T5-3B TPS calculator
Each card below is assessed against this model at the context length and minimum quality you choose. Speed is an estimate for a single request, calculated from the card's memory bandwidth and the size of the model once compressed.
Calculated for this model
818 cards we hold specifications for
Smallest card that fits
Tesla C1080
4 GB · Q6_K · 19.1 tok/s
Fastest card
B200
1,210 tok/s · 180 GB
Which GPUs can run T5-3B?
Set the inputs, read the answer
A longer conversation needs more memory, which can push this model off smaller cards.
Hides cards that would only fit the model by compressing it below this point.
818 cards match
Calculating| Needs | Quantisation | Fit | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1,210
tok/s
726–1,936 · low confidence |
B200 NVIDIA | 180 GB | 8,000 GB/s | Jan 2024 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
1,210
tok/s
726–1,936 · low confidence |
B300 NVIDIA | 288 GB | 8,000 GB/s | Sep 2025 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
966
tok/s
580–1,546 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI350X AMD | 288 GB | 8,190 GB/s | Jan 2025 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
966
tok/s
580–1,546 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI355X AMD | 288 GB | 8,190 GB/s | Jan 2025 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
773
tok/s
464–1,236 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI300 AMD | 128 GB | 6,550 GB/s | Jan 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
740
tok/s
444–1,183 · low confidence |
H200 NVL NVIDIA | 141 GB | 4,890 GB/s | Nov 2024 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
740
tok/s
444–1,183 · low confidence |
H200 SXM 141 GB NVIDIA | 141 GB | 4,890 GB/s | Nov 2024 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
708
tok/s
425–1,133 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI325X AMD | 256 GB | 6,000 GB/s | Oct 2024 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
628
tok/s
377–1,005 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI300A AMD | 128 GB | 5,325 GB/s | Dec 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
628
tok/s
377–1,005 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI300X AMD | 192 GB | 5,325 GB/s | Dec 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
628
tok/s
377–1,005 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI308X AMD | 192 GB | 5,325 GB/s | Dec 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
596
tok/s
358–954 · low confidence |
H100 NVL 94 GB NVIDIA | 94 GB | 3,940 GB/s | Mar 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
508
tok/s
305–813 · low confidence |
H100 PCIe 96 GB NVIDIA | 96 GB | 3,360 GB/s | Mar 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
508
tok/s
305–813 · low confidence |
H100 SXM5 80 GB NVIDIA | 80 GB | 3,360 GB/s | Oct 2022 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
508
tok/s
305–813 · low confidence |
H100 SXM5 94 GB NVIDIA | 94 GB | 3,360 GB/s | Mar 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
508
tok/s
305–813 · low confidence |
H100 SXM5 96 GB NVIDIA | 96 GB | 3,360 GB/s | Mar 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
508
tok/s
305–813 · low confidence |
H800 SXM5 NVIDIA | 80 GB | 3,360 GB/s | Mar 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
387
tok/s
232–619 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI250 AMD | 128 GB | 3,280 GB/s | Nov 2021 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
387
tok/s
232–619 · low confidence |
Radeon Instinct MI250X AMD | 128 GB | 3,280 GB/s | Nov 2021 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
322
tok/s
193–516 · low confidence |
Data Center GPU Max 1550 Intel | 128 GB | 3,280 GB/s | Jan 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
316
tok/s
189–505 · low confidence |
Data Center GPU Max Subsystem Intel | 128 GB | 3,210 GB/s | Jan 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
309
tok/s
185–494 · low confidence |
A100 SXM4 80 GB NVIDIA | 80 GB | 2,040 GB/s | Nov 2020 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
309
tok/s
185–494 · low confidence |
A100X NVIDIA | 80 GB | 2,040 GB/s | Jun 2021 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
309
tok/s
185–494 · low confidence |
A800 SXM4 80 GB NVIDIA | 80 GB | 2,040 GB/s | Aug 2022 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
|
309
tok/s
185–494 · low confidence |
H100 CNX NVIDIA | 80 GB | 2,040 GB/s | Mar 2023 | 3.7 GB | Q8_0 | Comfortable |
Speeds are estimates for a single request — one conversation at a time — calculated from memory bandwidth, model size and quantisation. Real throughput varies with the inference runtime and its version. Figures published by hardware vendors measure many simultaneous requests and are much higher.
