DEPLOYDatabase

Chip comparison

AWS Inferentia 2 vs Tenstorrent Blackhole

Side-by-side specs

Straight from each vendor's datasheet. Winner in bold: higher throughput, memory, or transistor count; lower power draw or price. Sparse (2:4) throughput roughly doubles the FP8/INT8 numbers shown.

FieldAWS Inferentia 2Tenstorrent Blackhole
Process nodeTSMC N7TSMC N6
TDP250 W300 W
Memory32 GB HBM332 GB GDDR6
Memory bandwidth820 GB/s512 GB/s
FP16 (dense)745 TFLOPS
BF16 (dense)190 TFLOPS
FP8 (dense)380 TFLOPS
INT8 (dense)2,980 TOPS
Form factorInf2 EC2 instancePCIe
Announced2022-12-012024-07-01
Released2023-04-012025-01-01

Robots running AWS Inferentia 2

No robots publicly running it yet.

Robots running Tenstorrent Blackhole

No robots publicly running it yet.

Data centers with AWS Inferentia 2

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Data centers with Tenstorrent Blackhole

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Common questions

AWS Inferentia 2 vs Tenstorrent Blackhole: which is faster for training?

Tenstorrent Blackhole has 1.96x the dense FP16/BF16 throughput of the other (AWS Inferentia 2: 380 TFLOPS; Tenstorrent Blackhole: 745 TFLOPS). Real-world training speed also depends on memory bandwidth, interconnect, and software stack: see the spec diff for those inputs.

AWS Inferentia 2 vs Tenstorrent Blackhole: which has more memory?

Tenstorrent Blackhole carries more HBM (AWS Inferentia 2: 32 GB HBM3; Tenstorrent Blackhole: 32 GB GDDR6). Memory capacity sets the largest model that fits on one chip without partitioning; memory bandwidth sets inference throughput.

AWS Inferentia 2 vs Tenstorrent Blackhole: which is more power-efficient?

Dense FP16/BF16 TFLOPS per watt: AWS Inferentia 2 1.52 (380 ÷ 250 W); Tenstorrent Blackhole 2.48 (745 ÷ 300 W). Tenstorrent Blackhole wins at the die level; system-level efficiency also depends on cooling and interconnect.

See also: every chip comparison · AWS Inferentia 2 full page · Tenstorrent Blackhole full page.