{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper","slug":"llm-gpu-helper","name":"LLM GPU Helper","type":"model","url":"https://llmgpuhelper.com","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/llm-gpu-helper","categories":["deployment-infra"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"freemium","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_0","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.gpu.memory.footprint.estimation.and.optimization","name":"gpu memory footprint estimation and optimization","description":"Analyzes model architecture specifications (parameter count, precision, attention mechanisms) and hardware constraints to calculate peak memory consumption across forward pass, backward pass, and activation caching. Uses layer-wise profiling heuristics to identify memory bottlenecks and recommend precision reduction (FP32→FP16→INT8), gradient checkpointing, or activation offloading strategies without requiring actual GPU execution.","intents":["I need to know if my 24GB GPU can run a 70B parameter model with batch size 8","Which quantization strategy will fit this model in my available VRAM without unacceptable latency?","How much memory will I save by enabling gradient checkpointing for fine-tuning?"],"best_for":["ML researchers prototyping model deployments locally","Independent developers without DevOps infrastructure","Teams evaluating hardware requirements before cloud provisioning"],"limitations":["Estimates based on theoretical calculations; actual memory usage varies with implementation details (PyTorch vs TensorFlow, CUDA version, kernel fusion)","May not account for framework overhead, custom CUDA kernels, or dynamic memory allocation patterns","Accuracy degrades for novel architectures not in training dataset (e.g., emerging MoE variants, custom attention patterns)"],"requires":["Model specification (parameter count, architecture type, precision)","GPU hardware specification (VRAM capacity, compute capability)","Batch size and sequence length parameters"],"input_types":["structured data (model config JSON/YAML)","text (model name/identifier for lookup)","numeric parameters (batch size, seq length)"],"output_types":["structured data (memory breakdown by component)","numeric (peak memory in GB, utilization percentage)","text (optimization recommendations)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","ml-optimization"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_1","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.dynamic.batch.size.recommendation.engine","name":"dynamic batch size recommendation engine","description":"Evaluates trade-offs between throughput, latency, and memory utilization by modeling how batch size affects GPU occupancy, kernel efficiency, and memory bandwidth saturation. Recommends optimal batch sizes for specific inference scenarios (real-time API serving vs batch processing) using performance curves derived from benchmarking data or user-provided profiling results.","intents":["What batch size maximizes tokens-per-second throughput on my hardware?","What's the largest batch I can use while keeping per-token latency under 100ms?","How does batch size affect memory usage and cost per inference?"],"best_for":["Inference engineers optimizing serving infrastructure","Researchers comparing hardware efficiency across model sizes","Teams tuning batch sizes for cost-sensitive production deployments"],"limitations":["Recommendations assume standard attention implementations; may not apply to custom kernels (FlashAttention, PagedAttention) which have different scaling characteristics","Does not account for network I/O bottlenecks in distributed serving scenarios","Latency estimates assume single-request processing; does not model queuing effects in high-concurrency scenarios"],"requires":["Model specification and GPU hardware details","Target optimization metric (throughput, latency, or cost)","Optional: actual profiling data from the target hardware"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, hardware spec, optimization objective)","numeric (latency SLA, throughput target)"],"output_types":["numeric (recommended batch size)","structured data (performance curve: batch size → throughput/latency/memory)","text (rationale and trade-off analysis)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","ml-optimization"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_2","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.quantization.compatibility.and.strategy.selection","name":"quantization compatibility and strategy selection","description":"Evaluates which quantization methods (INT8, INT4, NF4, FP8) are compatible with a given model architecture and hardware, then recommends the optimal strategy based on accuracy-efficiency trade-offs. Likely uses a knowledge base of quantization compatibility patterns (e.g., which attention mechanisms support INT4, which layers are sensitive to quantization) and provides memory/latency impact estimates for each strategy.","intents":["Can I use 4-bit quantization on this model without significant accuracy loss?","Which quantization method gives the best speed-up on my GPU?","How much memory will I save by quantizing to INT8 vs FP16?"],"best_for":["Developers deploying large models on consumer GPUs with limited VRAM","Teams optimizing inference cost and latency simultaneously","Researchers evaluating quantization trade-offs for specific architectures"],"limitations":["Accuracy impact estimates are model-dependent and may not transfer across different fine-tuning datasets or domains","Does not cover post-training quantization (PTQ) vs quantization-aware training (QAT) trade-offs in detail","Limited visibility into whether it supports emerging quantization formats (FP6, FP4) or custom quantization schemes"],"requires":["Model architecture specification","Target hardware (GPU type, VRAM)","Accuracy tolerance or benchmark dataset (optional)"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, hardware spec)","text (model identifier for lookup in compatibility database)"],"output_types":["structured data (quantization strategy recommendations with memory/latency/accuracy estimates)","text (compatibility notes and caveats)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","ml-optimization"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_3","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.multi.gpu.orchestration.planning","name":"multi-gpu orchestration planning","description":"Analyzes model size and available GPU resources to recommend distributed inference strategies (tensor