? Considering I still run a single 1080ti in my personal rig and I've built various other rigs with the 2080ti. (one client upgraded from the 1080ti even though I advised against it, at first he was hype for the latest and greatest, then after the hype, he realized he just wasted money and should've stayed with the 1080ti.)
You CAN have too much graphics power...1080p monitor 60 fps, but 2080ti? Yeah OK. I've literally seen people do this, playing Overwatch at that. This is why I clearly spelled out the correlation between monitor and graphics card as well as mentioning the exception for enthusiasts considering I'm fully aware of what enthusiasts are.
I do personally consider myself to be an enthusiast and even STILL I couldn't justify the cost for what you're getting. It just doesn't make sense FOR ME, It NEEDS to make sense FOR ME.
Now, when Cyberpunk releases...that'll probably be a reason.

Systom

HeavyHemi

Systom
Unless you own the 2,000. 4k 144hz monitor, there's no need to upgrade from the 1080ti.
What games are you even playing? None exist that require that sort of power unless you have that monitor.
I'm not gonna bother mentioning RTX either until it's matured properly.
Outside of being an enthusiast with OCing/numbers & scores, it's bizarre to me how many people upgrade and can't answer that simple question...wasted money & unused power.
So many people don't seem to understand the correlation between graphics card and monitor, and then the games that actually back it.
Same goes for SLI and what games actually support it and how well it's even scaled.
NO ONE should have supported Nvidia's crazed 2080ti price scheme, NO ONE, in my opinion.

Ah no. The majority of newer titles out there cannot be played at 4K and maintain a min FPS of 60 never mind 144 without reducing settings with a 1080 Ti.  So I'd  say your basic premise is wrong.
I'm not sure what your understanding is...but in general, you cannot have to much GPU power. Your sole argument you're making, is cost. And while you maybe be of the opinion that it's not worth the cost, others do, ie enthusiasts. Enthusiasts are not budget conscious for the most part. Lastly, unless you need this professionally, then it is simply more than you would like to spend on your HOBBY.

Hence unless you have those specific monitors...allow me to be more clear: I would never choose 4k resolution at 60fps versus 1440 at 144hz. ALWAYS frames first in my opinion, but to each their own.
That said, and my point being, if you're at 1440/100+hz the 1080ti is more than fine. Can you really argue this? I mean, really? Considering I still run a single 1080ti in my personal rig and I've built various other rigs with the 2080ti. (one client upgraded from the 1080ti even though I advised against it, at first he was hype for the latest and greatest, then after the hype, he realized he just wasted money and should've stayed with the 1080ti.)
You CAN have too much graphics power...1080p monitor 60 fps, but 2080ti? Yeah OK. I've literally seen people do this, playing Overwatch at that. This is why I clearly spelled out the correlation between monitor and graphics card as well as mentioning the exception for enthusiasts considering I'm fully aware of what enthusiasts are.
I do personally consider myself to be an enthusiast and even STILL I couldn't justify the cost for what you're getting. It just doesn't make sense FOR ME, It NEEDS to make sense FOR ME.
Now, when Cyberpunk releases...that'll probably be a reason.

No, I really cannot argue your personal preference or why you create an artificial limit on 'too much GPU power'. Would you argue that for CPU power or, SSD speed or???
Yes of course whatever you do, needs to make sense to you. Silly things others do or outliers, isn't an argument for the norm.
 

Ive had my FTW3 Ti for just short of 2yrs and have no plans to upgrade yet , as of now I have no need or want for ray tracing . I play 95% of my games in 4k with no problem at good FPS on my 5930k , but with all the Intel flaws Ive lost some good frames because of it . ~ Hence the newer AMD (2700x @ 4200 all core) rig thats been sitting in the wings for months just waiting to finish the cooling on it , then my FTW3 will go into that . ~ Even in the AMD rig I  probably will see no need to upgrade yet and just put the saved cash into a future 3700x/3800x , etc and go on from there . 
 
How much longer will I keep using my FTW Ti ....... quite bit more  ,1-2yrs or until RTX cards come down to a more reasonable price vs performance increase . Right now a possible cpu upgrade is way cheaper and will most likely get me a few more good fps than a $700-1000 gpu upgrade .

I have the ASUS PG27QU monitor paired with a set of EK cooled 1080TI FTW3's ...powererd by a Ryzen 2700X OC to 4.3Ghz on all cores, and I love it. You need atleast SLI to pull any decent frame rates off it...but Im over 100FPS in every game I play...Untill I kick HDR on witch drops it down to 98 FPS max due to DP Technology and Bandwidth (which truly beautiful in the games that support it). Its not about choosing FPS over graphics...it's about having the ability to choose either one you want depending on the game. Sure, playing First Person Shooter...You drop the resolution to 1440p and get the frames.  But playing games like Tomb Raider or something with great graphics...I want the graphics.  SLI might not scale well out of the box...you've got to mess with nvidia profile inspector or find a good SLI profile that someone else already took the time to make.  The only game I cant get to work with SLI and that doesn't give me over 100 FPS is the last Assasins Creed cause it literally doesnt support it at all cause its sponsored by AMD.  Which bring me to my answer...untill I can find a single card that will give over 100 FPS on my 4K 144HZ...I'm cool.  Other than that, I'd have to buy 2 of them and I'm not spending that kind of money again.

till something that can beat them that's cheaper. till then, 2 1080 ti ftw's.

While not running Ti's, I am still rocking 2x 1080's, and for the games I play(mostly ARK in my old age) I still get extremely good frame-rates at 1440p and could never even think about the sidegrade/downgrade to a 2080 or 2080 Ti, simply not worth the investment at this point given the cost hike of flagship GPU's. Ray Tracing is still Meh at this point, hoping maybe here in the next 2-3 years things will be looking better.  When 8GB isn't enough VRAM to push high res textures, that's when I upgrade. Not denying the 2080 Ti isn't blazing fast, because we all know it is, but damn! $1200-1300 for a non dual-GPU card? Nvidia can get bent there.
 
Happy Friday everyone!