Overclock.net banner

Intel Custom Power Plans for Windows

3695 30
Updated 30th November for Windows 11.

CRITICAL FIX FOR Windows 11


I've been told my custom power plans for Ryzen are quite popular also for Intel CPUs (thx @robolee).

These plans are not optimized for Intel and while may be better than the standard Windows plans, they are not even remotely the best.
Especially when used with 12th & 13th Gen with E-Cores.
But same goes for the standard Windows plans, they are terrible and not properly configured for the P-Cores.

I've spent a few hours optimizing and benchmarking on a 12600K a new set of dedicated plans.

They should work as well on 11th Gen and priors but I can't be sure.
Probably works also on Windows 11 but I can't be sure of that as well.
The Windows 11 plans have not been tested (but they should work).


Big big thanks to my rat-lab friend ZioGualty who left me his rig that I abused as guinea pig for this work :D

Installer Download
  • Updated Intel Custom Plans
    • Balanced LowPower, Snappy, High Performance are same, just changed naming schema
    • Added Ultimate LowPower and Ultimate HighPower
Version V2:
ManniX_Custom_Power_Plans_V2.zip

Windows 10:


These plans are very similar to their AMD counterparts.

They all are more performant than the Balanced plan.
The Balanced Snappy and High Performance plans are more performant in MT than the High Performance standard plan (50-60 points in CPU-z and 100-200 points in GB).
The Balanced LowPower is faster than anything else in ST (5-10 points in CPU-z and 20-40 in GB5) but it loses quite some in MT.

Windows 11:

If you are using Windows 11 and care about performance and latency use the Ultimate Performance or Ultimate LowPower plans.

There's a bug in W11 power management which is causing all plans except Ultimate to have increased and spotty latency and low boost peak clocks.
I have verified it on AMD but I think, based on reports from Intel users, the issue is hitting Intel too.

You can verify testing with AIDA64 memory latency test.
AIDA does not work really well with W11, it will give you very often spotty and inconsistent results.
Test only at fresh boot, close all the open tabs in Edge before rebooting or else they'll be loaded in background.
Don't run the whole benchmark with Cache & Memory, double click only on the Latency box in Memory row.
The first run should give you the peak boost clock, not always though. Mine went to up to 5125 MHz for the first time while it was stuck to 5075 MHz before.
The latency on the first run is usually bogus; wait 10 seconds, repeat, wait, repeat, etc.
You should get a much better latency on average, more consistent between runs, and some much lower scores than with any other plan.
I managed to get a 54.7ns, which is only slightly above the 54.4ns result from Win10, while with any other plan I couldn't go below 55.2ns (with very often 57-58-61-66ns).

The Ultimate LowPower is excellent; better average power consumption with a small edge in idle but still same great latency and boost and same benchmark scores as the full Ultimate.

The Ultimate Performance is as expected with minimal power savings, very consistent results.

Custom plans for Windows 11

Intel Core™ Ultimate LowPower
For Windows 11


Modified out of the Ultimate Performance plan so it doesn't the Power Slider.
It's a performance oriented plan with excellent latency but still has a lot of performance saving features enabled with great savings and lower temperatures.
Highly recommend as daily driver.

Version v1:
Intel Core Ultimate LowPower Win11 v1-Backup-2022.30.11-20.06.32.pow

Intel Core™ Ultimate Performance
For Windows 11


Modified out of the Ultimate Performance plan so it doesn't the Power Slider.
It's a performance oriented plan with excellent latency, almost no compromise but still delivers good idle power consumption and low temperatures.
Recommend as daily driver if you want always the max and don't care about power savings.

Version v1:
Intel Core Ultimate Performance Win11 v1-Backup-2022.30.11-20.06.40.pow

Custom plans for Windows 10

Intel Core™ Balanced LowPower

For Windows 10

Modified out of the Balanced plan so it has the Power Slider.
Best for single thread loads, quite responsive.

Version v1:
Intel Core Balanced LowPower 10-v1-Backup-2022.05.12-17.40.19.pow

Intel Core™ Balanced Snappy
For Windows 10


Modified out of the Balanced plan so it has the Power Slider.
Best for multi threaded loads, very responsive but still good power saving.

Version v1:
Intel Core Balanced Snappy 10-v1-Backup-2022.05.12-17.41.14.pow

Intel Core™ High Performance
For Windows 10


Modified out of the High Performance plan so it doesn't have the Power Slider.
Best for multi threaded loads, very responsive and no power saving.

Version v1:
Intel Core High Performance 10-v1-Backup-2022.05.12-17.41.19.pow

Intel Core™ Ultimate LowPower
For Windows 10


Modified out of the Ultimate Performance plan so it doesn't have the Power Slider.
Maximizes power saving, quite responsive but sacrifices some performances.

