AMD Radeon R9 285 Review: Tonga and GCN Update 3.0

Temperature and Noise Results

Temperatures during Continuous Operation

Lower power consumption should result in lower GPU temperatures under load, which, in turn, should lead to a simpler and quieter cooling solution. It sounds good in theory, but let’s take a look at how the Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC actually handles heat.

  

Infrared Measurements with the Optris PI450

Interestingly, we’ve identified a method to confirm what our sensors tell us in the form of the PI450 by Optris. This piece of equipment is an infrared camera that was developed specifically for process monitoring. It supplies real-time thermal images at a rate of 80 Hz. The pictures are sent via USB to a separate system, where they can be recorded as video. The PI450’s thermal sensitivity is 40 mK, making it ideal for assessing small gradients.

Warmup Process with Pictures, Video, and Numbers

The ambient temperature was 22 degrees Celsius during all measurements. On the open bench table, the Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC comes in at 29 degrees Celsius at idle, 64 degrees Celsius during gaming, and 65-66 degrees Celsius during the stress test.

It’s plain to see that, even under a constant load, the only area that really heats up is around the voltage converters. The cooler’s surface comes in at 72 degrees Celsius, which is definitely acceptable.

Things don’t look as pretty when turning the graphics card around. Low fan RPM are certainly nicer to listen to, but they’re not so great when it comes to cooling the voltage converters. It’s a pretty safe bet that the back of the board gets just as hot as the components on the front after the warmup phase. Consequently, the almost 90 degrees Celsius measured at the area on the back of the board that has the voltage converters on the front are a realistic result.

This doesn’t cause any damage, of course, since the board and all active components involved are designed for high temperatures like these. Then again, we also see how the temperatures spread across the board to areas where the connectors of sensitive components have been permanently soldered to the board. We’ve illustrated the whole process with our 2-minute (originally 20-minute) time-lapse video.

Incidentally, this finding isn’t unique to the Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC. All current high-end graphics cards’ boards get excessively hot. A backplate doesn’t help either and might well be counterproductive. The table below provides a summary of all temperature results.


Idle
3D Workload -
Open Benchtable
3D Workload - 
Closed Case
Gigabyte R9 285 Windforce OC
29 °C
64 °C
66-67 °C
Gigabyte R9 280X Windforce
30 °C73 °C75 °C

Noise Measurement

Graphics cards’ noise measurements are performed using a calibrated high-end studio microphone (supercardioid) positioned perpendicular to the middle of the graphics card in question at a distance of 50 cm. This distance, in conjunction with the very strong cardioid directionality of the microphone, represents a compromise between avoiding noise due to fan turbulence and avoiding ambient noise, which can never be completely eliminated. We performed all of the noise measurements at night for this reason.

We’ve also used a closed case to simulate everyday-life conditions. After the warmup phase, we don’t just measure the temperatures, but also the fans’ RPM. We then manually set the fans’ RPM to these values after shifting to the open setup. Doing it this way allows for real comparison measurements under identical acoustic conditions.

So how does the Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC fare when it comes to noise? Pretty well, actually.

This is what the cold hard numbers look like:


Idle
3D Workload -
Open Benchtable
3D Workload - 
Closed Case
Gigabyte R9 285 Windforce OC
30.9 dB(A)
35.5 dB(A)
36.8 dB(A)
Gigabyte R9 280X Windforce
31.4 dB(A)42.7 dB(A)
44.9 dB(A)

We also captured a few more load noise comparison data points in our Canadian labs. These were performed in an open case environment, from 3" behind the output bezel of the graphics cards, after 10 minutes of Battlefield 4: 

While the Radeon HD 7870 reference card is the loudest, all of these cards deliver acceptable acoustic performance. Having said that, Asus' Strix Radeon R9 285 stands out as extra quiet in this particular comparison.

Loading...

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
64 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • m32
    I wanted to see the GPU die and OCing results. :(
    10
  • Other Comments
  • m32
    I wanted to see the GPU die and OCing results. :(
    10
  • JeanLuc
    The idle power consumption numbers are odd, the previous generation cards use less then at idle didn't they? Not that 15 watts is going to break anyone's bank account but its strange nether the less.

    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.
    0
  • chaospower
    TL;DR Pay more to get the same performance in a more power efficient form.
    6
  • gear999
    Really nice article guys. I'm impressed by how the 285 actually was able to keep up with the 280. And I'm shocked by the fact that The $250 Nvidia card loses to a $170 AMD card. Thank god I bought a GTX 770 :P

    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]
    1
  • Mike Stewart
    wow ! at 250$ it actually is a better card even than 280X !! and it was meant for 760....but as it shows here even a 270X is a WAY better card than 760....
    -13
  • tomfreak
    Had the tonga 285 come with a 6GHz/7Ghz GDDR5 & 4GB VRAM, the result will be a lot different. Whats with AMD putting on a 5500 memory? facepalm.jpg
    -2
  • srap
    While this is really a third GCN iteration, showing it as a version number of 3.0 (as in: "Tonga and GCN Update 3.0") makes no sense for me.
    0
  • Amdlova
    some one write this with a .45 acp on the head. I see some error on numbers models etc...
    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!
    -4
  • Amdlova
    Quote:
    I wanted to see the GPU die and OCing results. :(

    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!
    -2
  • Gillerer
    On the first page, it says "Improvements are always welcome but with the memory interface cut in half compared to the Radeon R9 280,...".

    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]
    7
  • mister g
    You guys might want to update the first chart of this review; the one comparing the specifications of the 280, 285, and the 280X. The 280X is a Tahiti chip not Tonga.

    [Edit by Cleeve]
    Good catch, fixed but might take a while to populate. :)
    [/Edit]
    2
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    Had the tonga 285 come with a 6GHz/7Ghz GDDR5 & 4GB VRAM, the result will be a lot different.

    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.
    0
  • west7
    I'd like to see this lossless color compression in 4k gaming cards
    0
  • Someone Somewhere
    That's really dumb numbering...

    The R7 265 is faster than the R7 260X, yet the R9 285 is slower than the R9 280X?
    5
  • MrstimX
    probably AMD's hand was forced due to gsynch, so they had to quickly phase out all non freesynch cards before dec..might expect a r9 285x by end oct
    0
  • logainofhades
    Anonymous said:
    That's really dumb numbering...

    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.
    5
  • Someone Somewhere
    No, because that would imply that it's slower than the 280.

    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.
    1
  • logainofhades
    It kinda is slower than the 280. It trades blows with it, but still is not equal. I would say 275x would be fitting as the 280/280x are 384bit/3gb cards, where as the 270/270x are 256bit/2gb cards.
    5
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    It kinda is slower than the 280. It trades blows with it, but still is not equal. I would say 275x would be fitting as the 280/280x are 384bit/3gb cards, where as the 270/270x are 256bit/2gb cards.

    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.
    0
  • Cryio
    Quote:
    That's really dumb numbering...

    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.
    4