The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2504.03774 · v1 · pith:4CA5AFX2 · submitted 2025-04-03 · cs.DC · cs.AI· cs.AR

Exploring energy consumption of AI frameworks on a 64-core RV64 Server CPU

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:4CA5AFX2record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.DC cs.AIcs.AR
keywords energyframeworksarchitectureapplicationsback-endconsumptioncorehardware
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

In today's era of rapid technological advancement, artificial intelligence (AI) applications require large-scale, high-performance, and data-intensive computations, leading to significant energy demands. Addressing this challenge necessitates a combined approach involving both hardware and software innovations. Hardware manufacturers are developing new, efficient, and specialized solutions, with the RISC-V architecture emerging as a prominent player due to its open, extensible, and energy-efficient instruction set architecture (ISA). Simultaneously, software developers are creating new algorithms and frameworks, yet their energy efficiency often remains unclear. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive benchmark analysis of machine learning (ML) applications on the 64-core SOPHON SG2042 RISC-V architecture. We specifically analyze the energy consumption of deep learning inference models across three leading AI frameworks: PyTorch, ONNX Runtime, and TensorFlow. Our findings show that frameworks using the XNNPACK back-end, such as ONNX Runtime and TensorFlow, consume less energy compared to PyTorch, which is compiled with the native OpenBLAS back-end.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Cradle to Cloud: A Life Cycle Review of AI's Environmental Footprint

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A review of AI sustainability studies finds inconsistent life cycle definitions and predominant reliance on coarse CO2e proxies, with limited coverage of water, materials, and multi-impact assessments.