Version v1:
Intel Core Ultimate LowPower 10-v1-Backup-2022.05.12-17.41.28.pow

Intel Core™ Ultimate HighPower
For Windows 10


Modified out of the Ultimate Performance plan so it doesn't have the Power Slider.
Almost no power saving, max performances.

Version v1:
Intel Core Ultimate HighPower 10-v1-Backup-2022.05.12-17.41.24.pow
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Hehe, Was requested to post result in this thread while maintaining a PM with Manni.

Tested with SSH (CPUDoc Tool), Intel High Performance/Snappy/LowPower with E core on = No more Stuttering on troublesome game like Division 2.
NZ Feature as spoken with Manni, It's still broken with current version 1.1.6 for Intel 12/13th user

I do not recommend LowPower Plan at all as it has the worst input latency
High Performance>Snappy when input latency are a factor

Of course, OP definitely need alot of other Intel 12/13 user to help on the test as currently there only OP with his friend rig and my friend helping out on the test so progress will be very slow.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Plans will import on Win11, but I had to UNHIDE some power setting in order to see the additional parameters for Processor Power Management are missing. Looks good on Win10.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: ManniX-ITA

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Plans will import on Win11, but additional parameters for Processor Power Management are missing. Looks good on Win10.
Thanks for the feedback!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
@ManniX-ITA - Feel free to delete or use for updates for quick installs of power plans for testing.

I am on Windows 11 and wanted to try these power plans.Done up a 1 click install for the plans incase someone does not know how to install power plans.
Google Drive

The read me for download.Will work on all windows 10/11 but I am on windows 11
To install ManniX-ITA Power plans and Windows 11 Ultimate Power Plan-These will work on other Windows systems

Extract zip file to anywhere and click on install.bat
Hit any key to close command prompt
Pick Power Plan from pop up
I included original Windows 11 power plans incase anything goes wrong.(I use Windows 11)
I also removed the TM from ManniX-ITA original files for installing his powerplans.
 

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
@ManniX-ITA - Feel free to delete or use for updates for quick installs of power plans for testing.
Thanks for sharing, I should have spent a bit of effort on an install batch :p

May I ask why removing the TM?
I never had an issue installing from command line but I never tried it in a batch file.
I'll work on something!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
Thanks for sharing, I should have spent a bit of effort on an install batch :p

May I ask why removing the TM?
I never had an issue installing from command line but I never tried it in a batch file.
I'll work on something!
For some reason with the TM the power plan did not install with TM,so I just took it out as it was the only thing I could think off.I did not try to figure out why.
 

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I have updated the power plans with specific versions with Windows 11 based on the Ultimate power plan.

Highly recommended to test if you are using Windows 11.
All plans except the Ultimate have a latency and performance issue; I've verified it only with AMD so feedback is welcome.
 

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·

· Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
Going to test Intel 13700KF with CPU boost Clock set to 6000Mhz-6200Mhz on Intel Core Ultimate Performance Win11 v1-Backup-2022.30.11-20.06.40.

I will just be checking out some PC Games boosting to 6000Mhz-6200Mhz and see if there is a noticeable difference from other power plans.
Not FPS wise in PC Gaming but duration of CPU boost clocks.Everyone loves the bigger numbers even when they do not even make a difference,I will post a video if I can notice CPU boost clock differences in PC Gaming.

Thanks for sharing the power plans
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,636 Posts
What settings in power plan did you change that you felt improved latency consistency for amd (im on intel tested below)?

7800c34, 13900kf, windows 11 latest update, this is at least 15 mins after boot so no delay start programs or updating causing fluctuating latency:
normal win 11 high performance mode: 54.0 53.2 53.5 53.2 53.2 53.6 53.1 53.3 53.7 53.2
installed win 11 ultimate perfor. mode: 54.1 53.2 53.2 53.8 53.4 53.1 53.4 53.2 53.4 53.1

The first latency in each higher because ran full aidat64, other 9 just double clicked latency: If I run latency within few minutes of booting, latency will be all over the place with both plans.

Windows power saver plans allow min processor state below 100% so can increase latency.

I never used "power saver" plan, but just ran aida64 with it on, and yeah bandwidth all over the place (very low on some), latency was 58ns first run, basically processor at low power state. win 11 could improve that.

But high power mode on wind 11 doesnt seem to have any bandwidth or latency issues for my intel 13900k (though I also have c states off in bios which may play a role).
 

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
What settings in power plan did you change that you felt improved latency consistency for amd (im on intel tested below)?
It's a combination of Ultimate plan and heterogeneous settings.

