DEPLOYDatabase

Chip comparison

AWS Inferentia 2 vs Tenstorrent Wormhole

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 Wormhole
Process nodeTSMC N7GlobalFoundries 12nm
TDP250 W160 W
Memory32 GB HBM312 GB GDDR6
Memory bandwidth820 GB/s288 GB/s
FP16 (dense)148 TFLOPS
BF16 (dense)190 TFLOPS
FP8 (dense)380 TFLOPS
INT8 (dense)590 TOPS
Form factorInf2 EC2 instancePCIe (n300, n150)
Announced2022-12-012024-07-01
Released2023-04-012024-08-01

Robots running AWS Inferentia 2

No robots publicly running it yet.

Robots running Tenstorrent Wormhole

No robots publicly running it yet.

Data centers with AWS Inferentia 2

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Data centers with Tenstorrent Wormhole

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Common questions

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

AWS Inferentia 2 has 2.57x the dense FP16/BF16 throughput of the other (AWS Inferentia 2: 380 TFLOPS; Tenstorrent Wormhole: 148 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 Wormhole: which has more memory?

AWS Inferentia 2 carries more HBM (AWS Inferentia 2: 32 GB HBM3; Tenstorrent Wormhole: 12 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 Wormhole: which is more power-efficient?

Dense FP16/BF16 TFLOPS per watt: AWS Inferentia 2 1.52 (380 ÷ 250 W); Tenstorrent Wormhole 0.93 (148 ÷ 160 W). AWS Inferentia 2 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 Wormhole full page.