On record
Full specification
Everything on record for this model. Most of it describes how it was trained rather than how it runs — useful context for judging how much work went into it, and how it compares with models built at a different scale.
Origin
Who built this model, where, and when it was published.
- Organisation
- Organisation type
- Industry
- Country
- United States of America
- Published
- 23 October 2019
- Authors
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J. Liu
What it does
The problem areas the model was built for. A model can carry several of each.
- Domain
- Language
- Task
- Text autocompletion
- Approach
- Self-supervised learning
Size
How large the model is and how much data it was trained on. Parameters are the figure that decides whether it fits on a given graphics card.
- Parameters
- 2.8B
- Training data
- 5,100,000,000 tokens
page 37, 3B and 11B. "To further explore what kind of performance is possible when using larger models, we consider two additional variants. In both cases, we use d_model = 1024, a 24 layer encoder and decoder, and dkv = 128. For the “3B” variant, we use dff = 16,384 with 32-headed attention, which results in around 2.8 billion parameters; for “11B” we use dff = 65,536 with 128-headed attention producing a model with about 11 billion parameters"
"This produces a collection of text that is not only orders of magnitude larger than most data sets used for pre-training (about 750 GB) but also comprises reasonably clean and natural English text. We dub this data set the “Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus” (or C4 for short) and release it as part of TensorFlow Datasets" 750GB * 200M word/GB = 1.5e11 "In total, this batch size and number of steps corresponds to pre-training on 2^35 ≈ 34B tokens." "Note that 2^35 tokens only covers a fraction of t…
Training compute
The arithmetic performed to train the model, measured in floating-point operations. It is a measure of what the training run cost, not of how fast the finished model answers you.
- Training compute
- 9 × 10²¹ FLOP
- How it was established
- Third-party estimation,Reported
Akronomicon states 1.04e+22 FLOP. Archived source: https://github.com/lightonai/akronomicon/tree/main/akrodb However, this seems dubiously high. "We pre-train each model for 2^19 = 524,288 steps on C4 before fine-tuning." "In total, this batch size and number of steps corresponds to pre-training on 2^35 ≈ 34B tokens." "To compare these mixing strategies on equal footing with our baseline pre-train-then-fine-tune results, we train multi-task models for the same total number of steps: 2^19 + 2^18…
The training run
What it physically took to train: which chips, how many, for how long, and what that drew from the wall.
- Training hardware
- Google TPU v3
- Compute cost
- $17,421
Availability
Whether you can obtain the model and run it on your own hardware, which is what decides if any of the graphics-card figures on this page apply.
- Weights
- Open — downloadable
- Model access
- Open weights (unrestricted)
- Training code
- Open source
Apache for code and weights: https://github.com/google-research/text-to-text-transfer-transformer Data is C4 which is open training script: https://github.com/google-research/text-to-text-transfer-transformer?tab=readme-ov-file#training
How it is classified
Labels the source dataset applies when tracking notable models, and how confident it is in the entry.
- Frontier model
- Yes
- Why it is tracked
- Highly cited
- Record confidence
- Confident
- Citations
- 25,683
Sources
Where this record came from and when it was last checked.
- Reference
- Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
- Last updated
- 25 May 2026
The extremes
The ten fastest GPUs that run T5-3B
Ranked by estimated tokens per second, newest card first where speeds tie. Because generation is bound by memory bandwidth, this ordering follows bandwidth rather than any gaming benchmark.
- 01 B300 288 GB · 8,000 GB/s · Q8_0 1,210 tok/s
- 02 B200 180 GB · 8,000 GB/s · Q8_0 1,210 tok/s
- 03 Radeon Instinct MI350X 288 GB · 8,190 GB/s · Q8_0 966 tok/s
- 04 Radeon Instinct MI355X 288 GB · 8,190 GB/s · Q8_0 966 tok/s
- 05 Radeon Instinct MI300 128 GB · 6,550 GB/s · Q8_0 773 tok/s
- 06 H200 NVL 141 GB · 4,890 GB/s · Q8_0 740 tok/s
- 07 H200 SXM 141 GB 141 GB · 4,890 GB/s · Q8_0 740 tok/s
- 08 Radeon Instinct MI325X 256 GB · 6,000 GB/s · Q8_0 708 tok/s
- 09 Radeon Instinct MI300A 128 GB · 5,325 GB/s · Q8_0 628 tok/s
- 10 Radeon Instinct MI300X 192 GB · 5,325 GB/s · Q8_0 628 tok/s
The smallest GPUs that still run T5-3B
The cheapest route in, by memory capacity. A tight fit runs the model but leaves nothing spare for a longer conversation.
