Is GTX 970 Sli worth it?

[NovaTronMC]

I purchased my GTX 970 a year ago and im really happy with its performance with 1080p. But now im wanting to play on 4k or atleast in 1440p.
I already have a MSI 970 4g and i was planning on purchasing a SLI bridge and another 970 in 2 months.
Is it worth it? Like, will it improve my 4k or 1440p fps on games like GTA and Witcher 3?

I know my PSU can hold them since i have a 850 watt PSU and if i have a P9x79 Asus MoBo can i run SLI? It has 3 pci slots but i don't know if they're 16x

 

[fudgecakes99]

https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/P9X79/

Is this your mobo? It says its quad sli/crossfire ready. I don't think you necessarily have to have multiple x16 ports to sli. My opinion. I think you're better off getting the best single card as opposed to 2 mid tier cards. You'd probably pull better performance with a 970 sli set up then maybe a 980 ti. But the cost being not all games are optimized around sli. And unless you play only a few games it's just not worth it to me. Though nvidia's pretty good about getting drivers out. It'd still be up to the devs to even have that functionality in game.

And even then the performance isn't linear. So if you put two cards together you don't get 2x the performance of a 970. You get maybe 1.5x in an optimized game.

 

[computertech82]

This shows SLI and not SLI
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2015-vga-charts/07-Thief-2160p,3670.html

SLI will improve the speed.

 

[10tacle]

I have 970 SLI (overclocked to near 980 SLI performance) and a 1440p monitor. Witcher 3 with all options maxed out/enabled except Hairworks and I get mid-70s, dipping down into the 50s sometimes. That's the heaviest hitter.

I don't have GTA V but that and most other games run extremely well, over 80FPS, some into the 100s. But remember, if your monitor is only 60Hz, you are wasting GPU power above 60FPS. I have my monitor overclocked to 80Hz and V-sync my games there. W3 I run at 60Hz and V-sync there.

The only reason I got a second 970 was because I upgraded to 1440p and the single card wasn't cutting it in games like Crysis 3, where I was only getting 45-50FPS. Forget about 4K and 970SLI unless you want to play with quality settings dialed back.

 

[nikoli707]

uwqhd is a better option than 4k anyways.

 

[photonboy]

A few points:

1) The quality difference between 4K and 2560x1440 is pretty minor in my experience, but the demand on the PC is huge

(In fact, you usually have to sacrifice frame rate as most 4K are capped to 60Hz.)

2) Buying a new monitor?
I strongly suggest saving up for a GSYNC, 2560x1440, IPS 4ms (or less) monitor.

GSync is awesome and it means you don't have to constantly worry about hitting a specific frame rate when using VSYNC (or getting screen tear when not using VSYNC).

Summary:
In your case I suggest a good GSync monitor. I'd worry about whether a 2nd card is worth it after that, but in general I'm against multi-GPU as some titles don't support it or worse cause added stutter.

 

[nikoli707]

A few points:

1) The quality difference between 4K and 2560x1440 is pretty minor in my experience, but the demand on the PC is huge

(In fact, you usually have to sacrifice frame rate as most 4K are capped to 60Hz.)

2) Buying a new monitor?
I strongly suggest saving up for a GSYNC, 2560x1440, IPS 4ms (or less) monitor.

GSync is awesome and it means you don't have to constantly worry about hitting a specific frame rate when using VSYNC (or getting screen tear when not using VSYNC).

Summary:
In your case I suggest a good GSync monitor. I'd worry about whether a 2nd card is worth it after that, but in general I'm against multi-GPU as some titles don't support it or worse cause added stutter.

i agree. the pixels per inch of a 27" 1440p is pretty ideal. making a 27" with 2160p increases it by 50% but your eyes are going to have a hard time seeing that. if you are seeing a difference then it would be because of the display quality and not the actual sharpness. many 28" 4k monitors are still tft/tn based panels that will pale in comparison to ips panel technology and viewing pleasure.

although 3440x1440 is just becoming popular in the high end, they come in curved ips 100hz gsync flavors(expensive). 3440x1440(uwqhd) is also somewhat of a triple monitor killer that offers many benefits of multi monitor gaming without any of the drawbacks.

i noticed earlier today there was lg 34" curved ips uwqhd for $599, though it was only 60hz. dreamy would be 90hz+ though. but that is still an exceptional monitor and for 97% of gamers it is far and beyond more than enough.

but like photon suggested, finding an ips 1440p panel that can be overclocked to 90hz+ is not too hard now and shouldn't break the bank or require more than sli970s/980ti to be driven successfully.

 

[fudgecakes99]

A few points:

1) The quality difference between 4K and 2560x1440 is pretty minor in my experience, but the demand on the PC is huge

(In fact, you usually have to sacrifice frame rate as most 4K are capped to 60Hz.)

2) Buying a new monitor?
I strongly suggest saving up for a GSYNC, 2560x1440, IPS 4ms (or less) monitor.

GSync is awesome and it means you don't have to constantly worry about hitting a specific frame rate when using VSYNC (or getting screen tear when not using VSYNC).

Summary:
In your case I suggest a good GSync monitor. I'd worry about whether a 2nd card is worth it after that, but in general I'm against multi-GPU as some titles don't support it or worse cause added stutter.

Regarding your experience with 4k. I tried going from 1080p to 4k with my rig and regardless of the monitor having some horribly washed out overly vibrant color's, which i also partially blame on the resolution itself. I couldn't notice a visible difference between the two other then taking a .png and zooming into the photo. It didn't add anything for me.

 

[photonboy]

A few points:

1) The quality difference between 4K and 2560x1440 is pretty minor in my experience, but the demand on the PC is huge

(In fact, you usually have to sacrifice frame rate as most 4K are capped to 60Hz.)

2) Buying a new monitor?
I strongly suggest saving up for a GSYNC, 2560x1440, IPS 4ms (or less) monitor.

GSync is awesome and it means you don't have to constantly worry about hitting a specific frame rate when using VSYNC (or getting screen tear when not using VSYNC).

Summary:
In your case I suggest a good GSync monitor. I'd worry about whether a 2nd card is worth it after that, but in general I'm against multi-GPU as some titles don't support it or worse cause added stutter.

Regarding your experience with 4k. I tried going from 1080p to 4k with my rig and regardless of the monitor having some horribly washed out overly vibrant color's, which i also partially blame on the resolution itself. I couldn't notice a visible difference between the two other then taking a .png and zooming into the photo. It didn't add anything for me.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I have no idea what you're talking about..

 

[10tacle]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I have no idea what you're talking about..

Glad I wasn't the only person going whaaaa ?

 

[NovaTronMC]

A few points:

1) The quality difference between 4K and 2560x1440 is pretty minor in my experience, but the demand on the PC is huge

(In fact, you usually have to sacrifice frame rate as most 4K are capped to 60Hz.)

2) Buying a new monitor?
I strongly suggest saving up for a GSYNC, 2560x1440, IPS 4ms (or less) monitor.

GSync is awesome and it means you don't have to constantly worry about hitting a specific frame rate when using VSYNC (or getting screen tear when not using VSYNC).

Summary:
In your case I suggest a good GSync monitor. I'd worry about whether a 2nd card is worth it after that, but in general I'm against multi-GPU as some titles don't support it or worse cause added stutter.

And what do you think its a good 1440p 120hz or 144hz monitor for a cheap price? I really dont know that much about monitors but i have a 120hz 1080p monitor right now.