What AI compute bottlenecks need solving?

This blog post has been written by the person who has mapped the AI compute infrastructure market in a clean and beautiful presentation

The AI compute infrastructure market is experiencing unprecedented bottlenecks that represent both massive challenges and lucrative opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors.

Training costs for frontier models have exploded from millions to billions of dollars, while hardware scarcity creates month-long backlogs for GPU access. Smart money is flowing into segments solving these compute constraints, from custom silicon to liquid cooling solutions.

And if you need to understand this market in 30 minutes with the latest information, you can download our quick market pitch.

What hardware limitations are currently slowing AI training at scale?

The most critical hardware bottleneck is the "memory wall" - where compute performance grows 3x every two years while memory bandwidth only increases 1.6x over the same period.

GPU availability represents an immediate constraint, with cloud providers reporting month-long backlogs for NVIDIA H100 and GB200 systems. AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure force customers to reserve entire GPU instances, leading to utilization rates as low as 20-40% despite overwhelming demand. This inefficiency stems from provisioning systems designed for traditional workloads rather than AI's bursty, variable compute patterns.

Memory bandwidth creates the deepest technical constraint. Single-GPU HBM capacity has only doubled every two years, far outpaced by model parameter growth that increases 410x over the same period. For Transformer models, this memory wall forces constant data movement between compute units and memory, creating idle time that negates raw FLOPS advantages. The bottleneck particularly affects decoder-heavy architectures where attention mechanisms require accessing large key-value caches.

Interconnect throughput presents the third major limitation. PCIe 5.0 provides roughly 32 GB/s bandwidth while NVLink offers 600 GB/s per link, but these get saturated quickly during multi-GPU training when gradients and activations must move between devices. Network fabrics using Ethernet or InfiniBand struggle to maintain aggregate throughput above 200 Gbps across nodes, creating communication bottlenecks that limit scaling efficiency for data-parallel training runs.

Looking for the latest market trends? We break them down in sharp, digestible presentations you can skim or share.

How much does training and running foundation models cost today?

Training costs have reached unprecedented levels, with GPT-4 requiring approximately $79 million and Claude 3 estimated between $20-30 million in compute expenses.

These figures represent pure compute costs and exclude significant additional expenses like data preparation, engineering talent, and infrastructure overhead. For context, running inference on cloud platforms costs $98 per hour for AWS H100 instances and $40-60 per hour for A100-class hardware suitable for models like Claude 3. The economics become more challenging when considering that training runs can require thousands of GPUs operating continuously for months.

Anthropic's CEO Dario Amodei predicts training costs will explode to $10-100 billion by 2026 as models approach AGI-scale capabilities. This projection accounts for increasing model sizes, longer training runs, and the computational requirements for more sophisticated reasoning capabilities. The underlying driver is compute demand growing 100x by 2028, pushing total infrastructure spending toward $1 trillion annually across the industry.

The cost structure creates significant barriers to entry for new competitors while driving incumbents toward more capital-efficient approaches. Companies are exploring techniques like mixture-of-experts architectures, more efficient attention mechanisms, and novel training strategies to reduce these exponentially growing expenses. However, the fundamental constraint remains that breakthrough AI capabilities seem to require massive computational investments that only well-funded organizations can sustain.

If you want to build on this market, you can download our latest market pitch deck here

Which compute stack segments are attracting the most investment in 2025?

Custom AI accelerators represent the fastest-growing segment, with $30 billion in GPU and ASIC spending projected for 2025 as companies seek alternatives to NVIDIA's dominance.

How do next-generation AI accelerators compare to NVIDIA's offerings?

Several companies have developed specialized accelerators that exceed NVIDIA's performance in specific workloads, though none match NVIDIA's software ecosystem maturity.

Cerebras leads in raw computational power with their CS-3 Wafer-Scale Engine delivering 15,000 TFLOPS at FP16 precision and 20 TB/s memory bandwidth - roughly 3x NVIDIA's H200 Blackwell in peak performance. Their architecture eliminates traditional memory hierarchies by placing 850,000 cores on a single wafer-sized chip, enabling massive models to fit entirely on-chip. This design proves particularly effective for large language model training where memory bandwidth typically constrains performance.

Groq targets inference optimization with their Groq-2 architecture achieving 7,000 TFLOPS and demonstrating exceptional throughput for specific models like ResNet-50 at 80,000 images per second. Their deterministic execution model eliminates the performance variability common in GPU-based inference, making them attractive for latency-sensitive applications. However, their programming model requires significant software adaptation compared to NVIDIA's mature CUDA ecosystem.

