Skip to content

GPUX vs Alternatives

How GPUX compares to other ML serving frameworks.

Comparison Table

Feature GPUX TorchServe Triton TFServing ONNX Runtime
GPU Support Universal NVIDIA-focused NVIDIA-focused Limited Backend-dependent
Setup Complexity Simple Medium Complex Medium Simple
Docker-like UX ✅ ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌
ONNX Support Native Via conversion Yes No Native
Multi-framework ✅ (via ONNX) PyTorch only Multi TensorFlow only ✅
Apple Silicon ✅ CoreML ❌ ❌ ❌ Limited
AMD GPU ✅ ROCm Limited Limited Limited Limited
Config File YAML Complex Complex Protobuf Code

vs TorchServe

TorchServe

  • Pros: Deep PyTorch integration, good for PyTorch-only shops
  • Cons: NVIDIA-focused, complex setup, no universal GPU support

GPUX

  • Pros: Universal GPU support, simple config, Docker-like UX
  • Cons: Requires ONNX conversion for PyTorch models

Use GPUX if: You need universal GPU support or simpler deployment Use TorchServe if: You're PyTorch-only and NVIDIA-only

vs NVIDIA Triton

Triton

  • Pros: High performance, enterprise features, multi-framework
  • Cons: Complex setup, NVIDIA-focused, steep learning curve

GPUX

  • Pros: Simple setup, universal GPU support, easier to get started
  • Cons: Fewer enterprise features (no ensemble models, pipelines)

Use GPUX if: You want simplicity and universal GPU support Use Triton if: You need advanced enterprise features and NVIDIA-only

vs TensorFlow Serving

TensorFlow Serving

  • Pros: Optimized for TensorFlow, mature, production-ready
  • Cons: TensorFlow-only, limited GPU support, complex config

GPUX

  • Pros: Multi-framework (via ONNX), universal GPU, simple config
  • Cons: Requires model conversion from TensorFlow

Use GPUX if: You want universal GPU support or use multiple frameworks Use TF Serving if: You're TensorFlow-only

vs Raw ONNX Runtime

ONNX Runtime

  • Pros: Fast, flexible, library-level control
  • Cons: Requires code for serving, no built-in CLI/HTTP

GPUX

  • Pros: Built-in CLI and HTTP serving, Docker-like UX, config-based
  • Cons: Less flexibility than raw library usage

Use GPUX if: You want a complete runtime with serving Use ONNX Runtime if: You need library-level control in your application

Key Differentiators

1. Universal GPU Support

GPUX: Works on any GPU (NVIDIA, AMD, Apple, Intel) Others: Mostly NVIDIA-focused

2. Docker-like UX

GPUX: 

gpux build .
gpux run model-name
gpux serve model-name

Others: Complex configuration files or Python code

3. Single Config File

GPUX: One gpux.yml file Others: Multiple config files, protobuf definitions, or code

4. Zero Vendor Lock-in

GPUX: ONNX standard, any framework → ONNX → GPUX Others: Framework-specific (PyTorch, TensorFlow)

Use Case Recommendations

Choose GPUX for:

  • ✅ Universal GPU compatibility
  • ✅ Simple deployment
  • ✅ Multi-framework projects
  • ✅ Apple Silicon, AMD, or Intel GPUs
  • ✅ Quick prototyping

Choose Triton for:

  • ✅ Advanced enterprise features
  • ✅ Model ensembles and pipelines
  • ✅ NVIDIA-only deployment
  • ✅ Complex serving scenarios

Choose TorchServe for:

  • ✅ PyTorch-only projects
  • ✅ Deep PyTorch integration
  • ✅ NVIDIA GPU deployment

Choose TF Serving for:

  • ✅ TensorFlow-only projects
  • ✅ Google Cloud deployment
  • ✅ Mature TensorFlow ecosystem

Migration Guides

From TorchServe

  1. Export PyTorch model to ONNX
  2. Create gpux.yml configuration
  3. Run with GPUX

From Triton

  1. Convert models to ONNX (if needed)
  2. Simplify configuration to gpux.yml
  3. Use GPUX CLI commands

From Raw ONNX Runtime

  1. Add gpux.yml configuration
  2. Remove custom serving code
  3. Use gpux serve

Performance Comparison

Framework BERT (NVIDIA RTX 3080) Overhead
GPUX (TensorRT) 2,400 FPS Minimal
Triton (TensorRT) 2,500 FPS Minimal
TorchServe 800 FPS Medium
Raw ONNX RT 2,400 FPS None

GPUX provides near-optimal performance with minimal overhead.

Conclusion

GPUX focuses on: - Simplicity over complexity - Universal compatibility over vendor lock-in - Developer experience over enterprise features

For most ML deployment needs, GPUX provides the best balance of simplicity, performance, and compatibility.

See Also