GGUF-Metadata Prediction of Single-Sequence llama.cpp Throughput Across Three Systems
Authors: Xinyu Qiu, Chuhong Xu, Bo Su, Ziyao Chen, Ruiyang Xu, Shimeng Dai
Abstract
We predict single-sequence model throughput from GGUF metadata using roofline-shaped predictors with quantization-specific scale factors fitted on reference models. The scored cohort comprises 318 phase-depth measurements from 53 host-file configurations on two Apple M4 Max systems and an NVIDIA RTX 5080. On host-specific held-out sets of four, five, and two configurations, an active-parameter decode model obtains 13.1%, 14.4%, and 36.1% mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), versus 49.4%, 55.3%, and 51.9% when charging total parameters. Leave-one-host-out coefficients fitted on the other two systems yield 11.6%, 16.8%, and 36.0% test MAPE. A low-bit model ladder changes ordering across runtime stacks. The P2 prefill baseline gives 18.7%, 22.2%, and 108.2% test MAPE. GGUF structure helps on all three systems, but fitted efficiencies are not universal.
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in latency- and cost-sensitive settings, inference efficiency has become a central systems challenge. While GPUs dominate current deployments, a growing number of AI accelerators claim advantages for LLM inference, yet it remains unclear under which conditions such accelerators outperform GPUs in practice. Recent inference systems decompose execution into Prefill and Decode phases, which exhibit distinct computational characteristics and latency metrics, commonly captured by time to first token (TTFT) and time per output token (TPOT). This paper presents a phase-aware evaluation of LLM inference performance across GPUs and emerging AI accelerators using a common model, Llama2-7B. By separately measuring Prefill and Decode performance, we reveal that accelerator advantages differ by phase and metric. Our results show that GPUs consistently excel in the compute-intensive Prefill phase, while GroqRack achieves significantly lower TPOT during Decode (batching not currently supported). However, GPUs regain an advantage in Decode throughput as batch size increases. These findings demonstrate that each platform exhibits distinct phase-dependent strengths. We further analyze heterogeneous Prefill/Decode disaggregation across different accelerator platforms, identifying performance gains and the workload and network conditions under which such gains are realized.
Datacenter GPU power is the binding constraint on LLM serving capacity, and production serving has shifted to prefill/decode (PD) disaggregation. Deploying NVIDIA's Max-Q inference profile on a disaggregated B200 system, we found its realized gain modest (+8.6% tokens/J), model-dependent, and carrying a mean end-to-end latency cost (+5.2%) that throughput-only evaluation does not surface; the profile also applies one setting to prefill and decode GPUs that operate in opposite hardware regimes. We hypothesize that the optimal power setting is a property of the deployed (model, quantization, engine, hardware) combination rather than of the GPU class, that each lane warrants its own profile, and that converting SLO headroom into energy safely requires latency-gated calibration under a runtime SLO guard rather than a fixed recipe. We present a phase-decoupled, model-calibrated controller: the prefill lane runs under an SM-clock window whose floor is a latency guarantee by construction, and the decode lane under a power cap placed by automatic calibration just above a measured throughput/latency cliff. Because a disaggregated decode lane draws flat, memory-bound power, the cap binds continuously, the reactive-overshoot weakness that led POLCA to reject capping is absent, and the GPU's own power manager retains throughput under the cap. On an 8x B200 node serving Qwen3-Coder-480B (FP8) under agentic load, our balanced mode delivers +20.4% tokens/J at +3.5% mean e2e versus +8.6% at +5.2% for Max-Q, a Pareto improvement on both axes. On Qwen3-235B-A22B (NVFP4) every operating mode meets the ITL-p99 SLO in every repetition; both vendor profiles miss it. A decode-actuator A/B shows the calibrated cap beats static clock locks, and a three-day sustained run saves 32.3% of a lane pair's electricity. Both models are MoE; a dense model recovers roughly 5x less, so we scope our claims to MoE serving.
Mixed batching (MB)--interleaving prefill and decode in a single batch--has become the standard scheduling strategy for large language model (LLM) inference due to its efficiency in maximizing compute and memory utilization. However, through controlled experiments, we find that prefill-decode interference inflates MB's per-step marginal cost above that of pure decode. On the high-bandwidth H200 (4.8 TB/s), this occurs only when decode tokens exceed 80% of the batch; however, on the bandwidth-constrained RTX PRO 6000 (1.792 TB/s), this threshold plummets to just 20%. Consequently, the optimal choice between MB and exclusive batching (EB) fundamentally depends on GPU memory bandwidth, model size, and workload composition. We derive a closed-form condition for this EB-MB performance crossover, along with asymptotically optimal phase-switching thresholds and memory-safe batch sizing for EB. Optimized EB achieves up to 41.9% higher throughput on bandwidth-constrained GPUs, while MB retains its advantage on high-bandwidth hardware with larger models. Our hybrid scheduler EB+ applies this condition online to dynamically switch between EB and MB without manual intervention. Under non-stationary traffic with distribution or concurrency shifts, EB+ attains the highest or near-highest throughput in every setting, outperforming MB by up to 36.4%.