Cited by 371Parallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsTopic Modeling

AI and Memory Wall

Open access
Gholami, Amir, Yao, Zhewei, Kim, Sehoon, Hooper, Coleman, Mahoney, Michael W., Keutzer, Kurt·2024·IEEE Micro

Abstract

The availability of unprecedented unsupervised training data, along with neural scaling laws, has resulted in an unprecedented surge in model size and compute requirements for serving/training LLMs. However, the main performance bottleneck is increasingly shifting to memory bandwidth. Over the past 20 years, peak server hardware FLOPS has been scaling at 3.0×/2yrs, outpacing the growth of DRAM and interconnect bandwidth, which have only scaled at 1.6 and 1.4 times every 2 years, respectively. This disparity has made memory, rather than compute, the primary bottleneck in AI applications, particularly in serving. Here, we analyze encoder and decoder Transformer models and show how memory bandwidth can become the dominant bottleneck for decoder models. We argue for a redesign in model architecture, training, and deployment strategies to overcome this memory limitation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/mm.2024.3373763

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The focus group observations are consistent with Gholami et al.'s (2024) findings on AI's restricted memory capacity and its tendency to produce narrative incoherence in longer texts.

    “These observations are consistent with Gholami et al.'s (2024) findings on AI's restricted memory capacity and its tendency to produce narrative incoherence in longer texts.”

    From How Creative Is AI Writing? Generative and Collaborative AI in Japanese Fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Gholami et al.'s (2024)

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes limited memory capacity on a single accelerator when training or serving large language models. That is a hardware constraint, not a finding about how much earlier text an AI can retain; the paper does not report narrative incoherence in longer texts. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The relative weakness of zero-shot generation is consistent with research on AI's limitations in sustaining narrative coherence.

    “the relative weakness of zero-shot generation is consistent with research on AI's limitations in sustaining narrative coherence (Gholami et al., 2024)”

    From How Creative Is AI Writing? Generative and Collaborative AI in Japanese Fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Gholami et al., 2024

    The Profiling and Conclusion sections discuss AI models’ training, deployment, and memory bottlenecks, not narrative coherence. Searches for zero-shot generation and coherent story generation found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed limitation. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Gholami et al. (2024) identify restricted memory capacity as one of the primary challenges of AI-assisted fiction writing: as a story progresses, the model tends to lose track of earlier plot points and character details, which result in narrative inconsistencies.

    “Gholami et al. (2024) identify restricted memory capacity as one of the primary challenges of AI-assisted fiction writing: as a story progresses, the model tends to lose track of earlier plot points and character details, which result in narrative inconsistencies.”

    From How Creative Is AI Writing? Generative and Collaborative AI in Japanese Fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Gholami et al. (2024)