Graphcore's MK3 Intelligence Processing Units offer 2,500 TFLOPS with a unique architecture optimized for sparse computations common in transformer attention mechanisms. Their performance advantage emerges specifically in models with high sparsity patterns, though they lag in dense computation workloads where NVIDIA's architecture remains superior.

The critical differentiator remains software ecosystem maturity. NVIDIA's CUDA platform, developed over 15+ years, provides comprehensive tooling, libraries, and developer familiarity that alternative accelerators struggle to match. Most organizations require extensive software engineering resources to achieve comparable productivity on non-NVIDIA hardware, creating switching costs that limit adoption despite potential performance gains.

Where are the biggest inference bottlenecks for edge and real-time applications?

On-chip memory limitations create the primary bottleneck, as L2 cache and SRAM sizes prove insufficient for large-context models, forcing expensive DRAM fetches that add 100-200 nanoseconds per token.

Network latency compounds this issue for edge devices operating over 5G connections, where round-trip times of 20-50 milliseconds make real-time inference challenging for applications requiring sub-100ms response times. Many edge deployments must cache models locally or use model compression techniques that sacrifice accuracy for speed, creating an inherent trade-off between capability and responsiveness.

Power consumption presents another critical constraint, particularly for battery-powered edge devices. Current mobile AI accelerators consume 2-5 watts for meaningful inference tasks, limiting deployment in energy-constrained environments. This forces developers toward smaller models or intermittent processing patterns that may not meet application requirements for continuous AI capabilities.

Memory bandwidth scaling represents the deepest technical challenge. Edge processors typically provide 50-200 GB/s memory bandwidth compared to 3+ TB/s available in data center GPUs. This 10-15x gap means that models designed for cloud inference often become memory-bound when deployed at the edge, requiring architectural changes or aggressive quantization to achieve acceptable performance.

Need to pitch or understand this niche fast? Grab our ready-to-use presentations that explain the essentials in minutes.

What data center infrastructure limitations constrain large-scale AI workloads?

Power density mismatches create the most immediate constraint, as AI workloads generate 50-100 kilowatts per rack while most existing data centers design for 10-15 kilowatts maximum.

Construction timelines represent a strategic bottleneck where data center builds require 18-24 months while AI model development cycles compress to 6-month intervals. This timing mismatch forces companies to make infrastructure commitments based on uncertain future requirements, often leading to over-provisioning or capacity shortfalls. Geographic concentration exacerbates this issue, with suitable land, power grid access, and regulatory approval creating natural constraints on expansion speed.

Cooling infrastructure presents technical and economic challenges as traditional air-cooling systems prove inadequate for dense AI hardware deployments. Liquid cooling solutions add complexity and cost while requiring specialized expertise that many operators lack. The transition creates operational risks and capital expenditure requirements that strain traditional data center economics designed around lower power densities.

Geographic demand concentration creates regional bottlenecks where major tech hubs like Northern Virginia, Silicon Valley, and specific cloud availability zones experience acute capacity shortages. This geographic clustering stems from network effects, talent availability, and existing infrastructure, but creates supply-demand imbalances that drive up costs and limit access. International demand growth, particularly in Asia-Pacific and Europe, outpaces infrastructure development in many regions, creating opportunities for investors willing to fund purpose-built AI data centers in underserved markets.

If you want clear data about this market, you can download our latest market pitch deck here

How are hyperscalers shifting their compute strategies in 2025?

AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure are aggressively developing custom silicon to reduce dependence on NVIDIA while building specialized AI data centers optimized for training and inference workloads.

AWS leads with their Trainium2 chips targeting 4x better price-performance than GPU alternatives for large model training, while expanding their Inferentia line for cost-effective inference deployment. Their strategy focuses on vertical integration where customers use AWS's full stack from chips to services, creating switching costs that lock in long-term revenue. This approach aims to capture more value from the AI compute value chain while offering customers lower costs than third-party GPU solutions.

Google emphasizes their TPU v5 architecture with claims of superior performance for transformer workloads, backed by their extensive internal experience training models like PaLM and Gemini. Their advantage lies in co-designing hardware and software together, optimizing the entire stack for specific model architectures. Google's strategy targets enterprise customers seeking alternatives to NVIDIA's ecosystem, positioning TPUs as both cost-effective and technically superior for specific AI workloads.

