From Words to Watts: Benchmarking the Energy Costs of Large Language Model Inference
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have exploded in popularity due to their new generative capabilities that go far beyond prior state-of-the-art. These technologies are increasingly being leveraged in various domains such as law, finance, and medicine. However, these models carry significant computational challenges, especially the compute and energy costs required for inference. Inference energy costs already receive less attention than the energy costs of training LLMs-despite how often these large models are called on to conduct inference in reality (e.g., ChatGPT). As these state-of-the-art LLMs see increasing usage and deployment in various domains, a better understanding of their resource utilization is crucial for cost-savings, scaling performance, efficient hardware usage, and optimal inference strategies. In this paper, we describe experiments conducted to study the computational and energy utilization of inference with LLMs. We benchmark and conduct a preliminary analysis of the inference performance and inference energy costs of different sizes of LLaMA-a recent state-of-the-art LLM-developed by Meta AI on two generations of popular GPUs (NVIDIA V100 & A100) and two datasets (Alpaca and GSM8K) to reflect the diverse set of tasks/benchmarks for LLMs in research and practice. We present the results of multi-node, multi-GPU inference using model sharding across up to 32 GPUs. To our knowledge, our work is the one of the first to study LLM inference performance from the perspective of computational and energy resources at this scale.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Output token generation dominates inference cost, approximately 3× more expensive per token than input processing.
“output token generation dominates inference cost (approximately 3 × more expensive per token than input processing (Samsi et al., 2023))”
From Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression (2026) · cites this paper as Samsi et al., 2023
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 225
- Authors
- Samsi, S., Zhao, D., McDonald, J., Li, B., Michaleas, A., Jones, M., Bergeron, W., Kepner, J., Tiwari, D., & Gadepally, V.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern University (US)
- New York University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- 2023 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2023-09-25
- Pages
- 1-9
- OpenAlex
- W4390189088
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 79 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 39
- FWCI
- 110.20
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Green IT and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Energy Efficiency in Computing
- Keywords
- large language models, llamas, NVIDIA V100, NVIDIA A100, GPU utilization, inference performance, alpaca, GSM8K
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review