The Heterogeneous policy default is 4, AMD works better on 0 now. Higher FPS in gaming.
But I'm not sure with Intel, I only can test via Teamviewer and running AIDA over it, it's not very reliable.
You can try with 0 or 1 using QuickCPU.
Remember that 2 and 3 are to enable/disable P/E-Cores, don't use them.

On AMD with policy 0 and Ultimate is not enough to make it run very consistent after the last patch.
I had also to change the scheduling policy for foreground/background threads to Prefer Performant/Prefer Efficient.
Default is Auto/Prefer Performant.
You can give it a try.

7800c34, 13900kf, windows 11 latest update, this is at least 15 mins after boot so no delay start programs or updating causing fluctuating latency:
normal win 11 high performance mode: 54.0 53.2 53.5 53.2 53.2 53.6 53.1 53.3 53.7 53.2
installed win 11 ultimate perfor. mode: 54.1 53.2 53.2 53.8 53.4 53.1 53.4 53.2 53.4 53.1
I don't know how consistent is the 13th Gen normally.
These results have much less variance than my 5950X with Win11 without the Ultimate plan and all the settings above.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
For anyone interested 13Th Gen Test in PC Gaming for CPU Boost clocks with 4 different power plans and 3 games,only 3 games tested because that is all I felt like editing

Tested On 13700KF with Windows 11 22H2 (OS Buile 22621.900) with Different Power Plans Up To 6000Mhz.

I set CPU clocks at 5800Mhz low to 6000Mhz max.May be easier to see CPU boost clocks in PC Games tested.

Power Plans tested for CPU boost clocks
High Performance Win11
Ultimate Performance Win11
Intel Core Ultimate LowPower Win11 v1-By Mannix
Intel Core Ultimate Performance Win11 v1-By Mannix

I tested 3 different games,two game just running around the other game a cut scene to see CPU boost clocks.

I also did not bother syncing to the 0.001 of a second,was just testing to see boost clocks.
00::00 BioShock2Remastered
00:36 Cutscene-The Devil In Me
01:31 Alien Isolation

 

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Tested On 13700KF with Windows 11 22H2 (OS Buile 22621.900) with Different Power Plans Up To 6000Mhz.

I set CPU clocks at 5800Mhz low to 6000Mhz max.May be easier to see CPU boost clocks in PC Games tested.
What is the outcome on your opinion?
Would be nice to see some in-game benchmark result.
Like SotTR or F1 22 or similar.

It seems with Ultimate LowPower the clocks are stuck at 5800.
True is LowPower but doesn't look right...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
What is the outcome on your opinion?
Would be nice to see some in-game benchmark result.
Like SotTR or F1 22 or similar.

It seems with Ultimate LowPower the clocks are stuck at 5800.
True is LowPower but doesn't look right...
Damm I just notice I forgot CPU Package power in the RTSS on screen display.

I did test in 6 games and more power plans but could not be bothered editing it all.

They were all good and to be fair I should have had a bigger range like 5000Mhz low and 6000Mhz high to get a better picture. Also I was just testing boost clocks for actual boost clocks as there would be no different at the resolution I was testing and the GPU I was using in FPS.

Intel Core Ultimate LowPower Win11 v1 got the same results as Bitsum Highest Performance.pow ,so that is a good thing.Not sure why it was not boosting higher,it did work.So I am 100% fine with that.


These 3 were all good and I have no problem using them and have no preference.I am just a PC Gamer so I do not try to find the lowest latency in AIDA64 or the best Ram timings to test PC Games at lowest settings 1080p.
High Performance Win11
Ultimate Performance Win11
Intel Core Ultimate Performance Win11 v1-By Mannix

Sorry I do not have a better answer or preference ,all I can say good job and I am sure someone who likes getting that extra couple points in Cinebench or Latency in AIDA64 will help out more.
 

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Sorry I do not have a better answer or preference ,all I can say good job and I am sure someone who likes getting that extra couple points in Cinebench or Latency in AIDA64 will help out more.
Don't worry, really appreciated!

I wouldn't focus too much on AIDA64 or Cinebench or any else benchmark on Windows 11... for me keeps being very unreliable.
It's already tons better than the first release but not yet mature.

Gaming is probably the best thing to run with Windows 11.
I have sometimes a big variance but in general seems to be very enjoyable.
I guess when DirectStorage will get more traction it'll become more interesting for me.

Damm I just notice I forgot CPU Package power in the RTSS on screen display.
That's something nice to see but better to measure with CapframeX.
You can analyze the total power usage during the run and get even an fps/Watt metric to compare, really nice!

