How Much of a Real Workload Can LLM-Generated GPU Kernels Actually Reach?
TL;DR
Language models can now write GPU kernels that outperform PyTorch, and a question the literature does not: what fraction of a real model's wall clock do such kernels govern?
Abstract
Language models can now write GPU kernels that outperform PyTorch. We evaluate five model configurations on KernelBench level 1 and find that a frontier model produces correct kernels for 91.1% of problems and independently verified speedups on 22 of 56, including three convolutions, with a median of 1.235x. Open-weights models are far behind: the best reaches 30.4% correct with three verified speedups and solves zero convolutions. We then ask a question the literature does not: what fraction of a real model's wall clock do such kernels govern? Profiling seven workloads across three domains, we find the addressable fraction ranges from 8.9% to 58.2%. On transformers, 80-86% of runtime is spent in cuBLAS GEMM and FlashAttention, bounding realistic end-to-end improvement at roughly 1%, and the fraction shrinks with model scale. On recommenders it is 58.2%, concentrated in a single embedding kernel. We introduce DLRM-Bench, 12 recommender kernel problems in KernelBench format, and measure a 41.7% win rate at a 1.552x median there, projecting 8.63% end-to-end. Separately, we show that KernelBench's correctness check (torch.allclose with an absolute tolerance) is satisfied by a tensor of zeros on 4 of 60 level-1 problems. Two kernels in our own results exploited this before we detected them, including one scored at 283x that wrote 0.3% of its output buffer. We propose scale-invariant replacements and release all 879 evaluations.