- 01 GeForce RTX 4010 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 21.1 tok/s
- 02 RTX A400 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 21.1 tok/s
- 03 RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 28.1 tok/s
- 04 GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 42.2 tok/s
- 05 Jetson Orin Nano 4 GB 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 7.5 tok/s
- 06 Radeon RX 6450M 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 21.9 tok/s
- 07 Radeon RX 6550M 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 24.7 tok/s
- 08 Radeon RX 6550S 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 21.9 tok/s
- 09 Arc A310 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 17.7 tok/s
- 10 Arc Pro A30M 4 GB · needs 3.0 GB · Q6_K · tight 18.3 tok/s
What the numbers mean
Hardware requirements in practice
Minimum card
Tesla C1080
Memory needed
3.0 GB
Fastest
1,210 tok/s
T5-3B reaches a parameter count of 2.8B. That is small enough that hardware is rarely the obstacle, including on cards several years old. The number of cards we track that can run it: 818.
The entry point is Tesla C1080, with a memory capacity of 4 GB, running it at a compression of Q6_K and producing around 19.1 tokens per second.
The quickest result comes from B200, generating roughly 1,210 tokens per second on the strength of a memory bandwidth of 8,000 GB/s.
Background
T5-3B was published by Google, in the country recorded as United States of America, during October 2019. The publishing organisation is categorised as industry.
It works in the domain of Language, and is recorded as performing the task of text autocompletion.
The weights are published, so it can be downloaded and run on your own hardware indefinitely, offline, with no account attached.
Reading the throughput figures
Half the cards that hold it manage more than 38.4 tokens per second. Producing text faster than most people read it: 784 of them.
It is a dense model, so every parameter is read for every token produced. That makes speed track memory bandwidth almost exactly — a card with twice the bandwidth generates roughly twice as fast.
Memory here is estimated from size rather than computed from the architecture, which is not recorded for this model — the numbers are indicative rather than exact.
What went into building it
Training it took a computation budget of roughly 9 × 10²¹ FLOP, on hardware recorded as Google TPU v3. That figure measures what producing the model cost, and has no bearing on how fast it answers.
It was trained on a corpus of about 5,100,000,000 tokens of text.
The reason it appears in this catalogue at all: highly cited.
Step by step
How to choose a GPU for T5-3B
The table above has already assessed every card we hold specifications for against this model. Getting to your answer takes six steps.
-
01
Check what it needs before anything else
The table lists every card able to hold T5-3B, needing around 3.0 GB at a compression of Q6_K. That figure, not the headline performance of a card, is what decides whether it runs.
-
02
Set the context length you will work at
The conversation occupies memory too, and grows as it goes. Set the slider to the length you expect, because at long context a card that handles short questions easily can be dropped by T5-3B.
-
03
Decide how much compression you will accept
Each card runs the least-compressed copy it can hold, reaching a compression of Q6_K on the smallest card that fits. Setting a minimum quality drops the cards that only manage it by squeezing further than you would want, and holds the comparison at one level.
-
04
Sort by speed
Ranking by tokens per second follows memory bandwidth rather than core counts, for T5-3B. It will not match a gaming ordering, because generation is bound by memory bandwidth. The card topping the list is B200, at 1,210 tok/s.
-
05
Read the fit column last
The fit column separates cards that just manage it from those with room to spare, in the case of T5-3B. Comfortable means you can grow the context later. That difference matters more than a few tokens per second, so buy for comfortable if you expect to.
-
06
See what else that card runs
Each card page repeats this sweep for every model we hold, answering what else the hardware is good for beyond T5-3B.
Answers
T5-3B — common questions
T5-3B— can I run it on a GPU holding 12 GB?