parallelism, pipeline parallelism, sequence parallelism) and predicts communication overhead, load balancing, and throughput impact. Provides guidance on which strategy minimizes communication bottlenecks for specific hardware topologies (NVLink vs PCIe, single-node vs multi-node).","intents":["How should I split a 405B model across 8 GPUs to minimize communication overhead?","Is tensor parallelism or pipeline parallelism better for my hardware topology?","What throughput can I expect with 4 GPUs vs 8 GPUs for this model?"],"best_for":["ML engineers deploying very large models (100B+ parameters) requiring multi-GPU setups","Teams evaluating hardware scaling decisions (4 vs 8 vs 16 GPUs)","Researchers benchmarking distributed inference strategies"],"limitations":["Recommendations assume standard parallelism strategies; does not cover emerging approaches like disaggregated inference or speculative decoding","Communication overhead estimates depend on actual network bandwidth and latency, which vary by hardware; predictions may be inaccurate for non-standard topologies","Does not account for dynamic load balancing or fault tolerance requirements in production systems"],"requires":["Model specification (parameter count, layer structure)","GPU cluster specification (number of GPUs, interconnect type, memory per GPU)","Target throughput or latency SLA"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, GPU cluster topology)","numeric (target throughput/latency)"],"output_types":["structured data (parallelism strategy recommendation with predicted throughput/latency)","text (rationale and trade-off analysis)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_4","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.hardware.model.matching.and.recommendation","name":"hardware-model matching and recommendation","description":"Matches model specifications against available hardware options (GPU types, VRAM, interconnect) to recommend the most cost-effective or performance-optimal hardware configuration. Uses a database of GPU specifications and pricing to rank options by efficiency metrics (tokens-per-second per dollar, latency per watt) for the target use case.","intents":["What GPU should I buy to run this 70B model efficiently?","Is an A100 or H100 better value for my inference workload?","Can I use a single GPU or do I need multiple GPUs for this model?"],"best_for":["Teams making hardware procurement decisions","Startups evaluating cloud GPU providers (AWS, GCP, Azure) vs on-premises hardware","Researchers comparing cost-efficiency across different hardware options"],"limitations":["Pricing data may be stale (cloud GPU prices fluctuate; on-premises hardware costs vary by region and vendor)","Does not account for non-technical factors (availability, support, power/cooling constraints)","Recommendations assume standard inference workloads; may not apply to specialized use cases (real-time streaming, sparse inference)"],"requires":["Model specification","Target use case (batch inference, real-time API, fine-tuning)","Budget or performance constraints"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, use case parameters)","text (budget range or performance target)"],"output_types":["structured data (ranked hardware recommendations with cost/performance metrics)","text (rationale and trade-off analysis)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","search-retrieval"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_5","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.inference.latency.and.throughput.prediction","name":"inference latency and throughput prediction","description":"Predicts end-to-end inference latency and throughput (tokens-per-second) for a given model-hardware combination using analytical models of attention complexity, memory bandwidth, and compute utilization. Breaks down latency into components (prefill, decode, memory I/O) to identify bottlenecks and suggest optimizations.","intents":["How many tokens-per-second can I expect from this model on my GPU?","What's the latency for a 1000-token prompt on this hardware?","Is my inference pipeline memory-bound or compute-bound?"],"best_for":["Inference engineers designing serving infrastructure","Teams evaluating whether hardware meets latency SLAs","Researchers benchmarking model efficiency across architectures"],"limitations":["Predictions assume standard implementations (PyTorch, vLLM); actual latency varies with framework, CUDA version, and kernel optimizations","Does not account for system-level factors (OS scheduling, memory fragmentation, thermal throttling)","Accuracy degrades for very small batch sizes or unusual sequence lengths where kernel efficiency is unpredictable"],"requires":["Model specification (parameter count, architecture, precision)","Hardware specification (GPU type, VRAM, compute capability)","Inference parameters (batch size, sequence length, sampling method)"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, hardware spec, inference params)","numeric (batch size, sequence length)"],"output_types":["numeric (latency in ms, throughput in tokens/sec)","structured data (latency breakdown by component: prefill, decode, memory I/O)","text (bottleneck analysis and optimization suggestions)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_6","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.model.architecture.compatibility.analysis","name":"model architecture compatibility analysis","description":"Analyzes model architecture specifications (attention mechanism, activation functions, layer types) to identify compatibility with optimization techniques (FlashAttention, PagedAttention, kernel fusion) and quantization methods. Flags potential issues (e.g., custom CUDA kernels, unsupported layer types) that may prevent optimization or cause accuracy degradation.","intents":["Will FlashAttention work with this model's attention implementation?","Are there any custom layers that might break quantization?","What optimization techniques are compatible with this architecture?"],"best_for":["ML engineers integrating models with inference optimization frameworks","Researchers evaluating whether new architectures are compatible with existing optimization tools","Teams troubleshooting compatibility issues during deployment"],"limitations":["Compatibility analysis is heuristic-based; actual compatibility depends on implementation details not captured in architecture specs","Does not test actual compatibility; recommendations are based on pattern matching against known architectures","May miss edge cases or custom implementations that deviate from