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. G. Ballard, J. Demmel, O. Holtz, and O. Schwartz, "Minimizing communication in numerical linear alge- bra," SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 866-901, 2011.
  2. L. Bottou, F. E. Curtis, and J. Nocedal, "Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning," SIAM Review, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 223-311, 2018.
  3. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Ka- plan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., "Language models are few-shot learn- ers," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877-1901, 2020.
  4. A. Chowdhery, S. Narang, J. Devlin, M. Bosma, G. Mishra, A. Roberts, P. Barham, H. W. Chung, C. Sutton, S. Gehrmann et al., "Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways," Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 24, no. 240, pp. 1-113, 2023.
  5. H. W. Chung, L. Hou, S. Longpre, B. Zoph, Y. Tay, W. Fedus, Y. Li, X. Wang, M. Dehghani, S. Brahma et al., "Scaling instruction-finetuned language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416, 2022. · arXiv
  6. T. Dettmers, R. Svirschevski, V. Egiazarian, D. Kuznedelev, E. Frantar, S. Ashkboos, A. Borzunov, T. Hoefler, and D. Alistarh, "Spqr: A sparse-quantized representation for near-lossless llm weight compression," arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03078, 2023. · arXiv
  7. E. Frantar, S. Ashkboos, T. Hoefler, and D. Alistarh, "OPTQ: Accurate quantization for generative pre-trained transformers," in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  8. J. L. Hennessy and D. A. Patterson, Computer architec- ture: a quantitative approach. Elsevier, 2011.
  9. A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. d. l. Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier et al., "Mistral 7b," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023. · arXiv
  10. S. Kim, C. Hooper, A. Gholami, Z. Dong, X. Li, S. Shen, M. W. Mahoney, and K. Keutzer, "Squeezellm: Dense-and-sparse quantization," arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07629, 2023. · arXiv
  11. V. A. Korthikanti, J. Casper, S. Lym, L. McAfee, M. Andersch, M. Shoeybi, and B. Catanzaro, "Reducing activation recomputation in large transformer models," Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, vol. 5, 2023.
  12. S. Krishna and R. Krishna, "Accelerating recom- mender systems via hardware scale-in," arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.05230, 2020. · arXiv
  13. W. Kwon, S. Kim, M. W. Mahoney, J. Hassoun, K. Keutzer, and A. Gholami, "A fast post-training prun- ing framework for transformers," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2022, pp. 24 101-24 116.
  14. Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, P. Haffner et al., "Gradient-based learning applied to document recogni- tion," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278- 2324, 1998.
  15. S. A. McKee, "Reflections on the memory wall," in Pro- ceedings of the 1st Conference on Computing Frontiers, ser. CF '04. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2004, p. 162.
  16. P. Micikevicius, S. Narang, J. Alben, G. Diamos, E. Elsen, D. Garcia, B. Ginsburg, M. Houston, O. Kuchaiev, G. Venkatesh, and H. Wu, "Mixed preci- sion training," in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
  17. P. Micikevicius, D. Stosic, N. Burgess, M. Cornea, P. Dubey, R. Grisenthwaite, S. Ha, A. Heinecke, P. Judd, J. Kamalu et al., "Fp8 formats for deep learning," arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05433, 2022. · arXiv
  18. G. Moore, "No exponential is forever: but "forever" can be delayed! [semiconductor industry]," in 2003 IEEE In- ternational Solid-State Circuits Conference, 2003. Digest of Technical Papers. ISSCC., 2003, pp. 20-23 vol.1.
  19. M. Naumov, D. Mudigere, H.-J. M. Shi, J. Huang, N. Sundaraman, J. Park, X. Wang, U. Gupta, C.-J. Wu, A. G. Azzolini et al., "Deep learning recommendation model for personalization and recommendation systems," arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00091, 2019. · arXiv
  20. J. Ousterhout, "Why aren't operating systems getting faster as fast as hardware?" in USENIX Summer Con- ference, 1990, 1990.
  21. D. Patterson, T. Anderson, N. Cardwell, R. Fromm, K. Keeton, C. Kozyrakis, R. Thomas, and K. Yelick, "A case for intelligent ram," IEEE micro, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 34-44, 1997.
  22. A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever, "Language models are unsupervised multitask learners," OpenAI blog, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019.
  23. S. Rajbhandari, J. Rasley, O. Ruwase, and Y. He, "Zero: Memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter models," in SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Anal- ysis. IEEE, 2020, pp. 1-16.
  24. D. Sites, "It's the memory, stupid!" Microprocessor Re- port, pp. 18-24, 1996.
  25. H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y. Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhos- ale et al., "Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  26. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, "Attention is all you need," in Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 2017, pp. 5998-6008.
  27. J. Wei, Y. Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Met- zler et al., "Emergent abilities of large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022. · arXiv
  28. M. V. Wilkes, "The memory wall and the cmos end- point," ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 4-6, 1995.
  29. Z. Yao, R. Yazdani Aminabadi, M. Zhang, X. Wu, C. Li, and Y. He, "Zeroquant: Efficient and affordable post-training quantization for large-scale transformers," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, Eds., vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022, pp. 27 168-27 183.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gholami, A., Yao, Z., Kim, S., Hooper, C., Mahoney, M. W., & Keutzer, K.
Affiliations
  • International Computer Science Institute (US)
  • Snowflake Inc. (United States) (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
IEEE Micro
Published
2024-05
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
33-39
ISSN
  • 0272-1732 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-4143
OpenAlex
W4393145114
Cited by
369
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 143 · 2025: 166 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
110.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Micro (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KAIST Institutional Repository (KAIST) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Intel Corporation
  • Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology
  • Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies
  • Samsung
  • Office of Naval Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
memory wall, memory bandwidth, large language models, transformer models, DRAM scaling, interconnect bandwidth, model serving

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