We present expected speedup (combined forward + backward pass) and memory savings from using FlashAttention against PyTorch standard attention, depending on sequence length, on different GPUs (speedup depends on memory bandwidth - we see more speedup on slower GPU memory).
Our graphs show sequence lengths between 128 and 4096 (when standard attention runs out of memory on an A100), but FlashAttention can scale up to sequence length 64K.
We generally see 2-4X speedup at sequence lengths between 128 and 4K, and we see more speedup when using dropout and masking, since we fuse the kernels.
At sequence lengths that are popular with language models like 512 and 1K, we see speedups up to 4X when using dropout and masking.
We show memory savings in this graph (note that memory footprint is the same no matter if you use dropout or masking).
Memory savings are proportional to sequence length -- since standard attention has memory quadratic in sequence length, whereas FlashAttention has memory linear in sequence length.
We see 10X memory savings at sequence length 2K, and 20X at 4K.
As a result, FlashAttention can scale to much longer sequence lengths.
We see slightly higher speedups (between 2.5-4.5x) on the GTX 3090, since memory bandwidth on the GDDR6X is lower than A100 HBM (~900 GB/s vs. ~1.5 TB/s).
T4 SRAM is smaller than the newer GPUs (64 KB), so we see less speedup (we need to make the block sizes smaller, so we end up doing more R/W).
This matches the IO complexity analysis from section 3.2 of [our paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14135).
T4 GPUs are commonly used for inference, so we also measure speedup on the forward pass only (note that these are not directly comparable to the graphs above):