benchmarkshardwareai

Benchmarking RISC-V + GPU Workloads: How to Compare NVLink-Enabled Platforms

ppyramides

2026-02-08

9 min read

A practical bench guide for evaluating RISC-V + NVLink GPU systems: metrics, test suites, and cost-per-inference calculations for 2026.

Cut cloud costs and avoid surprise bottlenecks: a practical bench guide for RISC-V + NVLink GPU platforms

If you’re evaluating RISC-V-based servers that claim NVLink Fusion connectivity to high-end GPUs, you’re facing a new class of trade-offs: driver maturity, interconnect coherency, and cost-per-inference at scale. This guide gives you a reproducible, technical bench plan for both inference and training workloads on SiFive/NVIDIA NVLink-enabled stacks (announced in late 2025 / early 2026), the metrics to collect, test suites to run, and exact formulas for computing cost-per-inference including energy and amortized hardware cost.

Why this matters in 2026

RISC-V is moving from embedded and edge to datacenter-class designs, and SiFive’s announced integration with NVIDIA’s NVLink Fusion (publicized in early 2026) is a turning point: it promises processor-to-GPU coherence and new topology options for AI servers. That opens an opportunity to build lower-cost, architecture-diverse stacks — but also introduces complexity and hidden costs:

Are drivers and operators production-ready for RISC-V host CPUs?
Does NVLink Fusion actually reduce latency or just add complexity?
How does total cost (CAPEX + power + software) map to cost-per-inference for your workload?

Benches are no longer just raw FLOPS—by 2026, they must prove end-to-end efficiency, reproducibility, and real dollar cost per result.

High-level benchmarking strategy

Use the inverted-pyramid approach: start with high-impact, comparative tests that answer the business questions (cost per inference and throughput under target SLOs), then expand into microbenchmarks that explain differences (interconnect latency, memory bandwidth, driver overhead).

Three phases

Baseline & Sanity — hardware health, NVLink discovery, driver/repo versions, single-GPU tests.
Comparative End-to-End — inference and training runs using representative models and production runtimes (Triton, Torch, TensorFlow, DeepSpeed).
Microbench & Cost Analysis — link-level bandwidth/latency, host-to-GPU coherency tests, power sampling, and cost-per-inference calculations.

Essential metrics to collect

Collect these metrics for every run; they directly map to SLOs and cost calculations.

Throughput — inferences/sec or tokens/sec for language models; images/sec for vision models.
Latency — P50, P95, P99 (end-to-end) under target concurrency and batching.
GPU utilization — SM/compute utilization and memory utilization.
Interconnect metrics — NVLink bandwidth/packet loss, host-GPU DMA rates, and effective fabric latency.
Power — GPU and host power draw (W). Convert to kWh for energy cost.
Operational metrics — driver errors, PCI/NVLink retries, and kernel logs.
Cost — instance-hour cost, amortized hardware, and energy cost per inference.

Recommended test suites & models (2026)

Mix industry benchmarks with production-representative workloads:

MLPerf Inference & Training — still the gold standard for comparability (use the latest 2025/2026 suites). Run both offline and server scenarios for inference.
Triton Inference Server — run perf_analyzer across model precisions (FP32, FP16, BF16, INT8) and report throughput/latency.
LLM workloads — 7B/13B/70B model families for token throughput tests. Use dynamic batching and context-window variations that match your service.
Vision models — ResNet50 and diffusion (Stable Diffusion variants) for image throughput and memory stress tests.
Large-scale training — transformer pretraining steps: end-to-end multi-GPU with DeepSpeed (ZeRO 2/3) and Horovod or torch.distributed on NVLink Fusion fabric.