But what would be the best is to measure and log data with a smart plug.
If someone cares about power consumption, buy a Tasmota plug and a Raspberry Pi.
The whole is extremely cheap and will tell you for real what is the power consumption.
The power plan changes the whole system draw, not only the CPU.
For example with my 5950X when the package goes up 80W in reality means 100W to 150W of AC draw.

Intel Core Ultimate LowPower Win11 v1 got the same results as Bitsum Highest Performance.pow ,so that is a good thing.Not sure why it was not boosting higher,it did work.So I am 100% fine with that.
In theory is doing what it should, being LowPower :D
Probably it wasn't necessary to clock that high. So in theory is a good thing!
I didn't see a boost clock behavior change with the 5950X but well, it does not clock ever remotely that high...
What matters is if the game fps is close enough or same as the other Ultimate plans.

If you or anyone else is going to run a decent in-game benchmark, like SotTR, would be nice to have just a screenshot of the result with different power plans.
Nothing big or time consuming.

These 3 were all good and I have no problem using them and have no preference.I am just a PC Gamer so I do not try to find the lowest latency in AIDA64 or the best Ram timings to test PC Games at lowest settings 1080p.
High Performance Win11
Ultimate Performance Win11
Intel Core Ultimate Performance Win11 v1-By Mannix
I wouldn't run any other plan other than mines with Win11 or Win10 :p
Not because of pride of course, the reason is very simple; the default settings for the P-Cores are... plain rubbish.

Which I suspect is the main reason they so fondly suggest to use Win11 instead of Win10.
Win11 is just discarding or adapting power plans settings at its will. While Win10 doesn't.

They must have realized too late that the P-Cores to boost needs parking.
And it's quite the opposite with every other CPU.
In the power plan there is a set of settings for cores with Efficiency Class 1.
Those settings are set by default for less powerful cores, with parking enabled, and should be applied to the E-Cores in this case.
The E-Cores in the CPUSet from the system have Class 1 and the P-Cores are 0, like all other CPU cores.

I guess that Intel and Microsoft decided would have been too risky to have those new CPU depending on a specific power plan to work properly.
Bad reviews, bad user feedback because of running with the wrong power plan. A no-go for sure.
AMD has it for the 3000s but they still work pretty fine with a standard plan.

So they invented this smart trick of flipping the P-Cores ad E-Cores efficiency class.
When both P-Cores and E-Cores are enabled in BIOS the Windows Scheduler is internally swapping the Efficiency class.

I couldn't test it myself but I think when the E-Cores are disabled, the P-Cores are using the "normal", Efficiency Class 0 settings.
This is very likely the reason why Gaming in general is better with the E-Cores disabled.

Unfortunately I can't fine-tune these settings, the only Alder Lake I have access to is a 12600K not OCed.
I can't test properly the boost behavior, made some changes but it could probably be better.

The mistake form Microsoft & Intel is that they didn't change the Efficiency Class 1 settings to match a Performant processor, they kept it as it is.
Not sure why, maybe Microsoft is planning to support ARM CPUs or something else.

So the result is the P-Cores have boosting policies set for efficiency instead of performances...
The initial P-state after un-parking is 50%, the policy is IdealAggressive instead of Rocket, it doesn't clock immediately to the higher P-State.
The latency sensitivity hit is 50% instead of 97-99% so they are much slower to react to user input, etc, etc.

That's the reason why some games, like the Division 2, are stuttering hard with middle-end Alder/Rocket-lake CPUs when the E-Cores are enabled.
With my power plan I've been told it doesn't happen; I will check with the 12600K if I can replicate.
Obviously when you have highly clocked CPUs, the issue is less evident.

Win11 is doing its own magic to compensate but on Win10 there's no magic sparkle on top, the plan limitations are going to be more evident.
That's why they warmly suggest to only use Win11.

And again thanks a lot for the video with all this editing effort!
 

· Old crazy guy
Joined
·
5,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
If someone likes gaming benchmarking, this is what to look for when comparing my power plans with a 13900K/13700K:

Font Parallel Rectangle Screenshot Electric blue


Font Screenshot Display device Electronic device Technology


Font Screenshot Parallel Electronic device Display device


Atmosphere Font Parallel Electric blue Technology


Font Parallel Sky Display device Electronic device


Both the 13600K and 13700K are providing very often much better lows than the 13900K.
I've seen this in many reviews, not only from GN.

In theory with my Ultimate Performance power plan you should get better min fps, or 0.1/1% lows if provided, against the standard Ultimate Performance.
You should also get better min/lows disabling E-Cores and sometimes also reducing the P-Cores to 6.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top