Extensive workstation and AI test with Intel’s i9-13900K – The power profiles Baseline, Performance, Extreme and Insane from reasonable to pointless in practice

1 - Introduction, settings and test system 2 - Easy finger exercise: AutoCAD 2023 3 - A little more power: Inventor Pro 2021 4 - Next level: PTC Creo 9 5 - Heavy duty: AI and rendering 6 - Dry food: Scientific calculations and more 7 - Power consumption, load peaks and conclusion

Power consumption and efficiency in everyday work

As usual, I like to use AutoCAD here because it is ideal for a well-mixed period of time with a wide variety of workloads and load scenarios in the low and partial load range, as it is not just power-hungry rendering tasks that are celebrated. The CPU load is usually below 65 to 70 percent, often enough even much lower, which is a pretty good reflection of normal everyday work. In addition, the Cadalyst run is quite consistent in terms of power consumption on systems with different speeds. Let’s first look at the values determined for all four profiles and remember that the scores were not that far apart:

The whole thing can now also be converted into score points per watt because, after all, both cover the entire period. One is the average performance, the other the average power consumption. The baseline and the performance profile are quite close together, as is the performance. However, if you push the permanently permitted wattages, the Core i9-13900K quickly becomes inefficient with a higher PL1 and the Insane profile becomes completely obsolete. This is therefore nothing for everyday use. If you just want to work quickly, you could even be happy with the Baseline profile, which is excluded by Intel, but in my opinion the Performance Profile is the best choice. You don’t need the rest at all.

Power consumption and efficiency under permanent full load

Now we come to the areas where full power is available over the entire test period. With the two profiles with a PL1 of 125 watts, the performance falls somewhat by the wayside, but you don’t have to drink up the longer bars at the socket. If you don’t limit Iccmax in the Extreme profile, the CPU would easily be catapulted over 300 watts, which is actually questionable. Why use a PL2 if the telemetry doesn’t adhere to it anyway? With the Insane profile, it’s 112 watts more and you notice it. Unfortunately. Because what is still possible for a few minutes during rendering is an impossible task for the AiO after around 5 minutes. You simply can’t dissipate the waste heat properly. That’s why I didn’t use an AI workload, because the CPU with the Extreme profile throttles after just a few minutes.

But let’s take a look at what the energy club means in the efficiency comparison and be amazed. To render the igoBOT, the CPU needs 57.5% more power. Do we remember the benchmarks? We used to have a rounded 60 percent in power consumption! I only save 27 percent in rendering time when switching from Baseline to Extreme, but pay for this with 57.5 percent more energy. Here, too, the Performance profile is the most balanced solution and for those in a hurry, perhaps the Extreme profile as a cleaner. You don’t even have to start with Insane here.

A word about peak loads

We surely remember what I wrote back then about ATX 3.x and the up to 100% safety margin on the nominal power rating for power consumption during short load spikes. This is quite remarkable in the Extreme and especially the Insane profile, because if the graphics card and CPU coincidentally draw power simultaneously, things get tight on the secondary side of the power supply. Of course, these measurement results will look different with another type of power supply and motherboard, but the trend is quite generalizable because the principle of regulation is the same. That’s why my results differ slightly from those in Aris’ article, although the differences are not that significant. However, my UEFI settings were also set slightly differently.

Summary and conclusion

Intel didn’t have to hide the Baseline profile, but they will probably know exactly why they did or perhaps even had to. The fact that the performance profile is now offered as “Intel Default” or “Intel Recommended” makes real sense after today’s tests. On the other hand, why all reviewers were whipped up with the Extreme Profile at the time is again due to AMD’s Zen moments and the fact that Intel simply didn’t want to lose [ ], [ ] couldn’t or [ ] was allowed to. Please mark with a cross where applicable.

The former wish list for reviewers has now been rededicated to the Extreme Profile and the energetic freewheeling of the board partners without any speed limiter of the power meter is no longer mentioned at all – and that’s a good thing. There’s no need to make nonsense even worse than it already is. Which raises the question as to why the motherboard manufacturers simply can’t manage to implement it in exactly the same way and not in any other way as a genuine preselection ex works.

In addition, no one seems to be able to slow down the older Z690 boards at the same time, which in my view is completely negligent. If you still love your CPU, you should choose one of the three acceptable profiles. However, the profile with the 4096 watts belongs on the garbage heap of motherboard history. Those who have no respect for the product are welcome to continue to do so, but they should refrain from complaining in the event of its unexpected demise. Why Intel doesn’t tighten the reins more strictly here is simply incomprehensible. I can only hope that at some point Intel’s engineers and common sense will prevail over marketing and that the board partners will no longer allow any energetic bombs to be planted.