Is memory the moat? | Wafer

IFRAME: https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-KRTWTM8P * (BUTTON) Product + Technology + Cases * (BUTTON) Company + Team + Careers + Manifesto * Blog Wafer Log inSign up Wafer Sign up (BUTTON) * Product + Technology + Cases * Company + Team + Careers + Manifesto * Blog * Log in * How we did it * Prefill optimizations * Takeaways July 31, 2026Ian Ye Is memory the moat? Running Kimi K3 at ~952 tok/s/node, AMD continues to prove its case as the winner in performance per dollar. Over the past several months, we've seen an explosion in the capabilities of open source models. With DeepSeek V4-Pro and GLM5.2 reaching near-Opus levels of intelligence, open source has emerged as a real, cost-efficient alternative to the closed source models we've been married to. But we have yet to see one like Kimi K3. Promising Fable/Sol levels of intelligence, Kimi K3 marks the start of a new era for open source. But a smarter model means a bigger model -- and these models are expanding in size just as fast as they are in capabilities. GLM5.2 has 753B parameters, DeepSeek V4-Pro 1.6T, and Kimi K3 weighs in at 2.8T (!!) parameters. That's over 1.5TB of VRAM before allocating a KV cache for 1M tokens of context. Not even a B200 node (8 GPUs) can fit Kimi K3. That leaves you with limited options: serve on a node of B300s, which have 288GB of VRAM per GPU, or commit two B200 nodes (TP16) to serving Kimi. But guess which other non-NVIDIA GPU has 288GB of VRAM? AMD's MI355X. Can you tell we like these chips yet? At around ~2.4� cheaper per GPU on average versus a B300 and ~1.7� cheaper than a B200, the MI355X is a cost-efficient alternative to Blackwells with comparable hardware specs. The only problem with AMD is software support -- slower kernels and less day-0 support on inference frameworks make serving frontier models on AMD a real engineering effort. Our claim at Wafer is that agents are improving at kernel and model optimization, closing this gap as we speak. But with AMD shipping day-0 support for Kimi K3, most of the work was already done for us. The results are great: on a 1,024-token input / 400-token output benchmark, the MI355X reaches 952 tok/s/node and 118 tok/s single stream -- over 3.8� the aggregate throughput per node and over 1.3� the single-stream decode of our TP16 B200 deployment (whose 498 tok/s is a 16-GPU, 2-node total -- ~249/node). B300 nodes still win ~1.65� on aggregate throughput over the MI355X, but at 2.4� the price, the MI355X crushes the B300 on performance per dollar. 8� MI355X (TP8) 2�8 B200 (TP16) B300 (TP8+DCP8) Decode tok/s per stream 118 tok/s 90 tok/s 172 tok/s Peak aggregate 952 tok/s 498 tok/s 1,568 tok/s Peak aggregate per GPU 119 tok/s 31 tok/s 196 tok/s Peak aggregate per $/GPU-hr 48 tok/s/$ 7 tok/s/$ 33 tok/s/$ Perf/dollar at $2.50/GPU-hr for the MI355X, $6.00 for the B300, and $4.25 for the B200. Kimi K3 serving throughput vs interactivity, per node -- MI355X, B300, and B200 (2-node TP16) To the B200's defence, its numbers are somewhat deflated by the fact that it pays a cross-node all-reduce on the decode critical path (RoCE v2 at ~195 Gb/s) -- it's the only config here that spans two nodes, because Kimi K3 won't fit weights plus a 1M-token KV pool on a single 8�192GB node. But that's exactly the point: Kimi K3 at its size is one of the first models we've seen where the MI355X's focus on HBM capacity gives it a practical, measurable edge over the B200. How we did it While Kimi K3 served out of the box, there was still work to be done to get it to its current throughput number. The main lever was speculative decode. K3 ships zero draft tensors -- no MTP, no EAGLE -- so the only speculative path is an external block-diffusion draft: RadixArk's Kimi-K3-DSpark. On CUDA it just runs. On ROCm our first real request breaks the scheduler with this error: NameError: name 'top_k_renorm_prob' is not defined. Did you mean: 'top_p_renorm_prob'? sglang's accept-sampling verifier has two ways to build the target distribution: a dense path that calls top_k_renorm_prob, and a sparse fast path that routes through torch.topk directly. The CUDA build imports top_k_renorm_prob from sgl_kernel; the ROCm build aliases only a Triton top-p kernel and leaves top_k_renorm_prob undefined -- there's no top-k renorm kernel for gfx950 to alias. So the moment a request lands on the dense path, the verifier hits that NameError and takes the scheduler down with it. The fix is a single PyTorch function. Top-k renorm is a small operation: take the model's probability vector, keep the k highest entries, zero the rest, and rescale what's left to sum to 1. A sort, a masked_fill, a divide -- dropped straight into sglang's ROCm sampling branch, the same computation the CUDA build gets from sgl_kernel. No custom kernel: the reflex on ROCm is to assume you need one, but here it was a missing definition, not a missing kernel. With spec dec fixed and hardened, we gained ~2.2� performance single-stream, ~1.7� per-stream at moderate load, and +18% peak aggregate. More importantly, our peak aggregate throughput landed on much higher concurrency (c64 vs c24 no-spec). Kimi K3 on MI355X: no-spec vs DSpark spec-dec, throughput vs interactivity Prefill optimizations Discussion around model performance tends to highlight decode tokens per second. But in many cases decode tok/s is fool's gold -- decode is over-glorified, while time-to-first-token, the number users feel the most, gets overlooked. The MI355X struggles here: an identical 172k-token cold prefill took ~51s on MI355X versus ~23s on a B300. On a 1M-context model, a lot of workloads have huge prefills (sometimes cold), and having GPUs spin on prefill for minutes can render entire fleets of nodes useless. The gap was almost entirely one kernel. K3 on ROCm was falling back to slow generic Triton attention because the fast AITER MLA prefill kernel wouldn't load. The problem was a shape mismatch, not a missing kernel -- K3 at TP8 gives 12 attention heads per rank, and AITER's MLA path is built for 4, 8, or multiples of 16. The fix was trivially simple: zero-pad the head count 12->16, run the fast kernel, and extract the real 12 heads from the output. The result: on the same 172k cold prefill, the AITER MLA prefill ASM runs at ~13k tok/s steady-state vs the Triton fallback's ~4-7k, speeding up prefill by ~2-3�. It's a TTFT lever, not an aggregate-throughput one -- decode is unchanged, so it doesn't move the numbers above; it moves the number a user waits on before the first token appears. Takeaways Achieving the best performance-per-dollar ratio on the MI355X was relatively out of the box. There were some expected framework-related bugs -- but fewer than GLM5.2, and this time it certainly did not require custom kernels. SOTA on AMD is imminent. Is the CUDA moat dead? Related articles * July 17, 2026Rishiraj Dutta Gupta and Wafer Team Wafer integration with TrueFoundry AI Gateway How Wafer's fast, OpenAI-compatible serverless inference integrates with TrueFoundry AI Gateway for unified routing, observability, and zero data retention. * July 3, 2026Ian Ye Performance per dollar is getting faster and cheaper How we served GLM5.2 on AMD MI355X at 2626 tok/s/node and 213 tok/s single stream at over 2x lower cost than Blackwell. Wafer � 2026 Wafer. All rights reserved. Get StartedFor Enterprise In Progress * Privacy Policy * Terms of Service * Service Level Agreement * Data Processing Addendum * (BUTTON) [email protected]copy * GitHub * LinkedIn * X