Windows hidden Ultimate Performance power plan

[FoulOnWhite]

Not sure if anyone knows about this, can't say i've seen it mentioned on here, so thought i would post it. It does seem to be windows 10 only though. I guess it's ok for those who are not too fussed about the possible extra energy use.
https://www.xda-developers.com/how-enable-windows-ultimate-performance-power-plan/
Here it is, it was hidden, i had to enable it using the command in the link

 

[basco]

Thanks i think it´s the same as bitsum highest performance plan from process lasso.

but out of curiosity i did the power cfg thing and now have both options

 

[Assimilator]

This is incredibly dumb because it runs everything at maximum clocks all the time. Don't use this.

 

[Easeful2341]

Not sure if anyone knows about this, can't say i've seen it mentioned on here, so thought i would post it. It does seem to be windows 10 only though. I guess it's ok for those who are not too fussed about the possible extra energy use.
https://www.xda-developers.com/how-enable-windows-ultimate-performance-power-plan/
Here it is, it was hidden, i had to enable it using the command in the link
View attachment 360061

hmmm. never saw this before. i try check and see diffirences.

This is incredibly dumb because it runs everything at maximum clocks all the time. Don't use this.

ok. i dont check i saw Your post. For what reason this function exist ? For some stress tests ? or What ? What You think ?

 

[P4-630]

Balanced powerplan is fine, even for gaming...

 

[Darkholm]

Have been experimenting with this Ultimate plan couple of years back. It gave me only headache.
Only good on VMs which I had running on Xen hosts. Could not find any pros over "high performance" plan. There is no performance gain for averidge joe.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Have been experimenting with this Ultimate plan couple of years back. It gave me only headache.
Only good on VMs which I had running on Xen hosts. Could not find any pros over "high performance" plan. There is no performance gain for averidge joe.

VM Hosts or VM Guests?

 

[Darkholm]

Windows 10/11 VMs on Xen servers (VM hosts).

 

[R0H1T]

This is incredibly dumb because it runs everything at maximum clocks all the time. Don't use this.

No it doesn't, it depends on your C states (EIST/C1E for Intel?) under BIOS. If you've disabled that then the chips won't power "down" although on the desktop if you use balanced or power saver you'll probably save very little.

The key numbers are under core "effective" clocks! Also ultimate power plan doesn't do much except maybe lower latency a bit? And even that is debatable.

Not sure if anyone knows about this, can't say i've seen it mentioned on here, so thought i would post it. It does seem to be windows 10 only though. I guess it's ok for those who are not too fussed about the possible extra energy use.
https://www.xda-developers.com/how-enable-windows-ultimate-performance-power-plan/
Here it is, it was hidden, i had to enable it using the command in the link
View attachment 360061

XDA late to the party by about a decade

 

[Ruru]

No it doesn't, it depends on your C states (EIST/C1E for Intel?) under BIOS. If you've disabled that then the chips won't power "down" although on the desktop if you use balanced or power saver you'll probably save very little.
View attachment 360073

The key numbers are under core "effective" clocks! Also ultimate power plan doesn't do much except maybe lower latency a bit? And even that is debatable.

Here's my 5800X with balanced profile (CO -20, PBO+200) for comparison

Spoiler

 

[A Computer Guy]

All this does is kill my boost clocks which is what I expected.

In VM guest my CBR15 score reduced from 1680 (host balanced) to 1640 (host ultimate) however this seems to be within margin of error the more sample runs that I perform with lower trends when set to ultimate.

I'm thinking there is a reason this power plan isn't visible by default.

 

[AleXXX666]

Have been experimenting with this Ultimate plan couple of years back. It gave me only headache.
Only good on VMs which I had running on Xen hosts. Could not find any pros over "high performance" plan. There is no performance gain for averidge joe.

it has "HDD IDLE TIME" - OFF.

Not sure if anyone knows about this, can't say i've seen it mentioned on here, so thought i would post it. It does seem to be windows 10 only though. I guess it's ok for those who are not too fussed about the possible extra energy use.
https://www.xda-developers.com/how-enable-windows-ultimate-performance-power-plan/
Here it is, it was hidden, i had to enable it using the command in the link
View attachment 360061

What I could find about this it has "HDD Idle time" - Never.
Other functions are same as high perf.
But I like it Ultimate.

 

[phanbuey]

...
But I like it Ultimate.