Microsoft Azure focuses on hybrid approaches, combining custom silicon development with strategic partnerships including their significant OpenAI relationship. Their infrastructure strategy emphasizes flexibility, supporting multiple hardware types while investing in networking and orchestration software that simplifies multi-vendor deployments. This positions Azure as hardware-agnostic while building differentiation through superior management and integration capabilities.

All three hyperscalers share common themes: reducing reliance on NVIDIA's roadmap, capturing more value from AI workloads, and building moats through software integration. Their success will determine whether the compute market evolves toward diversified hardware or remains concentrated around NVIDIA's ecosystem.

What role do software frameworks play in compute inefficiencies?

CUDA's dominance creates a software monoculture that limits hardware optimization opportunities, with studies showing 30-50% efficiency losses when suboptimal kernel implementations get locked into production systems.

Framework fragmentation compounds this issue as models developed in PyTorch, TensorFlow, or JAX often require significant engineering effort to achieve optimal performance across different hardware platforms. Each framework makes different assumptions about memory layout, computation graphs, and execution models, creating abstraction layers that can hide critical performance optimizations. Organizations frequently accept these inefficiencies rather than invest in hardware-specific optimization, perpetuating suboptimal resource utilization.

The emergence of compiler-based approaches like Triton, Apache TVM, and vendor-specific solutions represents an attempt to bridge this gap by generating optimized code automatically. However, these tools remain immature compared to hand-tuned CUDA kernels that NVIDIA has refined over decades. Most organizations lack the expertise to effectively use these emerging tools, creating a knowledge gap that limits adoption of potentially more efficient approaches.

Hugging Face Transformers and similar high-level libraries prioritize ease of use over performance optimization, often implementing generic algorithms that work adequately across platforms but fail to exploit hardware-specific capabilities. While these libraries democratize AI development, they can create inefficiencies when scaled to production workloads where performance optimization becomes economically critical.

Wondering who's shaping this fast-moving industry? Our slides map out the top players and challengers in seconds.

How constrained is compute access for startups and smaller labs?

Compute access represents an existential constraint for AI startups, with reserved GPU instances requiring $100,000+ monthly commitments and spot instances offering inconsistent availability that disrupts training runs.

Credit requirements and payment terms create additional barriers as cloud providers demand significant upfront commitments or impose usage limits that prevent scaling during critical development phases. Many startups report needing 6-12 months of cash flow dedicated solely to compute costs, competing directly with hiring and other essential expenses. This capital intensity favors well-funded startups while creating insurmountable barriers for bootstrapped or early-stage companies.

Several solutions are emerging to address these constraints. Lambda Labs offers more flexible pricing with lower minimums, though with limited geographic availability and hardware selection. CoreWeave provides hybrid spot and reserved pricing that adapts to usage patterns, making costs more predictable for startups with variable compute needs. Decentralized compute networks like Akash and io.net promise lower costs by aggregating unused capacity, though they currently lack the reliability and performance consistency required for serious AI development.

University partnerships and government initiatives provide alternative access channels, with programs like the National Science Foundation's Advanced Computing Infrastructure offering researchers access to specialized hardware. However, these programs typically impose restrictions on commercial use and may not align with startup development timelines and requirements.

The constraint creates opportunity for new business models focused on democratizing compute access through innovative financing, resource sharing, or technical solutions that reduce hardware requirements for AI development.

If you want to build or invest on this market, you can download our latest market pitch deck here

What regulatory and supply chain risks threaten AI compute availability?

Export controls targeting advanced semiconductors create the most immediate regulatory risk, with U.S. restrictions on chips above certain performance thresholds limiting global AI development capabilities.

Current regulations restrict exports of NVIDIA A100, H100, and similar high-performance chips to China and other countries, while also limiting access to manufacturing equipment required for advanced node production. These controls create supply allocation challenges where global demand must be satisfied from restricted production capacity, potentially driving up costs and extending delivery times even for unrestricted customers.

Chip shortage risks extend beyond export controls to fundamental supply chain vulnerabilities. Advanced AI chips require cutting-edge manufacturing processes available only at TSMC and Samsung, creating single points of failure for the entire industry. Geopolitical tensions around Taiwan, where TSMC produces most advanced semiconductors, add existential risk to long-term supply security. Natural disasters, equipment failures, or political disruptions could halt production for months, creating industry-wide shortages.

