The Inference Engineering Pareto Atlas: Which Optimizations Dominate the Cost, Quality, and Latency Frontier?
Authors: Srikanta Datta Tumkur, Jay Iyer, Mehar Simhadri, Sai Pavan Kumar, Sai Kapil Kumar, Ramesh Nampelly
Abstract
LLM inference optimizations report speedups on different models, GPUs, prompts, and quality metrics, making them hard to compare or combine. We build a cost, quality, and latency Pareto atlas to identify the best configurations for different deployment constraints. Since exhaustive testing is impractical, we measure 54 configurations of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct running on vLLM 0.12 across L4, A100, and H100 GPUs and use these anchors to calibrate a simulator. It reproduces measurements at anchored batch sizes, with cross campaign drift below 1.5 percent. A separate quality evaluation tests FP16, AWQ 4bit, FP8 weights, and FP8 KV cache on 200 GSM8K questions with five examples per prompt. Sparse attention is evaluated only in simulation. On the calibrated grid, 18 of 36 configurations reach the Pareto frontier. Combined methods reach it more often than individual methods, with 9 of 15 combinations versus 9 of 21 single methods. Quality testing changes the winners. AWQ 4bit reduces per token latency to 0.34 times baseline on L4 but loses 5.9 percent of strict GSM8K accuracy, narrowly missing the 95 percent quality floor within sampling uncertainty. Flexible answer extraction matches FP16 accuracy, suggesting the loss comes from formatting rather than arithmetic. FP8 weights retain 99.4 percent of baseline accuracy at 0.61 to 0.65 times baseline latency across all three GPUs and appear in three of four regime winners. A naive FP8 KV cache maintains normal throughput but answers none of the 200 questions correctly, showing why speed alone is insufficient. Under two prompt designs, n gram speculative decoding measures at 0.90 to 0.98 times baseline and adds no benefit on this stack. The best choice depends on the constraint and GPU: H100 wins for tight latency, while A100 wins for throughput and low cost at 0.106 dollars per million tokens.
Large Language Models are reshaping how software is developed and maintained. They are typically deployed in production using inference engines such as vLLM, which can efficiently serve pre-trained, highly configurable models. While prior work has focused on model architectures and hardware acceleration, the impact of inference engine configuration on energy consumption, performance, and output quality remains poorly understood. In this paper, we present a large-scale controlled study of three selected vLLM configuration options: attention kernel type, prefix caching, and chunked prefill. We evaluate all combinations of these configurations across 5 open-weight LLMs and 5 diverse inference tasks, totaling 9,000 runs and 93,600 measures. We analyze energy consumption, latency, and accuracy, and examine both main effects and interaction effects between configuration options and tasks. Our results show that the studied configuration options significantly impact energy and performance, mainly driven by attention type and prefix caching, while chunked prefill has a limited effect under the default vLLM serving configuration and evaluated workloads. These effects are highly model- and workload-dependent, and no configuration is universally optimal. We further show that model choice dominates global trade-offs, while configuration tuning provides local improvements along the Pareto frontier. Unexpectedly, inference options can also affect model accuracy.
LLM serving optimization typically benchmarks many configurations and reaches for heavy profilers when latency targets are missed. We argue for the reverse discipline: estimation is the analytical layer of profiling -- without it, optimization degenerates to grid search. Floor First is a residual-driven triage workflow. Each decode step is modeled as a five-dimensional resource vector (HBM bytes, FLOPs, network bytes, network messages, KV capacity); summing within a resource and maximizing across resources gives an optimistic floor, the plain sum a pessimistic one. Where a measurement lands inside this [max, sum] interval reads out overlap quality before any profiler is opened, and profilers escalate only on residuals above a stated threshold. Deployment alternatives are compared by wall ordering -- which resource wall binds first as load grows -- rather than by point benchmarks. The account is compositional: new attention or state-space variants enter by declaring one module, and the workflow ships as a zero-dependency calculator plus an agent skill that enforces the discipline in agentic optimization loops. As a case study we analyze a DeepSeek-V3.2-style 671B MoE/MLA model on 16 NVIDIA H20 GPUs, whose ridge point of ~74 FLOP/byte (vs ~590 for H100) makes it an extreme decode-oriented part. The floors show TP16 decoding is KV-capacity-limited to ~70 concurrent 8K requests; sparse attention removes the KV-bandwidth term but not the capacity wall; an EP16+DP-attention layout accepts slightly worse same-batch weight traffic for an order-of-magnitude higher capacity wall (~644) -- while single-stream latency favors TP by 2.4x. The layout judgment is thus a computable function of the operating point, explaining why production deployments on identical hardware have shipped opposite attention layouts.
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.