But I have to say that the comparison is not really fair. Comparison is done with a 2 B model vs frontier models that are likely 100s of times larger. Also taalas with their 15000 tok/s inference are suspiciously missing from the comparison.
We need to see the comparison with this framework and useful models, which at present seems to mean ~30 B.
they seem to think it scales up because theyre shortening the stack.
We strived to be fair as possible in the benchmark, but it's indeed not perfect. Taalas should have been added in the dedicated hardware section, even though they use 3-bit quantization when we are on FP16 (to be fair in both directions) and they burn the model directly on the card.
Our tech preview is about the speed (hence the small dense model, it was easier to implement).
The math checks out though to allow support for large frontier MoE models at similar speeds: - At batch size 1, GPT-OSS-120B has 5.1B active parameters - in FP8, it's in the same size ballpark than our 2B model in FP16 (5.1 GB vs 4GB). - DeepSeek V4 Flash has 13B in mixed FP4/FP8, so let's say ballpark around 3x bigger than 4GB - so in theory we could reach >1,000 tok/s on it with MI300X/H200 and up to 4k on next generation GPUs.
Check out the math at the end of our blog post:
https://blog.kog.ai/real-time-llm-inference-on-standard-gpus...
The math checks out though to allow support for large frontier MoE models at similar speeds.
At batch size 1, GPT-OSS-120B has 5.1B active parameters - in FP8, it's in the same size ballpark than our 2B model in FP16 (5.1 GB vs 4GB).
DeepSeek V4 Flash has 13B in mixed FP4/FP8.
Check out the math at the end of our blog post: https://blog.kog.ai/real-time-llm-inference-on-standard-gpus...
> 8× NVIDIA H200
Edit: I just tried a 4B model on a RTX Pro 6000, getting ~500 tok/s with llama.cpp not even trying to optimize or change anything, just default settings. I'm sure with vLLM it'd be a lot faster already, still before manually tuning configs. I wouldn't call that card "Standard GPU" either FWIW, but it makes the claimed performance numbers feel not as exciting, especially given the hardware they were using.
- model size: 2B is just for this preview (it was faster to implement), our article explains how we expect to support large frontier MoE at 1,000 to 5,000 tokens/s
- reaching 500 tok/s, or even up to ~1,000 tok/s, on a consumer GPU card is possible with existing inference engines like vLLM. But there is a ceiling.
The hard part comes we you try to be faster than that: these frameworks won't scale higher just by adding GPUs or using faster GPUs. There is a "glass ceiling" due to microseconds lost everywhere in the stack (grid syncs, inter-GPU comms, kernel launches, CPU sampling, etc.).
All our work at Kog is about removing these bottlenecks.
For instant code generatio, 400-500 tok/s should be sufficient, though most frontier models give us closer to 70 tok/s.
But joke aside, I think we don't even know yet what is possible if you hit very fast very high token / second numbers if your whole ecosystem behind it can handle it.
You could literaly implement the same solution 100x and benchmark all of them and get only the best result.
You could build and architecture a whole stack in parallel.
You could do massive thinking token / chain of thought.
You could let the LLM analyse everything around you while you type. Like it could tell you that this might create a bug in a different file and why.
We could start doing some type of monte-carlo search with this.
In contrast, not enterprise GPUs that cost as much as a car.
I am 100% all about using local models instead of sending someone else all my data and paying for the privilege of doing so, this article is misleading.
I can get a 27b model to kick out 40 tok/s on 16 gb vram. This is the area ripe for development.
If you can’t connect a monitor, it isn’t a standard GPU, at least not in the way people have spoken about GPUs until a few years ago.
Sorry for the confusion
Monokernel deep dive (GPU Engineering): http://blog.kog.ai/building-a-single-kernel-latency-optimize...
Delayed Tensor Parallelism (research): http://blog.kog.ai/delayed-tensor-parallelism-for-faster-tra...
To try the speed on the playground: http://playground.kog.ai
For new open weights models, will you need to adapt model code and optimization for your inference engine by hand?
It's true that BS=1 is king when it comes to agentic workflows, however these kinds of system serve multiple requests concurrently with dynamic batching. Do you think it will scale as well ?
Any plans to release it open source?
Congratz again for the release
To answer your questions:
- yes, we rewrite the whole model code (while keeping the same logic) in CUDA/HIP and assembly, in order to optimize by hand for each GPU type. It's quite tedious for sure, but I guess this is the price to pay to get this kind of results.
- the batching question is a great one. In agentic systems, there is probably a trade-off between sequential thinking/iterations vs parallel exploration of multiple solutions. Also, there could just be multiple independent tasks running in parallel, depending on the use case.
We plan to support a small amount of batching, but it quickly becomes a trade-off vs speed. Pick one for your use case, I guess.
Also to consider: because we answer requests much faster, we are also able to process lots of them without needing high batches - and scaling on multiple nodes is possible.
- open sourcing: maybe, maybe not. I'm still undecided on this. We are a small startup and I'm told that giving our IP away might be shooting ourselves in the feet. On the other side, I think it could be of great benefit to the community and for us... we'll see
Our process has been, and will continue to be, a sequence of (tedious) R&D experiments where the GPU never behaves as expected when pushed to its limits in ways no-one really tested before (I still have nightmares of the L3 cache cross-IOD bottlenecks on MI300X).
IMHO, we did solve the multi-GPU memory bandwidth scaling problem, and thus the linear scaling of the size of the model towards infinity. But the main difficulties will come from keeping the speed, with steady and continuous memory streaming, while implementing the much more complex architecture of modern frontier MoEs (attention compression tricks, hash layers, routing logic, etc.)
That means Jensen can add another 30 times faster when comparing Rubin to Blackwell without having to actually do anything.
Hopefully that means he won't have any problem to make another 150 billion in profit in the next year.
Sorry for the sarcasm. Looks like interesting work.
each time getting 3300+ tps.
The demo is very impressive!
disclaimer: I've known the founder for a while, as legitimate as it gets in deep tech, real years of research and engineering behind this, not vaporware
I haven't read the article at the moment and I will try to read them hopefully but I wish to ask a question regarding, can this approach be done for say trillion or large parameter models as well or is there some wall which gets hit that makes it valuable for only smaller parameter model.
That being said, its still really incredible because in future, because these small models are really getting good for many use cases and speed becomes their bottleneck, with greater speeds at consumer hardware, I think its gonna be amazing work!
The last section of the article lays out the scaling laws that apply when porting this approach to another model. In a nutshell, DeepSeek V4 Pro with 49B active params is close to the upper bound.
Also worth noting that our results are currently for standard datacenter GPUs. On consumer hardware, though the same low-level optimization approach applies, the bandwidth limitations will cap the achievable speed.
Did the article headline not say Standard GPU?
ilaksh•3h ago
gaeld•3h ago
bcjdjsndon•20m ago