While Mixture of Experts models decouple the parameter count from the computational cost during training, this advantage introduces significant hurdles for production inference. The core challenges are not rooted in the volume of computation () but in memory capacity and the latency introduced by sparse data access patterns. Understanding these two problems is the first step toward building an efficient serving infrastructure for sparse models.
The most immediate challenge in deploying a large MoE model is its immense memory requirement. Although a single forward pass for a token only activates a small fraction of the model's total parameters (typically two experts), the entire set of experts must be loaded into high-speed memory (GPU VRAM) and be ready for selection by the gating network. This "all-or-nothing" requirement creates a significant memory bottleneck.
Consider a model like Mixtral 8x7B. While its name suggests 56 billion parameters across its experts, its total parameter count, including shared self-attention blocks, is approximately 47 billion. During inference, each token is processed by only two of the eight experts, resulting in the computational equivalent of a much smaller 13B dense model. However, to serve this model, you must hold all 47 billion parameters in VRAM.
At half-precision (like bfloat16, which uses 2 bytes per parameter), the memory footprint can be calculated as:
This exceeds the capacity of even high-end accelerator cards like a single 80GB NVIDIA A100 or H100 GPU. Consequently, the model must be sharded across multiple GPUs, adding system complexity and cost. This disparity between the memory required and the computation performed is a defining feature of MoE inference.
This chart compares the VRAM needed to run a dense 13B model versus an MoE model with a similar computational cost. While both models have a similar active parameter footprint, the MoE model's total memory requirement is substantially larger because all experts must be resident in memory.
Beyond the static memory footprint, the dynamic nature of sparse routing introduces significant latency. Unlike dense models where computation is predictable and data movement is regular, MoE inference performance is often limited by memory bandwidth and network communication, not just raw compute power.
Since large MoE models are distributed across multiple GPUs using expert parallelism, routing a batch of tokens often requires inter-device communication. When a token processed on GPU 0 needs to be routed to an expert residing on GPU 1, its hidden state must be sent over the network (e.g., NVLink or InfiniBand). After the expert computation is complete, the result must be sent back.
For a batch of tokens, this process becomes a complex All-to-All communication pattern, where each GPU sends a subset of its tokens to every other GPU and receives tokens in return. This collective communication operation is a well-known bottleneck in distributed computing and can dominate the end-to-end latency of a single generation step, especially as the number of GPUs in the group increases.
An illustration of the
All-to-Allcommunication pattern. The token batch originating on GPU 0 is split, with token hidden states dispatched to their assigned experts on different GPUs. Dashed lines represent network traffic between devices, a primary source of latency.
Even on a single device, sparse activation is less efficient than dense computation. In a dense feed-forward network, a large matrix of weights is loaded from VRAM once and then used for the entire batch of tokens via highly optimized matrix multiplication kernels. This amortizes the cost of memory access over a large amount of computation.
In an MoE layer, the weights for a specific expert are loaded to process only the small subset of tokens routed to it. This results in a lower arithmetic intensity (the ratio of compute operations to memory operations). The inference process can become memory-bandwidth bound, meaning the GPU spends more time waiting for data to arrive from VRAM than it does performing calculations. This problem is compounded by the unpredictable nature of routing; if a batch sends 90% of its tokens to one expert and 1% to another, the hardware utilization will be extremely unbalanced, leading to idle compute units and higher overall latency.
These fundamental challenges of memory capacity and latency shape the design of any practical MoE inference solution. The following sections will introduce techniques designed to directly address these issues, from offloading expert weights to manage memory to implementing specialized batching and decoding strategies to mitigate latency.
Was this section helpful?
© 2026 ApX Machine LearningEngineered with