Power Consumption: GPGPU Stress Test
We'll take one step further and push the Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC as far as it will go. The resulting 191 W (without changing the power target) are right around where AMD’s TDP said the card would max out. This also shows that the manufacturer’s specifications can generally be trusted, especially since increasing the clock frequency doesn’t change the power draw as long as the other settings are kept the same.
And now lets focus on a perfect minute’s worth of gently smoothed curve.

The measurements at the motherboard slot confirm, once again, that all of the power values we saw fell well within the acceptable range.
Let’s take a look at the individual measurements again in our table.
| Minimum | Maximum | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCIe 12V | 57 W | 175 W | 140 W |
| Motherboard 3.3V | 3 W | 6 W | 5 W |
| Motherboard 12V | 19 W | 83 W | 47 W |
| Graphics Card Total | 87 W | 250 W | 191 W |
List of All Individual Values per Supply Line
Once again, the following gallery shows all power consumption values for each supply line.
Voltages
The average voltage is 11.9 V. Those fluctuations we saw are making an appearance yet again.
The 191 W torture test result is almost the exact TDP as stated by the manufacturer. In light of the higher computing power requirements of OpenCL and DirectCompute, the Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC’s performance yield is higher than that of a comparable Kepler-based GeForce graphics card in places. Still, we’re talking about catching up to the competition from an efficiency perspective, not surpassing it. Tonga will probably have trouble going up against Maxwell.
|
|
|
|
|
- The Radeon's GCN Is Updated Again: The Tonga GPU
- Asus Strix Radeon R9 285
- Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC
- Test Setup and Benchmark Suite
- Synthetic Benchmark Results
- Titanfall and Battlefield 4 Results
- Thief and Arma 3 Results
- Grid Autosport and Assassin's Creed IV Results
- Watch Dogs and Far Cry 3 Results
- Idle Power Consumption Results
- Gaming Power Consumption Results
- GPGPU Power Consumption Results
- Temperature and Noise Results
- Radeon R9 285 Holds its Own at $250



Good to see AMD have tackled the noise and temperature issues that have plagued it's previous 28nm cards as well but it's a bit late in the day given that 20nm shouldn't be to far off now.
Also, on the last page, you guys wrote R7 270X instead of R9, and in the chart it says "Relative to Radeon HD 7950 Boost". Oh, and in the Pros section, it says the 285 has R9 260 like performance?
[EDIT by Cleeve]
Thanks for the proofread, fixing it now!
[/edit]
I prefer get a r9 280 and downclock get same results. I can't see the point of this heat on graphics. maybe drivers. OR THIS IS HAWAII XT! Too much Heat!
I think the guys see if they hit the OC the room Will burn! maybe a problem with drivers.
Last time i see that Heat 290x tests. lol!
But in fact, the memory interface was cut by a third (384 bit -> 256 bit), not half.
[Edit by Cleeve]
Good point, fixed! Thx.
[/edit]
[Edit by Cleeve]
Good catch, fixed but might take a while to populate.
[/Edit]
Faster memory would have helped but more would not have made much of a difference: most of the extra memory on GPUs with more memory channels gets filled with extra copies of resources to improve availability. Without those extra channels, filling more RAM with extra copies would make little difference.
The R7 265 is faster than the R7 260X, yet the R9 285 is slower than the R9 280X?
The R7 265 is faster than the R7 260X, yet the R9 285 is slower than the R9 280X?
Yea this should have been named 275 or 275x.
The 280X probably should have been the 285, and this card should have been released as the 280X. Or it could be next-gen; call it the 380 or 375.
The 270/280 are just rehashes of HD7xxx designs while the 285 is a cut-down 290... and the 285 does beat the 280 enough times to earn its place in the 28x range.
Give the 285 a 6GT/s memory interface and it would slot in more solidly between the 280 and 280X.
The R7 265 is faster than the R7 260X, yet the R9 285 is slower than the R9 280X?
Indeed, naming schemes are always kind of bogus.
260< 260X < 265
280<=285< 280X
That's just the way it is.