David A. Patterson

Norman P. Jouppi, George Kurian, Sheng Li et al.

In response to innovations in machine learning (ML) models, production workloads changed radically and rapidly. TPU v4 is the fifth Google domain specific architecture (DSA) and its third supercomputer for such ML models. Optical circuit switches (OCSes) dynamically reconfigure its interconnect topology to improve scale, availability, utilization, modularity, deployment, security, power, and performance; users can pick a twisted 3D torus topology if desired. Much cheaper, lower power, and faster than Infiniband, OCSes and underlying optical components are <5% of system cost and <3% of system power. Each TPU v4 includes SparseCores, dataflow processors that accelerate models that rely on embeddings by 5x-7x yet use only 5% of die area and power. Deployed since 2020, TPU v4 outperforms TPU v3 by 2.1x and improves performance/Watt by 2.7x. The TPU v4 supercomputer is 4x larger at 4096 chips and thus ~10x faster overall, which along with OCS flexibility helps large language models. For similar sized systems, it is ~4.3x-4.5x faster than the Graphcore IPU Bow and is 1.2x-1.7x faster and uses 1.3x-1.9x less power than the Nvidia A100. TPU v4s inside the energy-optimized warehouse scale computers of Google Cloud use ~3x less energy and produce ~20x less CO2e than contemporary DSAs in a typical on-premise data center.

Ian Schneider, Hui Xu, Stephan Benecke et al.

Specialized hardware accelerators aid the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), and their efficiency impacts AI's environmental sustainability. This study presents the first publication of a comprehensive AI accelerator life-cycle assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas emissions, including the first publication of manufacturing emissions of an AI accelerator. Our analysis of five Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) encompasses all stages of the hardware lifespan - from raw material extraction, manufacturing, and disposal, to energy consumption during development, deployment, and serving of AI models. Using first-party data, it offers the most comprehensive evaluation to date of AI hardware's environmental impact. We include detailed descriptions of our LCA to act as a tutorial, road map, and inspiration for other computer engineers to perform similar LCAs to help us all understand the environmental impacts of our chips and of AI. A byproduct of this study is the new metric compute carbon intensity (CCI) that is helpful in evaluating AI hardware sustainability and in estimating the carbon footprint of training and inference. This study shows that CCI improves 3x from TPU v4i to TPU v6e. Moreover, while this paper's focus is on hardware, software advancements leverage and amplify these gains.

Cooper Elsworth, Keguo Huang, David Patterson et al.

The transformative power of AI is undeniable - but as user adoption accelerates, so does the need to understand and mitigate the environmental impact of AI serving. However, no studies have measured AI serving environmental metrics in a production environment. This paper addresses this gap by proposing and executing a comprehensive methodology for measuring the energy usage, carbon emissions, and water consumption of AI inference workloads in a large-scale, AI production environment. Our approach accounts for the full stack of AI serving infrastructure - including active AI accelerator power, host system energy, idle machine capacity, and data center energy overhead. Through detailed instrumentation of Google's AI infrastructure for serving the Gemini AI assistant, we find the median Gemini Apps text prompt consumes 0.24 Wh of energy - a figure substantially lower than many public estimates. We also show that Google's software efficiency efforts and clean energy procurement have driven a 33x reduction in energy consumption and a 44x reduction in carbon footprint for the median Gemini Apps text prompt over one year. We identify that the median Gemini Apps text prompt uses less energy than watching nine seconds of television (0.24 Wh) and consumes the equivalent of five drops of water (0.26 mL). While these impacts are low compared to other daily activities, reducing the environmental impact of AI serving continues to warrant important attention. Towards this objective, we propose that a comprehensive measurement of AI serving environmental metrics is critical for accurately comparing models, and to properly incentivize efficiency gains across the full AI serving stack.

David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Quoc Le et al.

The computation demand for machine learning (ML) has grown rapidly recently, which comes with a number of costs. Estimating the energy cost helps measure its environmental impact and finding greener strategies, yet it is challenging without detailed information. We calculate the energy use and carbon footprint of several recent large models-T5, Meena, GShard, Switch Transformer, and GPT-3-and refine earlier estimates for the neural architecture search that found Evolved Transformer. We highlight the following opportunities to improve energy efficiency and CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e): Large but sparsely activated DNNs can consume <1/10th the energy of large, dense DNNs without sacrificing accuracy despite using as many or even more parameters. Geographic location matters for ML workload scheduling since the fraction of carbon-free energy and resulting CO2e vary ~5X-10X, even within the same country and the same organization. We are now optimizing where and when large models are trained. Specific datacenter infrastructure matters, as Cloud datacenters can be ~1.4-2X more energy efficient than typical datacenters, and the ML-oriented accelerators inside them can be ~2-5X more effective than off-the-shelf systems. Remarkably, the choice of DNN, datacenter, and processor can reduce the carbon footprint up to ~100-1000X. These large factors also make retroactive estimates of energy cost difficult. To avoid miscalculations, we believe ML papers requiring large computational resources should make energy consumption and CO2e explicit when practical. We are working to be more transparent about energy use and CO2e in our future research. To help reduce the carbon footprint of ML, we believe energy usage and CO2e should be a key metric in evaluating models, and we are collaborating with MLPerf developers to include energy usage during training and inference in this industry standard benchmark.

Colby R. Banbury, Vijay Janapa Reddi, Max Lam et al.

Recent advancements in ultra-low-power machine learning (TinyML) hardware promises to unlock an entirely new class of smart applications. However, continued progress is limited by the lack of a widely accepted benchmark for these systems. Benchmarking allows us to measure and thereby systematically compare, evaluate, and improve the performance of systems and is therefore fundamental to a field reaching maturity. In this position paper, we present the current landscape of TinyML and discuss the challenges and direction towards developing a fair and useful hardware benchmark for TinyML workloads. Furthermore, we present our four benchmarks and discuss our selection methodology. Our viewpoints reflect the collective thoughts of the TinyMLPerf working group that is comprised of over 30 organizations.

Norman P. Jouppi, Cliff Young, Nishant Patil et al.

Many architects believe that major improvements in cost-energy-performance must now come from domain-specific hardware. This paper evaluates a custom ASIC---called a Tensor Processing Unit (TPU)---deployed in datacenters since 2015 that accelerates the inference phase of neural networks (NN). The heart of the TPU is a 65,536 8-bit MAC matrix multiply unit that offers a peak throughput of 92 TeraOps/second (TOPS) and a large (28 MiB) software-managed on-chip memory. The TPU's deterministic execution model is a better match to the 99th-percentile response-time requirement of our NN applications than are the time-varying optimizations of CPUs and GPUs (caches, out-of-order execution, multithreading, multiprocessing, prefetching, ...) that help average throughput more than guaranteed latency. The lack of such features helps explain why, despite having myriad MACs and a big memory, the TPU is relatively small and low power. We compare the TPU to a server-class Intel Haswell CPU and an Nvidia K80 GPU, which are contemporaries deployed in the same datacenters. Our workload, written in the high-level TensorFlow framework, uses production NN applications (MLPs, CNNs, and LSTMs) that represent 95% of our datacenters' NN inference demand. Despite low utilization for some applications, the TPU is on average about 15X - 30X faster than its contemporary GPU or CPU, with TOPS/Watt about 30X - 80X higher. Moreover, using the GPU's GDDR5 memory in the TPU would triple achieved TOPS and raise TOPS/Watt to nearly 70X the GPU and 200X the CPU.