3 ms·
cost effective in what sense? groq doesn't achieve high efficiency, only low latency. but that's not done in a cost-effective way. compare sambanova achieving t
by germanjoey 2y ago
cost effective in what sense? groq doesn't achieve high efficiency, only low latency. but that's not done in a cost-effective way. compare sambanova achieving the same performance with 8 chips instead of 568, and with higher precision.
- halflings 2y agoThe # of chips is not the most important metric. Most important, even ignoring latency, is throughput (tokens) per $$$. And according to their own benchmark [1] (famous last words :)), they're quite cost efficient. [1] https://www.semianalysis.com/p/groq-inference-tokenomics-speed-but https://www.semianalysis.com/p/groq-inference-tokenomics-spe...