Traditional cloud pricing models are allocation-centric, where users are charged based on reserved resources rather than workload energy consumption. However, modern AI workloads exhibit substantial and heterogeneous power behavior, limiting the effectiveness of such allocation-centric pricing. This paper presents a comprehensive experimental study of nine widely used workloads across 50 controlled configurations, including standalone and concurrent executions under varying resource partitions. Our results show that total system power is largely unaffected by how resources are divided among co-located workloads, except in cases of explicit resource under-provisioning or severe resource contention. Across 45 workload–core groups, 41 exhibit a coefficient of variation below 3% across different co-located workloads, demonstrating structural stability of workload-level power profiles under heterogeneous execution environments. In contrast, deployment choice (e.g., CPU versus GPU execution) can shift the same model into distinct power regimes. Based on measured power decomposition and scaling behavior, we derive an empirical categorization framework distinguishing GPU-dominant and CPU-dominant workloads, further characterized by utilization and memory dimensions. From an energy perspective, CPU utilization (for CPU-dominant workloads) and SM utilization (for GPU-dominant workloads) emerge as the primary determinants of power magnitude, while memory-related parameters contribute marginally to overall power. These findings provide empirical evidence that allocation-based pricing is a weak proxy for actual energy cost and motivate energy-aligned cloud management strategies grounded in workload power profiles. As our findings are derived from a controlled single-node experiment, evaluations under more realistic data center environments will be required for further generalization.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.