Rare earth elements and specialized materials required for advanced chip production face their own supply constraints, with China controlling significant portions of the supply chain. Efforts to develop alternative sources and supply chains require years of investment and may not fully eliminate dependencies on geopolitically sensitive regions.

Energy policy represents an emerging regulatory risk as AI data centers consume increasing amounts of electricity, potentially triggering restrictions or carbon pricing that increases operational costs. Some jurisdictions already impose limits on data center power consumption or require renewable energy commitments that add complexity and cost to deployment plans.

What major breakthroughs in hardware are expected in the next 2-5 years?

Photonic computing represents the most transformative near-term breakthrough, with companies like Lightmatter demonstrating optical interconnects that could eliminate traditional networking bottlenecks entirely.

Silicon photonics technologies promise to deliver 1 Tbps SerDes capabilities with sub-10 picosecond skew across meter-scale distances, enabling rack-scale computing architectures where thousands of processors function as a single coherent system. This could fundamentally change AI system design by eliminating the memory hierarchy bottlenecks that currently constrain large model training and inference.

Memory architecture innovations target the fundamental memory wall through several approaches. HBM4 memory stacks aim to deliver over 6 TB/s bandwidth per GPU, while emerging on-package DRAM technologies could place memory directly on compute dies, drastically reducing access latency. Processing-in-memory approaches from companies like Samsung and SK Hynix promise to perform computations within memory arrays, reducing data movement for memory-bound AI workloads.

Neuromorphic computing architectures like Intel's Loihi and IBM's TrueNorth target ultra-low-power AI applications by mimicking brain-like computation patterns. While currently limited to specific applications, these technologies could enable always-on AI capabilities in battery-powered devices and create new classes of edge AI applications that are currently impossible.

Quantum-classical hybrid systems represent longer-term potential, where quantum processors handle specific optimization problems within classical AI training loops. Companies like IonQ and Rigetti are developing quantum algorithms for machine learning that could accelerate certain aspects of AI development, though practical applications remain years away from commercial viability.

What business models are gaining traction for solving compute access problems?

Hardware-as-a-Service models are emerging as the dominant approach for democratizing compute access, with companies like Lambda offering pay-per-inference pricing that reduces entry costs to under $1,000 monthly.

• Fractional GPU Access: Services like RunPod and Vast.ai enable customers to purchase portions of GPU time rather than full instances, making high-end hardware accessible to smaller projects. These platforms aggregate unused capacity from crypto miners and other sources, creating liquid markets for compute resources.
• Spot Market Optimization: CoreWeave and similar providers offer sophisticated spot pricing that balances cost savings with reliability guarantees. Their systems predict demand patterns and automatically migrate workloads to maintain availability while minimizing costs, making spot instances viable for production AI workloads.
• Vertically Integrated AI Stacks: Platforms like Paperspace Gradient and Amazon SageMaker bundle compute, storage, MLOps tooling, and managed services into comprehensive development environments. This reduces complexity for AI teams while creating predictable cost structures that simplify budgeting and resource planning.
• Decentralized Compute Networks: Blockchain-based platforms like Akash Network and io.net aggregate idle compute resources globally, potentially offering 50-80% cost savings compared to traditional cloud providers. While still early-stage, these networks could democratize access to high-performance compute for AI development.
• Cooperative Compute Models: Research consortiums and shared infrastructure approaches allow multiple organizations to jointly fund and operate AI compute resources, spreading costs while maintaining access to cutting-edge hardware that individual organizations couldn't afford independently.

Planning your next move in this new space? Start with a clean visual breakdown of market size, models, and momentum.

Conclusion

Sources

1. IO.net - Decentralized AI Infrastructure GPU Bottlenecks
2. LinkedIn - GPU Utilization Crisis
3. Semiconductor Engineering - AI Hardware Memory Wall
4. LinkedIn - Memory Bandwidth Bottlenecks
5. Prateek Joshi - AI's Hidden Bottleneck Networking
6. Visual Capitalist - Surging Cost of Training AI Models
7. TechCrunch - Anthropic's Latest Flagship AI Training Costs
8. AI Base - AI Training Cost Analysis
9. Cryptopolitan - Costs of AI Training to Billions
10. Aethir - The Real AI Bottleneck
11. MIPS - Scaling Out Deep Learning
12. Information Week - Breaking Through AI Bottlenecks