Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Cerebras Inference now 3x faster: Llama3.1-70B breaks 2,100 tokens/s

simonw

It turns out someone has written a plugin for my LLM CLI tool already: https://github.com/irthomasthomas/llm-cerebras

You need an API key - I got one from https://cloud.cerebras.ai/ but I'm not sure if there's a waiting list at the moment - then you can do this:

    pipx install llm # or brew install llm or uv tool install llm
    llm install llm-cerebras
    llm keys set cerebras
    # paste key here
Then you can run lightning fast prompts like this:

    llm -m cerebras-llama3.1-70b 'an epic tail of a walrus pirate'
Here's a video of that running, it's very speedy: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2024/cerebras-is-fas...

croes

It has a waiting list

londons_explore

The "AI overview" in google search seems to be a similar speed, and the resulting text of similar quality.

simonw

I wonder which of their models they use. Might even be Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B which is VERY quick.

I just tried that out with the same prompt and it's fast, but not as fast as Cerebras: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2024/gemini-flash-8b...

londons_explore

I suspect it is its own model. Running it on 10B+ user queries per day you're gonna want to optimize everything you can about it - so you'd want something really optimized to the exact problem rather than using a general purpose model with careful prompting.

a2128

I wonder at what point does increasing LLM throughput only start to serve negative uses of AI. This is already 2 orders of magnitude faster than humans can read. Are there any significant legitimate uses beyond just spamming AI-generated SEO articles and fake Amazon books more quickly and cheaply?

maz1b

Cerebras really has impressed me with their technicality and their approach in the modern LLM era. I hope they do well, as I've heard they are en-route to IPO. It will be interesting to see if they can make a dent vs NVIDIA and other players in this space.

madaxe_again

Apparently so. You can also buy in via various PE outfits before IPO, if you so desire. I did.

fancyfredbot

Wow, software is hard! Imagine an entire company working to build an insanely huge and expensive wafer scale chip and your super smart and highly motivated machine learning engineers get 1/3 of peak performance on their first attempt. When people say NVIDIA has no moat I'm going to remember this - partly because it does show that they do, and partly because it shows that with time the moat can probably be crossed...

GavCo

When Meta releases the quantized 70B it will give another > 2X speedup with similar accuracy: https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-quantized-lightweight-mo...

YetAnotherNick

You don't need quantization aware training on larger models. 4 bit 70b and 405b models exhibit close to zero degradation in output with post training quantization[1][2].

[1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.11055v1 [2]: https://lmarena.ai/

WanderPanda

I wonder why that is? because they are trained with dropout?

ipsum2

Probably not. Cerebras chip only has 16bit and 32bit operators.

obviyus

Wonder if they'll eventually release Whisper support. Groq has been great for transcribing 1hr+ calls at a significnatly lower price compared to OpenAI ($0.36/hr vs. $0.04/hr).

BrunoJo

https://Lemonfox.ai is another alternative to OpenAI's Whisper API if you need support for word-level timestamps and diarization.

Arn_Thor

Whisper runs so well locally on any hardware I’ve thrown at it, why run it in the cloud?

swores

Does it run well on CPU? I've used it locally but only with my high end (consumer/gaming) GPU, and haven't got round to finding out how it does on weaker machines.

obviyus

That's pretty much exactly how I started. Ran whisper.cpp locally for a while on a 3070Ti. It worked quite well when n=1.

For our use case, we may get 1 audio file at a time, we may get 10. Of course queuing them is possible but we decided to prioritize speed & reliability over self hosting.

asabla

Damn, that's some impressive speeds.

At that rate it doesn't matter if the first try resulted in an unwanted answer, you'll be able to run once or twice more in a fast succession.

I hope their hardware stays relevant as this field continues to evolve

tjoff

The biggest time sink for me is validating answers so not sure I agree on that take.

Fast iteration is a killer feature, for sure, but at this time I'd rather focus on quality for it to be worthwhile the effort.

vineyardmike

If you're using an LLM as a compressed version of a search index, you'll be constantly fighting hallucinations. Respectfully, you're not thinking big-picture enough.

There are LLMs today that are amazing at coding, and when you allow it to iterate (eg. respond to compiler errors), the quality is pretty impressive. If you can run an LLM 3x faster, you can enable a much bigger feedback loop in the same period of time.

There are efforts to enable LLMs to "think" by using Chain-of-thought, where the LLM writes out reasoning in a "proof" style list of steps. Sometimes, like with a person, they'd reach a dead-end logic wise. If you can run 3x faster, you can start to run the "thought chain" as more of a "tree" where the logic is critiqued and adapted, and where many different solutions can be tried. This can all happen in parallel (well, each sub-branch).