Model & precision matrix

For each model, test the matrix of:

Precisions: FP32, BF16, FP16, INT8 (where supported)
Batch sizes: single-request to max-batch (memory-limited)
Topology: Single GPU, NVLink-connected GPUs, NVLink Fusion (CPU-GPU coherence), multi-node over RDMA/IB

Practical lab setup checklist

Before you run heavy workloads, validate this baseline:

Firmware & Drivers: Confirm SiFive platform firmware and NVIDIA drivers support NVLink Fusion. Record kernel, driver and CUDA versions. If using vendor images, snapshot them.
NVLink discovery: Use vendor tools to verify links. Typical commands: nvidia-smi topo -m and nvidia-smi nvlink --status (or vendor-equivalent). Log link health.
DCGM & Monitoring: Deploy NVIDIA DCGM exporter and Prometheus node_exporter. Collect GPU metrics and NVLink counters for every run.
Power measurement: Attach a power meter to the rack PDU or use server IPMI / nvidia-smi power draw readings correlated with external kWh meter readings.
Network/multi-node: Verify RDMA configuration and TCP fallback. NVLink Fusion reduces some host traffic; make sure your RDMA fabrics are properly configured for cross-node tests.

Sample benchmark commands & snippets

Below are practical commands/run patterns to reproduce results. Adaptable for RISC-V hosts running Linux with vendor drivers.

1) NVLink discovery (sanity)

# show topology
nvidia-smi topo -m

# NVLink status (where supported)
nvidia-smi nvlink --status

2) Triton inference perf test

# start triton with your model repo
tritonserver --model-repository=/models &

# run perf analyzer (change --concurrency to match SLA)
perf_analyzer -m resnet50_netdef -e NVIDIA -i HTTP --concurrency-range 1:32 -b 8 --measurement-interval 2000

3) LLM token throughput (client-side)

# example using a simple token-generator client against a Triton or custom gRPC endpoint
python llm_client_perf.py --model 'gpt-13b' --seq-length 2048 --batch-size 8 --duration 600

4) Distributed training with torch.distributed

# run on N NVLink-connected GPUs per node
torchrun --nproc_per_node=8 --nnodes=2 --rdzv_id=1 --rdzv_backend=c10d run_pretraining.py --model_size=30B --batch_size=4

Always capture the output, GPU logs, and DCGM metrics; add a unique run id for reproducibility.

Microbenchmarks that tell the story

If end-to-end numbers differ between systems, these microbenchmarks help locate the cause:

Bandwidth test — measure host↔GPU and GPU↔GPU effective bandwidth using NCCL tests or custom CUDA memcpy microbenchmarks. These are the same kinds of checks we use in compact edge appliance field reviews to compare effective throughput.
Latency test — small-payload roundtrip latency for CPU→GPU and GPU→GPU (important for small-batch inference).
Atomic/Coherency stress — if NVLink Fusion exposes CPU-GPU coherent mappings, run concurrent read/write patterns to find unexpected stalls.
Driver stress — long-running microkernel loops to expose leaks or driver stability issues on RISC-V host builds.

Calculating cost-per-inference: exact formulas and worked example

Cost-per-inference must include amortized hardware cost, instance or rent cost, and energy. Here are formulas and a worked example.

Definitions

C_hour = hourly price for the server (or amortized CAPEX/hour). If you own hardware, amortize purchase price + maintenance over expected lifetime and utilization.
T_throughput = throughput (inferences/sec).
U_hours = total hours per billing period (e.g., 24 * 30 = 720 hours/month).
E_kWh = energy consumed per hour (kW). Convert: (average power in W)/1000 = kW; multiply by hours to get kWh.
P_per_kWh = energy cost ($/kWh).

Formulas

Inferences per hour = T_throughput * 3600

Energy cost per hour = E_kWh * P_per_kWh

Total hourly cost = C_hour + Energy cost per hour

Cost per inference = Total hourly cost / (T_throughput * 3600)

Worked example (illustrative)

Suppose:

C_hour = $8.00 (rented instance equivalent)
T_throughput = 1,200 inferences/sec
Average power draw = 850 W total => E_kWh = 0.85 kW
P_per_kWh = $0.12

Calculations:

Inferences/hour = 1,200 * 3600 = 4,320,000
Energy cost/hour = 0.85 * $0.12 = $0.102
Total hourly cost = $8.00 + $0.102 = $8.102
Cost per inference = $8.102 / 4,320,000 = $0.000001876 => ~1.9e-6 $/inf

Note how small shifts in throughput or instance price move the decimal. That’s why micro-optimizations (precision, batching, NVLink topology) compound into real dollar savings. For guidance on operational trade-offs that affect developer velocity and cost signals, see Developer Productivity and Cost Signals in 2026.

