We'll begin our game benchmarks with Titanfall. We aren't able to test this game with FRAPS, as the only way to get consistent results is to use a private match that requires EA Origin's overlay, which is incompatible with this frame-rate measuring tool. Nevertheless, we found a particularly demanding part of the Demeter map and use it to provide a rudimentary performance measure:

Titanfall's Source engine appears to work well with the Tonga GPU's special sauce, allowing it to improve slightly over Radeon R9 280 performance and approach the GeForce GTX 770.
Next up, Battlefield 4. We're able to include detailed benchmarks for this game using both DirectX and AMD's Mantle graphics API. We know that Mantle only plays nice with 3GB of onboard memory or more, so let's see how the 2GB Radeon R9 285 handles it:




When using the DirectX code path the Radeon R9 285 is slightly bested by the Radeon R9 280, but with Mantle enabled the 2GB cards suffer a performance penalty while the 3GB options show a slight improvement. Indeed, when it comes to Battlefield 4, Mantle is a memory-hungry beast.
Let's now consider frame time variance. Battlefield 4 is a well-coded engine that doesn't show any weaknesses in this respect. Having said that, there are other sources of lag. While these results don't reveal it, the Mantle code-path definitely demonstrates notable skips in monitor output, especially on the Radeon R9 270X and 285.
|
|
|
|
|
- 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.