1659
Heatwave is no joke...
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
1659 points (96.8% liked)
White People Twitter
4458 readers
1148 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I call bullshit. Stable Diffusion XL has energy footprint of about 0.29 watt hours per image while generating. That is roughly equivalent to running a 0.5 Watt energy LED light bulb for slightly less than 35 minutes. Even for training the costs are not that extreme. Stable Diffusion needed 150,000 GPU hours. At 300 Watt for an A100 at full load that would 45,000 kWh. This roughly the energy neeed to drive an electric car for 180,000 miles, which is a lot, but still on a reasonable scale.
I don't like that first article, it gives contradicting information about the energy usage per image, saying 0.29kWh/image then saying 0.29kWh/1000 images.
The article is way, waaaaaaay off. My PC generates images at a rate of about one per second (SDXL Turbo) with an Nvidia 4060 Ti which uses 160W (~12W when idle). Let's assume I have it generate images constantly for one hour:
In other words, generating a single image is a trivial amount of power.
How are you able to generate images so quickly? When I tried to run Stable Diffusion on my nominally comparable GPU (RX6800M, similar to 6700XT, 12GB VRAM), it took over a minute to get halfway to generating a medium sized image before my entire computer crashed.
SDXL Turbo I guess. This needs only one diffusion pass per image, while SD 1.5 needs 8 for most images.
Nvidia cards are so much faster than AMD for Stable Diffusion it's ridiculous.
That and Turbo like that other person said ๐