AMD and Intel Have Different HPET Guidance

A standard modern machine, with a default BIOS and a fresh Windows operating system, will sit on the first situation in the table listed above: the BIOS has HPET enabled, however it is not explicitly forced in the operating system. If a user sets up their machine with no overclocking or monitoring software, which is the majority case, then this is the implementation you would expect for a desktop.

AMD

We reached out to AMD and Intel about their guidance on HPET, because in the past it has both been unclear as well as it has been changed. We also reached out to motherboard manufacturers for their input.

For those that remember the Ryzen 7 1000-series launch, about a year ago from now, one point that was lightly mentioned among the media was that in AMD’s press decks, it was recommended that for best performance, HPET should be disabled in the BIOS. Specifically it was stated that:

Make sure the system has Windows High Precision Event Timer (HPET) disabled. HPET can often be disabled in the BIOS. [T]his can improve performance by 5-8%.

The reasons at the time were unclear as to why, but it was a minor part in the big story of the Zen launch so it was not discussed in detail. However, by the Ryzen 5 1000-series launch, that suggestion was no longer part of the reviewer guide. By the time we hit the Ryzen-2000 series launched last week, the option to adjust HPET in the BIOS was not even in the motherboards we were testing. We cycled back to AMD about this, and they gave the following:

The short of it is that we resolved the issues that caused a performance difference between on/off. Now that there is no need to disable HPET, there is no need for a toggle [in the BIOS].

Interestingly enough, with our ASUS X470 motherboard, we did eventually find the setting for HPET – it was not in any of the drop down menus, but it could be found using their rather nice ‘search’ function. I probed ASUS about whether the option was enabled in the BIOS by default, given that these options were not immediately visible, and was told:

It's enabled and never disabled, since the OS will ignore it by default. But if you enable it, then the OS will use it – it’s always enabled, that way if its needed it is there, as there would be no point in pulling it otherwise.

So from an AMD/ASUS perspective, the BIOS is now going to always be enabled, and it needs to be forced in the OS to be used, however the previous guidance about disabling it in the BIOS has now gone, as AMD expects performance parity.

It is worth noting that AMD’s tool, Ryzen Master, requires a system restart when the user first loads it up. This is because Ryzen Master, the overclocking and monitoring tool, requires HPET to be forced in order to do what it needs to do. In fact, back at the Ryzen 7 launch in 2017, we were told:

AMD Ryzen Master’s accurate measurements present require HPET. Therefore it is important to disable HPET if you already installed and used Ryzen Master prior to game benchmarking.

Ultimately if any AMD user has Ryzen Master installed and has been run at any point, HPET is enabled, even if the software is not running or uninstalled. The only way to stop it being forced in the OS is with a command to chance the value in the BCD, as noted above.

For the Ryzen 2000-series launch last week, Ryzen Master still requires HPET to be enabled to run as intended. So with the new guidance that HPET should have minimal effect on benchmarks, the previous guidance no longer applies.

Ryzen Master is not the only piece of software that requires HPET to be forced in order to do what it needs to do. For any of our readers that have used overclocking software and tools before, or even monitoring tools such as fan speed adjusters – if those tools have requested a restart before being used properly, there is a good chance that in that reboot the command has been run to enable HPET. Unfortunately it is not easy to generate a list, as commands and methods may change from version to version, but it can apply to CPU and GPU overclocking.

Intel

The response we had from Intel was a little cryptic:

[The engineers recommend that] as far as benchmarking is concerned, it should not matter whether or not HPET is enabled or not. There may be some applications that may not function as advertised if HPET is disabled, so to be safe, keep it enabled, across all platforms. Whatever you decide, be consistent across platforms.

A cold reading of this reply would seem to suggest that Intel is recommended HPET to be forced and enabled, however my gut told me that Intel might have confused ‘on’ in the BIOS with ‘forced’ through the OS, and I have asked them to confirm.

Looking back at our coverage of Intel platforms overall, HPET has not been mentioned to any sizeable degree. I had two emails back in 2013 from a single motherboard manufacturer stating that disabling HPET in the BIOS can minimise DPC latency on their motherboard, however no comment was made about general performance. I cannot find anything explicitly from Intel though.

A Timely Re-Discovery Forcing HPET On, Plus Spectre and Meltdown Patches
Comments Locked

242 Comments

View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Sunday, May 6, 2018 - link

    Have you monitored your CPU usage and I/O behaviour? Just wondering if an NVMe SSD would help, assuming you don't already have one.
  • agilesmile - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    I can't understand why you portray HPET as a magical highest precision timer? TSC is faster and more accurate when it has proper implementation (modern CPUs).
    Would be really useful to test how overclocking modern CPUs affect TSC and maybe report bugs to the CPU manufacturers if it still does.

    FYI here's more about TSC and HPET: https://aufather.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/high-per...
  • Senti - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    TSC isn't only the highest resolution timer – it's also the cheapest one in terms of latency.
    It has only 2 major problems:
    1) On some really old CPUs it's tied to actual CPU clock and changes according to frequency change.
    2) It's tied to system base clock and changes with it.

    But since base clock overclocking is dead you can pretty much consider TSC as a stable timer now.
  • Billy Tallis - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    There's also the inconvenience that the TSC is a per-core timer, and it's hard to get the TSCs exactly synchronized between cores, so software that needs really high resolution timing also needs to worry about thread pinning.
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    Not to mention cross socket and power management impacts!
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    The power management effects were fixed way back with Nehalem. With even desktop CPUs doing clock speed changes all the time (eg. Turbo Boost), TSC would be useless if it didn't account for any of that. Nowadays, the TSC is only vulnerable to distortion from unusual sources of clock speed changes, like BCLK overclocking or drift in the clock generator.
  • Senti - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    Plenty of words and nothing about another solution of timing problems: drop always-in-beta Win10 and test on stable Win7.

    You write that you care about 'gamers' and 'default configuration' and ignore that Win7 share is almost 2x the Win10 one (according to Steam). In enterprise there is even less love for Win10.
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    That's awfully hard given that Win7 isn't supported on Ryzen.
  • SkyBill40 - Friday, April 27, 2018 - link

    ^
    *DING, DING!*
  • mapesdhs - Sunday, May 6, 2018 - link

    Plenty of mbd vendors support Win7 with Ryzen, whatever the official support is supposed to be. Most mbd vendors are not so dumb as to lock out the largest share of the market.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now