DEPLOYDatabase

Chip comparison

Cambricon MLU370-X8 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.

FieldCambricon MLU370-X8Tenstorrent Wormhole
Process nodeTSMC N7GlobalFoundries 12nm
TDP250 W160 W
Memory48 GB LPDDR512 GB GDDR6
Memory bandwidth—288 GB/s
FP16 (dense)96 TFLOPS148 TFLOPS
INT8 (dense)256 TOPS590 TOPS
Form factorPCIePCIe (n300, n150)
Announced2022-03-252024-07-01
Released—2024-08-01

Robots running Cambricon MLU370-X8

No robots publicly running it yet.

Robots running Tenstorrent Wormhole

No robots publicly running it yet.

Data centers with Cambricon MLU370-X8

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Data centers with Tenstorrent Wormhole

No data centers publicly running it yet.

Common questions

Cambricon MLU370-X8 vs Tenstorrent Wormhole: which is faster for training?

Tenstorrent Wormhole has 1.54x the dense FP16/BF16 throughput of the other (Cambricon MLU370-X8: 96 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.

Cambricon MLU370-X8 vs Tenstorrent Wormhole: which has more memory?

Cambricon MLU370-X8 carries more HBM (Cambricon MLU370-X8: 48 GB LPDDR5; Tenstorrent Wormhole: 12 GB GDDR6). Memory capacity sets the largest model that fits on one chip without partitioning; memory bandwidth sets inference throughput.

Cambricon MLU370-X8 vs Tenstorrent Wormhole: which is more power-efficient?

Dense FP16/BF16 TFLOPS per watt: Cambricon MLU370-X8 0.38 (96 ÷ 250 W); Tenstorrent Wormhole 0.93 (148 ÷ 160 W). Tenstorrent Wormhole wins at the die level; system-level efficiency also depends on cooling and interconnect.

See also: every chip comparison · Cambricon MLU370-X8 full page · Tenstorrent Wormhole full page.