估算 GPU VRAM、可用記憶體與硬體等級,適用於 AI 推論、LoRA、QLoRA、完整訓練、多模態、擴散、影片、音訊與表格工作負載。
AI 翻譯
Estimate GPU VRAM, usable memory, and hardware tier for AI inference, LoRA, QLoRA, full training, multimodal, diffusion, video, audio, and tabular workloads.
開發工具TypeScript · HTMLGitHub @rxdt上線中營運者未確認
試用過了嗎? 點一下就好,不需要登入。
尚未偵測到更新。GitHub 發布版本後會顯示在這裡。
個人 GitHub 帳號下公開儲存庫的擁有者可以登入並驗證所有權,自行管理介紹,無需管理員核准。
登入並產生驗證檔案,在 30 分鐘內將其提交至此儲存庫的預設分支。其他分支或分叉儲存庫中的檔案無效。然後在下方檢查檔案,即可無需管理員核准直接管理專案。請保留檔案以維持管理權限。
如需登入,將前往登入頁面。登入後請回到此處,再次點擊所選的驗證按鈕。
在專案資料夾中執行 /nomorevibe verify,即可驗證所有權並自行管理介紹。
一分鐘完成驗證A free VRAM calculator for AI models. Not just for LLMs: text generation, embeddings, vision, multimodal, image diffusion, video, audio, and tabular workloads, across inference, LoRA/QLoRA fine-tuning, and full training. Every calculation runs in the browser. Demo app to simultaneously build frontend harness.
翻譯準備中
取自儲存庫 README
正在載入完整 README。 以下為已儲存的摘錄。
VRAM GPU TPU Calculator for AI Model Deployments
Built with L∞pGate for frontend frontend edition
A free VRAM calculator for AI models. Not just for LLMs: text generation,
embeddings, vision, multimodal, image diffusion, video, audio, and tabular
workloads, across inference, LoRA/QLoRA fine-tuning, and full training.檢視完整 README ↗A free VRAM calculator for AI models. Not just for LLMs: text generation, embeddings, vision, multimodal, image diffusion, video, audio, and tabular workloads, across inference, LoRA/QLoRA fine-tuning, and full training.
Static Vite + TypeScript. Every calculation runs in the browser. No backend, no ads, no signup, no tracking. The formula, per-component breakdown, and assumptions behind every estimate are shown in the UI, and recommendations are measured against usable VRAM (advertised capacity minus the driver/CUDA reserve), not the sticker number.
Based on the (more mature) Python ralph agent harness
Core equation:
Required_GB = (Weights + Working_Memory + Training_State + Runtime_Overhead) * Buffer
Estimates vary with model architecture, kernels, quantization, sequence packing, batching, sharding, offload, framework overhead, and runtime configuration. Validate against your target stack before buying hardware.
pnpm install
pnpm setup
pnpm dev
pnpm build
pnpm preview
Profiling note: Always run Lighthouse against the production preview (
pnpm build && pnpm preview, served on127.0.0.1:4183), never the dev server (pnpm dev,127.0.0.1:5174). The dev server serves raw unbundled modules over an HMR WebSocket, so a report taken there shows unminified JS, unusedzod, no-bf-cache, and a large CLS from the serialized module waterfall — all dev-only artifacts, none of which exist in the deployed build.harness/lighthouserc.cjsalready targetspreviewfor this reason.
# checks
pnpm preflight
pnpm gate
pnpm --prefix frontend run test:coverage
pnpm --prefix frontend run test:e2e
frontend/index.html and frontend/src/app.tsfrontend/src/state.tsfrontend/src/calculator-core.ts, frontend/src/workload-memory.tsfrontend/src/hardware.tsfrontend/src/report.tsspecs/plan.md, specs/qa.md^22.16.0 || >=24.8.0>=10 ([email protected] declared)Without a real app in production a harness cannot be trusted. This app was developed alongside L∞pGate JS to learn from (painfully) and serve as v0 proof. As a fan of dev tooling, meta-absuridism, and cycles, building the most deterministic self-referential Ai tool conceivable on the fly (an AI GPU calculator) all while building a looping harness just felt right.
Generally, frontend work has a messy non-deterministic contract. Yet an app must remain accessible/build/render/respond/fit across viewports and loading paths. AND have ✨taste✨. UI has a gradient of quality and Agents stop ASAP unless forced to improve. That's why this heavy WIP harness is here. With web we don't get simple deterministic outcome like with a Python harness. A frontend agent can pass tests while shipping a blank page. So the loop is strict on purpose The harness uses tooling to force an agent to build an app to look like a human did. These checks cover different failure modes:
Agents struggle more with frontend for structural reasons. They can reason over code, but frontend correctness is not simply in code text. It is the interaction between:
A backend bug has a crisp functional target, e.g. this function returns wrong value. A frontend issue often says without words: “the thing looks wrong”. Agents need heavy tool feedback to 'see' issues or they are guessing from source. loopgate_js harness doesn't promise to fix all of the above. It is a first attempt to expose some and enforce that agents make fixes.