Gaming Power Consumption Results
Power Consumption: Gaming Loop
For the gaming lop measurements we firstwarm up the graphics card for 20 minutes until a stable GPU temperature of 64 degrees Celsius has been reached. At this point we proceed to measure the card’s power consumption again. Our gaming loop is relatively challenging for the GPU, so we’re confident that the average 176 W we measured is a good representation of today’s demanding game engines. less demanding titles should draw between 165 to 170 Watts depending on the particular title, of course.
Once again, lets focus on just one minute of the smoothed curve. This shows us that the way the load is distributed between the PCIe and the motherboard power connectors conforms to the applicable norms.
The control exercised at the motherboard slot is reassuring. There’s never a sustained load that exceeds the slot’s maximum 75 Watt rating.
Let’s take a look at how the 176 W of power consumption while gaming are split in the table.
|Header Cell - Column 0||Minimum||Maximum||Average|
|PCIe 12V||33 W||209 W||124 W|
|Motherboard 3.3V||3 W||7 W||5 W|
|Motherboard 12V||9 W||93 W||47 W|
|Graphics Card Total||47 W||290 W||176 W|
List of All Individual Values per Supply Line
Again, we’ve put together all power consumption values for each supply line in a handy gallery.
The average voltage is exactly 12 V, just like it was at idle. However, the fluctuations are present and accounted for as well.
The Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC and its 176 W for gaming comes in almost 40 W lower than a moderately overclocked AMD Radeon R9 280 reference graphics card, which also provides slightly lower performance on average. When we referenced the Gigabyte R9 285 WindForce OC’s efficiency on the graphics cards in our 2014 VGA charts, it looks like it’s comparable to Nvidia’s older Kepler-based GeForce GTX 760. If winning the efficiency war was the goal, then it most certainly hasn’t been reached, but at least AMD was able to catch up. This probably won’t be enough to compete with Maxwell, though.
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?
Thanks for the proofread, fixing it now! :)
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!
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.
Good point, fixed! Thx.