Out of curiosity, what's the performance compared to torch.compile? about stable-fast HOT 8 CLOSED

So it's about on par with TensorRT but a bit slower than OneFlow and this repo?

Since I have not tested either TensorRT or OneFlow on the same hardware, it's hard to make comparisons directly on the reported it/s numbers here vs mine. But as a relative perf point, torch.compile on A100 40G is about %8 slower than stable-fast which puts it into the same venue as OneFlow which is 9% slower compared to stable-fast.

Accurate benchmark has been conducted for 4090 and 3090 by myself today.

Performance varies very greatly across different hardware/software/platform/driver configurations.
It is very hard to benchmark accurately. And preparing the environment for benchmarking is also a hard job.
I have tested on some platforms before but the results may still be inaccurate.

currently A100 is hard and expensive to rent from cloud server providers in my region.

Benchmark results will be available when I have the access to A100 again.

RTX 4090 (512x512, batch size 1, fp16, tcmalloc enabled)

RTX 3090 (512x512, batch size 1, fp16, tcmalloc enabled)

from stable-fast.

I have made an attempt on reproducing the results, but always take these with a grain of salt since there might be differences in cuda/library versions/hardware (especially memory bandwith between 40G and 80G being different) etc.

On one of our A100 40G, using model=SD1.5, batch_size=1, steps=100, I get:

-> SD1.5 out of the box with torch 2.1 SDPA is ~32it/s
-> SD1.5 + torch.compile is ~51it/s
-> SD1.5 + stable-fast is ~55it/s

from stable-fast.

I have made an attempt on reproducing the results, but always take these with a grain of salt since there might be differences in cuda/library versions/hardware (especially memory bandwith between 40G and 80G being different) etc.

On one of our A100 40G, using model=SD1.5, batch_size=1, steps=100, I get:

-> SD1.5 out of the box with torch 2.1 SDPA is ~32it/s -> SD1.5 + torch.compile is ~51it/s -> SD1.5 + stable-fast is ~55it/s

Yes, in this doc, the performance of torch.compile on hf diffusers is discussed in detail.

https://huggingface.co/docs/diffusers/optimization/torch2.0

from stable-fast.

So it's about on par with TensorRT but a bit slower than OneFlow and this repo?

from stable-fast.

So it's about on par with TensorRT but a bit slower than OneFlow and this repo?

Since I have not tested either TensorRT or OneFlow on the same hardware, it's hard to make comparisons directly on the reported it/s numbers here vs mine. But as a relative perf point, torch.compile on A100 40G is about %8 slower than stable-fast which puts it into the same venue as OneFlow which is 9% slower compared to stable-fast.

from stable-fast.

So it's about on par with TensorRT but a bit slower than OneFlow and this repo?

Since I have not tested either TensorRT or OneFlow on the same hardware, it's hard to make comparisons directly on the reported it/s numbers here vs mine. But as a relative perf point, torch.compile on A100 40G is about %8 slower than stable-fast which puts it into the same venue as OneFlow which is 9% slower compared to stable-fast.

Commercial GPUs are expensive and hard to get in my country.
We also have strict international Internet connection limitations here.

So testing cutting-edge ML models is not an easy task for me, please wait.

from stable-fast.

Thanks for the benchmarks!

I wonder if the tile sizes for torch.compile are just very untuned for consumer hardware 🤔

If you happen to have some more time, could you try:

1. making sure you turn on mode="reduce-overhead" for torch.compile.
2. Try running with TORCHINDUCTOR_COORDINATE_DESCENT_TUNING=1

Thanks a lot for the benchmarks! I don't happen to have any consumer cards immediately available, so it's good to see torch.compile performance on consumer hardware.

from stable-fast.

Thanks for the benchmarks!

I wonder if the tile sizes for torch.compile are just very untuned for consumer hardware 🤔

If you happen to have some more time, could you try:

1. making sure you turn on mode="reduce-overhead" for torch.compile.
2. Try running with TORCHINDUCTOR_COORDINATE_DESCENT_TUNING=1

Thanks a lot for the benchmarks! I don't happen to have any consumer cards immediately available, so it's good to see torch.compile performance on consumer hardware.

In my own development environment, with 'reduce-overhead', the model just generates buggy outputs...

from stable-fast.