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

  • JlHADJOE - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    This.

    It stands to reason that there is no actual performance difference, just an inconsistency in how time is measured. For that matter, we're not even sure whether either system is accurately timing itself.

    IMO we shouldn't be trusting the benchmarked system's timer at all. Run an ntp server elsewhere on the network and get time from that before and after each benchmark. Likewise all gaming results really should go through an external tool like FCAT.

    AFAIK it's only in the PC industry that benchmarks trust the system being measured to do book/time keeping for itself, which is kinda nuts considering the system clock will be going from base to boost and each core will be running at different frequencies, and the whole system is subject to thermal swings.
  • ReverendCatch - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    Agreed, using the system to basically audit itself, is kind of a flaw in the design of testing.

    However, easily applying a third party time index isn't so easy? I guess you could film each game's performance on the monitor with a high speed camera, but parsing that data would be nightmarish at best.

    Easiest way would be to use an external computers (such as a web time server) timestamp before the test, and when it finishes, with the variation being the average ping time to the server. I guess. But that changes the way testing and benchmarks are done.
  • eddman - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    The solution already exists. DigitalFoundry does it. They capture the output video with an external device and then run it through a special software that is able to determine frame times and produce a frame rate graph. This is how they manage to determine exact frame rates for consoles even.
  • Cooe - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    FCAT testing. Super expensive to do right (requires beefy enough hardware on both the dedicated capture rig & it's actual video capture card itself such that the video capture of whatever's being tested doesn't drop a single frame [as the capture rig isn't what's being tested/analyized, it needs to be as close to perfect frame-pacing/capture as possible]), but suuuuper freaking awesome haha.

    I'm pretty sure Digital Foundries FCAT analysis software was even designed in-house. Lol Richard's steezy FCAT testing has become like his calling card by this point.
  • Cooe - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    FCAT testing. Super expensive to do right (requires beefy enough hardware on both the dedicated capture rig & it's actual video capture card itself such that the video capture of whatever's being tested doesn't drop a single frame [as the capture rig isn't what's being tested/analyized, it needs to be as close to perfect frame-pacing/capture as possible]), but suuuuper freaking awesome haha.

    I'm pretty sure Digital Foundries FCAT analysis software was even designed in-house. Lol Richard's steezy FCAT testing has become like his calling card by this point.
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    If HPET results in a system call, it is both. The Meltdown and Spectre mitigations make ordinary system calls *much* more expensive, and AMD's platform isn't mitigating those yet.
  • Topweasel - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    More stringent testing of HPET needs to be done. It could be the case that everything is performing the same in all tests but the results are reporting the wrong numbers (which I would assume would be the case for the HPET not forced results). But forcing the HPET when not expected could be causing other timer related issues in the programming that could result in loss of performance.
  • ReverendCatch - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    Yeah, basically. It's the time portion that is problematic. It's been the case since reviewers were reviewers and using FPS.

    A more accurate measure would be frames rendered for the same, identical test, for each system. Most games do not provide such information or tests, though.
  • Alistair - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    No, I believe he was saying that if you aren't messing around with extreme OC and altering base clocks etc., the time portion is always accurate. The raw performance does change from the CPU overhead of HPET in Intel systems, by a lot in some cases.
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    Not just extreme OC; anything that changes the clock speed, for example the CPU down clocking at idle, will change the rate of TSC relative to "real time". HPET exists to be the arbiter of "real time" unmoored from CPU frequency.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now