standard patterns"],"requires":["Model architecture specification (layer types, attention mechanism, activation functions)","Target optimization framework or technique"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, architecture spec)","text (optimization technique name)"],"output_types":["structured data (compatibility matrix: technique → compatible/incompatible with rationale)","text (warnings and recommendations)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_7","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.memory.optimization.strategy.recommendation","name":"memory optimization strategy recommendation","description":"Recommends a combination of memory optimization techniques (gradient checkpointing, activation offloading, KV cache quantization, flash attention) tailored to the model and hardware constraints. Estimates memory savings and latency impact for each technique and suggests optimal combinations to meet memory or latency targets.","intents":["How can I fit this model in my 24GB GPU?","What's the best combination of optimizations to minimize latency while staying under my memory budget?","Which memory optimization technique will have the least impact on inference speed?"],"best_for":["Developers deploying large models on consumer GPUs","Teams optimizing for memory-constrained environments (mobile, edge)","Researchers exploring memory-efficiency trade-offs"],"limitations":["Memory savings estimates are approximate; actual savings depend on implementation details and framework overhead","Latency impact estimates may not account for framework-specific optimizations or kernel fusion","Does not cover advanced techniques like speculative decoding or mixture-of-experts sparsity"],"requires":["Model specification","Hardware specification (VRAM capacity)","Target memory budget or latency constraint"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, hardware spec, constraints)","numeric (memory budget in GB, latency target in ms)"],"output_types":["structured data (recommended optimization techniques with memory/latency impact estimates)","text (rationale and implementation guidance)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","ml-optimization"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_llm-gpu-helper__cap_8","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.inference.framework.integration.guidance","name":"inference framework integration guidance","description":"Provides recommendations and integration guidance for deploying models with specific inference frameworks (vLLM, TensorRT, ONNX Runtime, Ollama) based on model architecture, hardware, and performance requirements. Identifies framework-specific optimizations and potential compatibility issues.","intents":["Should I use vLLM or TensorRT for this model?","What framework will give me the best throughput on my hardware?","How do I integrate this model with my inference serving stack?"],"best_for":["ML engineers selecting inference frameworks for production deployments","Teams evaluating framework trade-offs (performance vs ease-of-use vs flexibility)","Developers integrating models with existing serving infrastructure"],"limitations":["Framework recommendations depend on specific use case (real-time vs batch, single-GPU vs multi-GPU); no one-size-fits-all answer","Does not provide detailed integration instructions; users must refer to framework documentation","Framework landscape evolves rapidly; recommendations may become stale"],"requires":["Model specification","Hardware specification","Use case requirements (throughput, latency, cost)"],"input_types":["structured data (model config, hardware spec, use case params)","text (framework names or use case description)"],"output_types":["structured data (framework comparison: performance, ease-of-use, compatibility)","text (integration guidance and trade-off analysis)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":37,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Model specification (parameter count, architecture type, precision)","GPU hardware specification (VRAM capacity, compute capability)","Batch size and sequence length parameters","Model specification and GPU hardware details","Target optimization metric (throughput, latency, or cost)","Optional: actual profiling data from the target hardware","Model architecture specification","Target hardware (GPU type, VRAM)","Accuracy tolerance or benchmark dataset (optional)","Model specification (parameter count, layer structure)"],"failure_modes":["Estimates based on theoretical calculations; actual memory usage varies with implementation details (PyTorch vs TensorFlow, CUDA version, kernel fusion)","May not account for framework overhead, custom CUDA kernels, or dynamic memory allocation patterns","Accuracy degrades for novel architectures not in training dataset (e.g., emerging MoE variants, custom attention patterns)","Recommendations assume standard attention implementations; may not apply to custom kernels (FlashAttention, PagedAttention) which have different scaling characteristics","Does not account for network I/O bottlenecks in distributed serving scenarios","Latency estimates assume single-request processing; does not model queuing effects in high-concurrency scenarios","Accuracy impact estimates are model-dependent and may not transfer across different fine-tuning datasets or domains","Does not cover post-training quantization (PTQ) vs quantization-aware training (QAT) trade-offs in detail","Limited visibility into whether it supports emerging quantization formats (FP6, FP4) or custom quantization schemes","Recommendations assume standard parallelism strategies; does not cover emerging approaches like disaggregated inference or speculative decoding","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.31666666666666665,"quality":0.67,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.35,"quality":0.2,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.3,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:31.447Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.560Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=llm-gpu-helper","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=llm-gpu-helper"}},"signature":"LgvM8vGUaazbgMzZbMzz1tgBEiJMz6tyMjQUmxGazEnbm2iySKzVkao6uwT8qHP1qLdfXUjwnhluMl+jUQZyAA==","signedAt":"2026-06-19T17:00:08.124Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/llm-gpu-helper","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/llm-gpu-helper","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=llm-gpu-helper","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}