I do notice it kills single core boost on CPU-z, but I've always thought single core boost is a bit of a meme.

 

[Solaris17]

It does work in 11

The problem is as others said its not really a great profile to run. This prevents boost clocks and c states. If you love dumping heat for arguably less performance then its fine. If your REALLY into overclocking then its good because it locks everything, which honestly you could just easily do in the BIOS to begin with. I use it to heat soak my coolers from time to time to make sure they are doing what I want, then back on balanced.

 

[chrcoluk]

This is incredibly dumb because it runs everything at maximum clocks all the time. Don't use this.

Which is its almost only difference from high performance.

The bitsum performance plan mentioned earlier in the thread disables software core parking.

 

[Waldorf]

Saw it a while a go on clean install 10 with classic look/behavior and UPS it showed, but with "newest" iso/chipset drv/cpu, i wasnt sure which one "introduced" it.
and short of the exceptions showing the rule, just worse than perf plan, and ppl i build rigs for i just setup balanced and lock/remove power settings .

 

[basco]

but there are different usages for different user but we have to shit on everything because everybody only needs balanced things so why not reflect that in your responses if you yourself are so balanced.
somebody wrote something about a perf plan whohooo - take it or let it go

 

[Waldorf]

because it doesnt make sense for +99% of avg user, especially when the machine they are using, have never seen any tweaks past AMP/XMP.

and even folks like in forums here, will not use this 24/7, but short periods for some sort of testing, again showing most dont need it, the same way even experienced drivers will have their traction control on +90%, just because i can, doesnt mean i should.

but i guess if we had a made up "lightning-speed" profile tmrw, some will still defend its existenz ..

 

[Onasi]

ok. i dont check i saw Your post. For what reason this function exist ? For some stress tests ? or What ? What You think ?

It exists for some very niche workstation tasks where absolutely minimizing latencies is necessary, even those caused by boosting behavior and power state switching. It’s completely irrelevant for any normal desktop use, you aren’t getting any perceivable loss in performance from those nanoseconds that your CPU clocks up. It’s been heavily discussed on Reddit with AMDs engineers participating and they confirmed that there is no point in running it on modern desktops.

 

[Shrek]

I agree, this mode will make modern CPUs slower by messing up boost.

 

[R-T-B]

This is incredibly dumb because it runs everything at maximum clocks all the time. Don't use this.

Ultimate performance name is misleading. It's more like a high performance with core parking mode and c-state mode.

I agree, this mode will make modern CPUs slower by messing up boost.

It doesn't. Or shouldn't, anyways.

 

[Onasi]

It doesn't. Or shouldn't, anyways.

On Zen (Zen 3, to be precise, since it’s what I tested) it kinda-sorta does, though this isn’t intentional (I assume) - since the CPU isn’t polled for power in this mode it also doesn’t have the bursty single core spikes for race-to-idle that it normally would. This means that I had higher momentary clocks with Balanced whenever the OS quickly needs a core to do something. No real difference in sustained clocks though.

This is all minutiae though - there really isn’t much point in running anything other than Balanced and if you want it more aggressive - the slider/drop down in the Settings app is there for it. That’s me reminding people that for reasons unknown Power Plans in the CP and Power Modes in Settings aren’t actually the same thing and the second is actually a tweaking mechanism for the first. Great UX there, MS. Definitely time to retire the CP, totally.

 

[unclewebb]

This prevents boost clocks and c states.

That is not true for Intel CPUs. The Windows Ultimate performance power plan does not prevent boost clocks and it does not prevent the C states from working. You can have a cool running and fast CPU when the C states are enabled even when the CPU is running at full speed when lightly loaded. Good idle temperatures too.

 

[Solaris17]

That is not true for Intel CPUs. The Windows Ultimate performance power plan does not prevent boost clocks and it does not prevent the C states from working. You can have a cool running and fast CPU when the C states are enabled even when the CPU is running at full speed when lightly loaded. Good idle temperatures too.

View attachment 360318

I think that really depends on if you have modified the CPU using some other tool. By default, atleast on my systems and my build of 11 turbo 3.0 boost states do not work and min processor state is set to 100%. if you unhide the hidden options you can see this.

 

[Shrek]

It doesn't. Or shouldn't, anyways.

How so? One is pushing the CPU to a higher temperature, so the boost time will be accordingly reduced.