AI Accelerator Design · All levels

INT8, FP16, BF16, and FP8 Format Selection: Review Checklist

Review Checklist for INT8, FP16, BF16, and FP8 Format Selection.

Review checklist

Review Checklist for INT8, FP16, BF16, and FP8 Format Selection is anchored on Delivered tokens or inferences per joule at fixed quality threshold across representative model slices.. Convert measurements into mechanism-backed decisions with clear owner accountability.

  • Workload scope and SLA targets are explicit.

  • Environment metadata is locked and reproducible.

  • Mechanism classification is evidence-backed.

  • Owner, rollback trigger, and validation matrix are documented.

  • Owners signed: accelerator architect, numeric methods owner, compiler quantization lead, inference performance owner.

AI accelerator deep dive

Precision and DVFS policy must be co-designed with quality guardrails and thermal behavior.

Concept diagram

diagram
PRECISION-POWER LOOP

numeric format choice -> throughput and energy
         + thermal state and DVFS policy -> sustained SLA

Metric graph

diagram
PERF/W TRADE

INT8 efficiency      █████████
BF16 stability       ██████
thermal clamp risk   ████

Metrics and artifacts to collect

  • precision-mode mix

  • perf-per-watt trend

  • thermal clamp frequency

  • quality regression monitor

Mini case study

Switching to lower precision improved nominal throughput, but thermal clamp cycles reduced sustained gains.

Debug branches

  • Validate quality guardrails by slice

  • Correlate thermal events to latency tails

  • Audit precision fallback behavior

Senior review question

Ask: which first-principles bottleneck class explains the symptom, and what artifact proves it reproducibly?

Key takeaways

  • Tie every accelerator claim to a reproducible workload slice and one primary metric trend.

  • Prefer bounded fixes with clear owner and rollback boundary over broad tuning bundles.

Common pitfalls

  • Optimizing synthetic kernels without production-shape validation.

  • Reading average latency while ignoring p95 and p99 behavior.

  • Declaring sparse or precision wins without fallback and quality evidence.

Review checklist explanation

Checklist quality determines whether teams close on proof or on optimism.

Minimum packet: metric trend (Delivered tokens or inferences per joule at fixed quality threshold across representative model slices.), artifact set (Precision decision table mapping operator classes to preferred compute and accumulation formats with quality guardrails.), bottleneck class, owner fix, rollback trigger, and validation matrix.

If precision changes are involved, include quality guardrail evidence for each deployment slice.