Interpreting NVLink Fusion effects

NVLink Fusion aims to provide coherent memory and higher effective bandwidth between CPU and GPUs and between GPUs themselves. In practice you should verify:

Whether your runtime actually uses coherent mappings for model weights to avoid host copies.
NVLink link utilization during runs — occasional low link utilization can show software stacks not taking advantage of the fabric.
Driver stability — new host ISAs (RISC-V) may expose previously unseen corner cases with DMA, memory registration, and page fault handling.

Reproducibility & reporting checklist

When publishing or sharing bench results, include these artifacts:

Raw logs and DCGM traces (minimum 1 minute pre-run, full-run, 1 minute post-run).
Full software bill of materials — kernel, drivers, CUDA, cuDNN, Triton/DeepSpeed versions, and any vendor patches.
Hardware topology diagram (CPU sockets, NVLink lanes, PCIe lanes, RDMA switches if multi-node).
Power sample method and any calibration notes.
Exact model weights and tokenizer versions for LLM tests.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Mistaking raw FLOPS for real throughput — network and memory bottlenecks often limit real model throughput.
Ignoring small-batch latency — production inference often runs low latency, low batch workloads; optimize for these and measure P99.
Driver and firmware mismatches — keep a strict mapping matrix; vendor images may lag on RISC-V.
Undersized cooling/power — NVLink-enabled multi-GPU racks increase thermal and power density; measure sustained power, not just peak.
Hidden CPU contention — RISC-V hosts with fewer PCIe lanes or different DMA behavior can bottleneck data prep; profile CPU and I/O concurrently.

2026 trends & short-term predictions

Based on late-2025 and early-2026 industry movements (SiFive + NVIDIA NVLink Fusion announcements and broader RISC-V ecosystem growth), expect the following:

Faster driver maturity — enterprise-grade drivers and operators for RISC-V hosts will reach parity in 2026–2027, reducing early instability.
Standardized NVLink APIs — the community will push for clearer abstractions so runtimes like Triton and DeepSpeed can transparently use CPU-GPU coherent mappings.
Cost-optimized silicon — RISC-V hosts will enable lower-cost server SKUs that change the CAPEX dynamics for dedicated inference fleets.
Tooling improvements — expect MLPerf-like NVLink Fusion-specific test cases and community-maintained harnesses for RISC-V platforms.

Actionable takeaways

Start with a short comparative bench: run MLPerf Inference + a 13B LLM token throughput test to establish a baseline across platforms.
Measure NVLink health and utilization alongside GPU metrics — low link utilization signals software, not hardware, is the limiter.
Compute cost-per-inference using the formulas here and include energy to avoid surprises at scale.
Run microbenchmarks for memory/coherency if you see host stalls; RISC-V host behavior can differ from x86 in DMA and page-fault handling.
Keep a reproducibility bundle and record firmware/driver versions — small differences explain big divergences in 2026 platforms.

Final notes and a call-to-action

RISC-V + NVLink Fusion is a high-potential stack for lower-cost, flexible AI servers in 2026 — but it’s new enough that rigorous, repeatable benchmark processes are mandatory. Use the plan here as your template: baseline checks, end-to-end workloads, microbenchmarks, and a strict cost-per-inference accounting method. If you need a reproducible harness, or want an independent bench run on our lab hardware (we test SiFive NVLink-enabled boards and multiple NVIDIA GPU families), contact our team — we’ll help you design tests, run them, and produce a business-centric report that executives and infra teams can act on.

Ready to compare platforms with real dollars and SLOs? Reach out to pyramides.cloud for a lab engagement or download our benchmark repo to get started.

pyramides

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.