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

  • lenghui - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    Sounds like it's time to dig out that good old stopwatch from storage.
  • haplo602 - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    And when MS changes HPET default to forced if detected ... then you are screwed again and have to retest ...

    You are at a dead-end actually. You are switching to HPET off (effectively) because it highly favors Intel in a few benchmarks yet AMD is mostly unaffected. Will you change that if the tables turn in the future again ?

    Come on ... it is more about consistency. Your HPET forced mode definitely highlighted an issue with Intel chips yet instead of hitting on Intel about the issue you are changing your settings ...
  • Maxiking - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    "when MS changes HPET default to forced if detected"
    " if games start utilizing more cores "

    It is a though job being an AMD fan these days, just "ifs" and "whens" all the time.
  • Maxiking - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    ***tough***. damn you, autocorrect
  • eva02langley - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    He's entirely right. HPET is an issue on Intel shoulder as of now. How can we be sure that without HPET on, Intel benchmarks are accurate?

    Also, you cannot turn off something in the BIOS that is supposed to be on, as mention by Intel, just because you want to give the crown to one manufacturer or the other. By the way, we are talking about 1080p benchmarks with a 1080 GTX. 60 Hz is irrelevant since a RX 580 can render it, it leaves only 1080p @ 144Hz.

    Also, what about new games since these results seem to be linked to old games?

    You don't get 40% more performance by switching something on and off in the BIOS. If it does, than something needs to be fixed.
  • RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    Well, I once disable my boot drive in the BIOS and experienced a 100% slow down. I'm tempted to agree with you and feel that something needs to be fixed so that my system works without a boot drive, but other people don't seem to agree. Opinions...

    Then there is the time when I disabled my NVDIA GPU in the BIOS of my laptop. Massive performance drop in games... Not good. Sad. Needs fixing.
  • jor5 - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    tl;dr - "We completely screwed up our review and made a show of ourselves - but we're not apologising"
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    You don't analyze data much in your day job, do you?
  • SkyBill40 - Friday, April 27, 2018 - link

    What would be more accurate than your statement is something like:

    "We found that our previous data contained some pretty significant inaccuracies and to be thorough, we're re-testing and improving our testing methodologies as a whole and explaining as such at length for the sake of transparency.Thanks for being patient with us."
  • OrphanageExplosion - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    What I don't understand is how the original gaming data ended up being published at all.

    The faulty results that were published were entirely at odds with the data supplied by AMD itself (which we've all seen - even prior to the reviews dropping, if you've been following the leaks). Surely if Ryzen 2000 was so much faster than Coffee Lake, they would have been shouting this from the rooftops - gaming is, after all, one of the few weaknesses Ryzen has. AMD's no-doubt massaged results were a ton more accurate than Anandtech's - madness.

    Not only that but the Anand results showed a massive increase over Ryzen 1000 - which simply isn't feasible for what is effectively a mild refresh. Meanwhile, the results also showed Ryzen 5 handily beating an 8700K... surely you must have realised that something wasn't right at that point? Utterly baffling and calls into question your approach generally.

    This is a major hit to credibility. I mean, if you're going to publish a CPU 'deep dive', surely you need to actually analyse the data and be ready to question your results rather than just hitting the publish button?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now