Then there are "agent" use cases, where an LLM has to take actions on its own in response to real-world situations. Speed really impacts user-perception of quality.

phito

> There are LLMs today that are amazing at coding, and when you allow it to iterate (eg. respond to compiler errors), the quality is pretty impressive. If you can run an LLM 3x faster, you can enable a much bigger feedback loop in the same period of time.

Well now the compiler is the bottleneck isn't it? And you would still need human check for bugs that aren't caught by the compiler.

Still nice to have inference speed improvements tho.

tjoff

If the speed is used to get better quality with no more input from the user then sure, that is great. But that is not the only way to get better quality (though I agree that there are some low hanging fruit in the area).

OhNoNotAgain_99

To be honest most LLM's are reasonable at coding, they're not great. Sure they can code small stuff. But the can't refactor large software projects, or upgrade them.

jeswin

> The biggest time sink for me is validating answers so not sure I agree on that take.

But you're assuming that it'll always ne validated by humans. I'd imagine that most validation (and subsequent processing, especially going forward) will be done on machines.

croes

And who validates the validation?

tjoff

If that is the way to get quality, sure.

Otherwise I feel that power consumption is the bigger issue than speed, though in this case they are interlinked.

yunohn

How does the next machine/LLM know what’s valid or not? I don’t really understand the idea behind layers of hallucinating LLMs.

croes

Exactly, validating and rewriting the prompt are the real time consuming tasks.

majke

I wonder if there is a token/watt metric. Afaiu cerebras uses plenty of power/cooling.

accrual

I found this on their product page, though just for peak power:

> At 16 RU, and peak sustained system power of 23kW, the CS-3 packs the performance of a room full of servers into a single unit the size of a dorm room mini-fridge.

It's pretty impressive looking hardware.

https://cerebras.ai/product-system/

odo1242

What made it so much faster based on just a software update?

anon291

Ex-cereberas engineer here. The chip is very powerful and there is no 'one way' to do things. Rearchitecting data flow, changing up data layout, etc can lead to significant performance improvements. That's just my informed speculation. There's likely more perf somewhere

campers

  The first implementation of inference on the Wafer Scale Engine and utilized only a fraction of its peak bandwidth, compute, and IO capacity. Today’s release is the culmination of numerous software, hardware, and ML improvements we made to our stack to greatly improve the utilization and real-world performance of Cerebras Inference.
 
  We’ve re-written or optimized the most critical kernels such as MatMul, reduce/broadcast, element wise ops, and activations. Wafer IO has been streamlined to run asynchronously from compute. This release also implements speculative decoding, a widely used technique that uses a small model and large model in tandem to generate answers faster.

germanjoey

They said in the announcement that they've implemented speculative decoding, so that might have a lot to do with it.

A big question is what they're using as their draft model; there's ways to do it losslessly, but they could also choose to trade off accuracy for a bigger increase in speed.

It seems they also support only a very short sequence length. (1k tokens)

bubblethink

Speculative decoding does not trade off accuracy. You reject the speculated tokens if the original model does not accept them, kind of like branch prediction. All these providers and third parties benchmark each other's solutions, so if there is a drop in accuracy, someone will report it. Their sequence length is 8k.

neals

So what is inference?

jonplackett

Inference just means using the model, rather than training it.

As far as I know Nvidia still has a monopoly on the training part.

null

[deleted]

andrewstuart

Could someone please bring Microsoft's Bitnet into the discussion and explain how its performance relates to this announcement, if at all?

https://github.com/microsoft/BitNet

"bitnet.cpp achieves speedups of 1.37x to 5.07x on ARM CPUs, with larger models experiencing greater performance gains. Additionally, it reduces energy consumption by 55.4% to 70.0%, further boosting overall efficiency. On x86 CPUs, speedups range from 2.37x to 6.17x with energy reductions between 71.9% to 82.2%. Furthermore, bitnet.cpp can run a 100B BitNet b1.58 model on a single CPU, achieving speeds comparable to human reading (5-7 tokens per second), significantly enhancing the potential for running LLMs on local devices. "

eptcyka

It is an inference engine for 1bit LLMs, not really comparable.

BoorishBears

The novelty of the inexplicable bitnet obsession has worn off I think.

qwertox

IDK, they remind me of Sigma-Delta ADCs [0], which are single bit ADCs but used in high resolution scenarios.

I believe we'll get to hear more interesting things about Bitnet in the future.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation

Tepix

We have yet to see a large model trained using it, haven't we?

BoorishBears

Bitnet models are just another piece in the ocean of techniques where there may possibly be alpha at large parameter counts... but no one will know until a massive investment is made, and that investment hasn't happened because the people with resources have much surer things to invest in.

There's this insufferable crowd of people who just keep going on and on about it like it's some magic bullet that will let them run 405B on their home PC but if it was so simple it's not like the 5 or so companies in the world putting out frontier models need little Timmy 3090 to tell them about the technique: we don't need it shoehorned into every single release.