FinGraV: Methodology for Fine-Grain GPU Power Visibility and Insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ubiquity of AI makes optimizing GPU power a priority as large GPU-based clusters are often employed to train and serve AI models. An important first step in optimizing GPU power consumption is high-fidelity and fine-grain power measurement of key AI computations on GPUs. To this end, we observe that as GPUs get more powerful, the resulting sub-millisecond to millisecond executions make fine-grain power analysis challenging. In this work, we first carefully identify the challenges in obtaining fine-grain GPU power profiles. To address these challenges, we devise FinGraV methodology where we employ execution time binning, careful CPU-GPU time synchronization, and power profile differentiation to collect finegrain GPU power profiles across prominent AI computations and across a spectrum of scenarios. Using the said FinGraV power profiles, we provide both, guidance on accurate power measurement and, in-depth view of power consumption on state-of-the-art AMD Instinct™ MI300X. For the former, we highlight a methodology for power differentiation across executions. For the latter, we make several observations pertaining to GPU subcomponent power consumption and GPU power proportionality across different scenarios. We believe that FinGraV unlocks both an accurate and a deeper view of power consumption of GPUs and opens up avenues for power optimization of these ubiquitous accelerators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".