It shows 18 tokens per second but that's how fast tokens are generated I think. The number of tokens generated is that times the batch size, which appears to be 12? The graph is quite unclear and I didn't feel like reading the paper more in-depth.
Of course, it's a first architectural study to illustrate the promise of the idea, lots more details to work out in a physical implementation and the final realized benefit is likely to be lower. But even a 3X is huge in this space.
> 2) Metrics: We use three performance metrics: (i) latency, i.e., end-to-end output generation time for a batch of input prompts, (ii) token throughput, i.e., tokens-per-second processed, and (iii) compute throughput, i.e., TFLOPS per GPU.
This is somewhat confusing to me because at least two of these three definitions should be essentially the same thing, but I don't think there's any way to interpret their claim of ~74 teraflops achieved other than ~211 tokens/second of throughput.
Put another way, 18 tokens per second is 2% flops utilization, which we are obviously capable of doing better than for bulk inference.
3x is not huge in this space because just using a 4090 instead of an A100 is a 5x gain.
This table was very helpful by the way, I didn't see that before. To me it clearly shows that 211 tok/s/A100 is very plausible and in fact kind of a poor showing because if you look at table D.4 and specifically the results for BS=256 PP3/TP8 they achieve ~150 tok/s/A100 on a model that's 3x larger than GPT-3.