The headline is a little misleading: the feature has disappeared from consumer chips but AMD is not responding when asked why. As the article itself says: it’s not clear if this is a deliberate decision, or a bug that has caused this issue.
The headline implies it was a deliberate action. Maybe it was, but at the moment we don’t really know. But it is good that Toms Hardware is writing about this and drawing attention to this issue. It’s concerning regardless of the reason, and it’s also concerning how cagey AMD is being about addressing this issue.
A little more context as to when the engineer declined to continue the discussion:
Kilpatrick then brought up something especially awkward. He reminded Lendacky of a comment that the engineer had made back in 2020, confirming that a Ryzen 3700X, a consumer CPU, “should support TSME.” In a later 2025 comment in the same discussion, Lendacky again recommended using TSME, while noting that the motherboard BIOS provider had to expose the option. So there it was, AMD’s own engineer, years earlier, acknowledging the feature working on exactly the kind of lower-end chip now stripped of it, proving that Ryzen support was not some fantasy users invented.
After some more back-and-forth, Kilpatrick asked bluntly whether the flag being set to FALSE on consumer chips was a silicon-level limitation or a firmware policy decision — since one is permanent and the other is potentially reversible. Limonciello’s reply effectively closed the chapter. “My apologies, but I don’t have any more information to share on this topic,” he wrote.
To be fair to AMD, there is no clear indication that the company ever publicly advertised TSME as a consumer Ryzen feature. AMD has long said that a related memory protection, Secure Memory Encryption (SME), is available only in the Pro and EPYC CPU tiers. SME is OS-managed, using a single key and allowing the OS to selectively encrypt individual memory pages. TSME, by contrast, is firmware-managed, encrypting all RAM with no OS involvement.
Sounds to me like he had originally wanted to have it enabled for consumer CPUs, but some decision was later made to make this a feature only for higher end chips, even if lower end chips could technically support it. I can’t really blame the engineer for wanting to stop the discussion at this point. He’s most likely not the one making these decisions and the questions would be best asked to someone higher up.
I bet it’s because something good!
It’s funny how every big tech decision these last few years all sound like a shitty James Bond villain step in a shitty world domination plan, with shitty corpo writing.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Hold up, since when did consumer Ryzen CPUs have memory encryption support? I was sure that was always a EPYC exclusive feature.
I think that’s the crux of the article. The feature was there on some chips but not supported. A new update now prevents access to the feature.
If it’s deliberate and not put back, there’s also the possibility the government made them remove it and not disclose why. So they can continue to access certain info and back doors and this security was giving them issues.
The government forced email providers to have a backdoor for them. It’s the NSA’s PRISM program. Been around since at least 2008.
The article isnt very clear on this, but did they actually remove a critical feature from already sold products? Surely they can be sued for that?
Tom’s is trash and should be banned. The original Ars article it mentions is better: https://arstechnica.com/security/2026/06/users-cry-foul-after-amd-stripped-memory-crypto-from-its-consumer-cpus/
Sounds like it was never really supported, but available. With the new BIOS update it’s no longer available.
Create the problem, sell the solution situation?
Or just enshitifcation?
They did WHAT???!!?
They did a Trump Administration “We’re good on OpSec.”
It feels weird this was even ever a standard consumer feature. I wouldn’t even really expect it on enterprise hardware outside of servers. This feels like stuff you only really need to think about if you’re being directly targeted by a group with resources.
It seems like it is not a lot of overhead if any at all. Also the hardware design easily accommodates it. So why not if the work is already done?
Is this different than the ddr5’s memory encryption?
I don’t think DDR5 has any encryption built in? Maybe you’re thinking of the error correction controller that’s on the module now? Memory with inline encryption is not very common, and as far as I know, not actually very secure if the CPU/TPM isn’t the one holding the encryption key.
Right, that was what it was ty