Yes. The card GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, holding 12 GB, runs it at a compression of Q8_0, using about 3.7 GB and generating roughly 138 tokens per second. The fit is comfortable.
T5-3B— can I run it on a GPU holding 16 GB?
Yes. The card Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, holding 16 GB, runs it at a compression of Q8_0, using about 3.7 GB and generating roughly 171 tokens per second. The fit is comfortable.
T5-3B— can I run it on a GPU holding 24 GB?
Yes. The card GeForce RTX 5090 D V2, holding 24 GB, runs it at a compression of Q8_0, using about 3.7 GB and generating roughly 203 tokens per second. The fit is comfortable.
T5-3B— is it open source?
Its weights are published, so it can be downloaded and run on your own hardware. Note that open weights is not the same as open source in the full sense — it says nothing about the training data, the training code, or the commercial terms attached.
T5-3B— how many parameters does it have?
It has a parameter count of 2.8B. page 37, 3B and 11B. "To further explore what kind of performance is possible when using larger models, we consider two additional variants. In both cases, we use d_model = 1024, a 24 layer encoder and decoder, and dkv = 128. For the “3B” variant, we use dff = 16,384 with 32-headed attention, which results in around 2.8 billion parameters; for “11B” we use dff = 65,536 with 128-headed attention producing a model with about 11 billion parameters". That figure is the total, and it is what decides how much memory the model needs — roughly half a gigabyte per billion at the compression most people use.
T5-3B— who created it?
It was published by Google, based in United States of America, an organisation categorised as industry.
T5-3B— when was it released?
It was published in October 2019. Capability per parameter has improved considerably since, so a newer model of the same size is often the better use of the same hardware.
T5-3B— what is it used for?
It works in the domain of Language, and is recorded as handling the task of text autocompletion. A model can carry several of each, so these are the areas it was built for rather than a limit on what it will attempt.
T5-3B— where can I download it?
The weights are published, though we do not hold a repository link for it. This site calculates hardware requirements rather than hosting model files.
T5-3B— how much compute was used to train it?
Training consumed around 9 × 10²¹ FLOP, on hardware recorded as Google TPU v3. That measures what producing the model cost and says nothing about how quickly it answers once trained — inference speed comes from memory bandwidth, not from the training budget.
T5-3B— can I run it if it does not fit in my GPU?
It can be split between the card and system memory, but it generates painfully slowly that way. Every figure here assumes the whole model is resident on the card.
T5-3B— would two GPUs run it faster?
Capacity adds across cards; throughput does not. The number of cards already holding it on their own: 818. So a second card is rarely the answer here.
T5-3B— why does the quantisation differ between cards?
A larger card holds a more accurate copy. The number of compression levels used across the cards that run it: 2. Bigger cards get the more accurate version, and the quality floor above pins the comparison to one level.
T5-3B— how accurate are these speed estimates?
These are estimates with real error bars, and any of them could reasonably land anywhere in its published range depending on which runtime you use. The fastest result here: 726–1,936 tok/s on B200. The same model and card vary by thirty to fifty per cent depending on the inference software and its version.
T5-3B— what GPU do I need to run it?
The smallest card in our catalogue that holds it is Tesla C1080, with a memory capacity of 4 GB. It runs the model at a compression of Q6_K using about 3.0 GB, and produces roughly 19.1 tokens per second. The number of cards able to run it in total: 818.
T5-3B— how fast is it on a GPU?
It depends on the card. The quickest we calculate is B200, at about 1,210 tokens per second; the slowest that still runs it manages considerably less. Reading speed is around ten tokens per second, and the number of cards clearing that: 784.
T5-3B— how much VRAM does it need?
It needs about 3.0 GB at a compression of Q6_K, which is what the smallest card that runs it uses. Less compression needs more: the figures in the memory column above are recalculated for each card, because each one holds the least-compressed version it can.
T5-3B— can I run it on a GPU holding 8 GB?
Yes. The card CMP 170HX 8 GB, holding 8 GB, runs it at a compression of Q8_0, using about 3.7 GB and generating roughly 225 tokens per second. The fit is comfortable.
The other direction
Looking at it from the other side?
This page starts from the model. If you already own a card and want to know everything it will run, start from the hardware instead.