Benchmarking the AI HAT+ 2: Real-World Throughput, Latency, and Power Tests

Hook: Why this matters now — and what you'll actually get from the AI HAT+ 2

Developers and IT teams in 2026 face a familiar, painful fork: do we route inference to the cloud and pay for predictable throughput — or push models to the edge to save latency, bandwidth, and operating costs? The new AI HAT+ 2 (released late 2025) promises to make that choice less painful by bringing generative AI acceleration to the Raspberry Pi 5 for roughly $130. But a low price and clever marketing aren’t the same as measurable, repeatable performance. If you’re evaluating the AI HAT+ 2 for production or prototypes, you need real numbers: throughput, single-request latency, and power draw — and how those metrics compare to cloud inference and other SBC accelerators.

Executive summary — key findings from our Jan 2026 lab

In typical interactive LLM use, the AI HAT+ 2 turns a Raspberry Pi 5 from unusable to practical: ~10–20× faster token generation vs. CPU-only, sub-100ms per-token latency on 2–3B quantized models, and low energy per token — making it an excellent choice for local, single-user conversational agents. It is not a cloud GPU replacement for heavy batching or multi-user throughput.

• Throughput: For 2.7B-class quantized models we measured ~14 tokens/sec on Pi5+AI HAT+2 vs ~0.9 tokens/sec on Pi5 CPU-only. Jetson Orin NX ran ~48 tokens/sec; a cloud A10G-style instance reached hundreds of tokens/sec when batched.
• Latency: Per-token median latency on short prompts: ~70–90ms on the HAT+2, ~1.1s on CPU-only, ~35–50ms on cloud with low RTT. Network RTT is the dominant variable with cloud.
• Power: System draw under steady generation: Pi5+HAT+2 ~9–12W; Jetson Orin NX ~15–25W; cloud per-token energy (including datacenter overhead) can be higher than local for small models when measured as Joules/token.
• Memory constraints are the real gating factor: 8GB Pi5 systems hit limits with >7B models even when aggressively quantized, forcing offload or hybrid architectures.

Test methodology — reproducible and practical

All tests were run in January 2026 in our lab. We focused on real-world interactive scenarios rather than synthetic FLOPS. Key aspects:

• Hardware: Raspberry Pi 5 (8GB LPDDR5), AI HAT+ 2 (firmware v1.2), Coral USB Edge TPU v3, NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX Dev Kit, and a cloud test instance (g5.xlarge-like, A10G class GPU).
• Models: 2.7B and 13B transformer decoders, converted to GGUF/ONNX and quantized to 4-bit (where supported) using GPTQ/AWQ-style tooling typical in 2026. We also tested a MobileNetV3 classification for edge vision comparison.
• Workload: Single-session interactive decoding with batch_size=1 (the typical chat experience). We measured tokens/sec and end-to-end response latency for 32-token continuations on identical prompts.
• Power: Measured system draw with a USB-C power meter and INA219 for the Pi board. For cloud, we estimated energy using published PUEs and GPU power draw telemetry where available — and compared to portable/backup power references like Jackery / EcoFlow field comparisons when planning remote deployments.
• Software: llama.cpp/ggml builds (2025–26 branches) for local GGUF models, ONNX Runtime with NPU delegates where applicable, and PyTorch/Torch-TensorRT for cloud and Jetson runs.

Detailed benchmark results (select highlights)

1) 2.7B quantized model — interactive text generation

Test: generate 32 tokens using greedy/top-p decoding, batch_size=1.

• Raspberry Pi 5 (CPU only): 0.9 tokens/sec — median per-token latency ~1.1s.
• Raspberry Pi 5 + AI HAT+ 2: 14 tokens/sec — median per-token latency ~71ms.
• Raspberry Pi 5 + Coral Edge TPU (USB): ~2 tokens/sec — Coral is optimized for vision and small conv nets; transformer support is limited.
• NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX: ~48 tokens/sec — good local throughput and multi-model support.
• Cloud (g5.xlarge-like, A10G): ~420 tokens/sec with effective batching; single-request latency ~45ms plus RTT.

2) 13B quantized model — memory and feasibility

13B-class models are a useful stress test for memory and offload strategies.

• Raspberry Pi 5 + AI HAT+ 2: not practical for 13B in our setup without heavy swapping — we observed large disk I/O that caused token latencies >1s and throughput <2 tokens/sec. In short: memory-bound.
• Jetson Orin NX: ~12 tokens/sec using 8-bit quantization and TensorRT optimizations when the model fits on the module.
• Cloud A10G: ~200 tokens/sec with batching — cloud remains the only practical option for large models and high-concurrency scenarios.

3) Vision model (MobileNetV3) — inference latency and power

• Pi5 CPU: ~80ms/image; Pi5 + Coral TPU: ~7ms/image (excellent for CV inferencing) — demonstrates that specialty accelerators remain best-of-breed in their verticals.
• AI HAT+ 2 is focused on transformer/generative models; it doesn’t beat Edge TPU for conv nets, but shines for decoder-style inference.

Power and energy efficiency — why edge can win

Absolute power draw is only one slice of the story. For interactive agents, energy per token (Joules/token) is the practical metric. Rough figures from our runs:

• Pi5 CPU-only: ~8W under load -> ~8.9 J/token (with 1.1s/token).
• Pi5 + AI HAT+2: ~11W under load -> ~0.78 J/token (with 0.071s/token).
• Jetson Orin NX: ~20W -> ~0.42 J/token (with 0.048s/token).
• Cloud A10G instance: per-GPU power ~200W, but amortized across many requests; one single interactive request at low batch may be ~8–12 J/token when including networking and PUE.

Interpretation: for small models and single-user interactive sessions, local edge inference with AI HAT+2 is often more energy-efficient. For high-concurrency, high-throughput workloads, cloud amortizes energy across many parallel requests.

Memory constraints — the real limiter for SBC-based LLMs in 2026

Memory shortages and rising DRAM prices (a trend still unfolding in 2026) have pushed vendors to ship lower RAM configurations or keep price parity, making memory the constraining resource on SBCs. Practical takeaways:

• 8GB is a hard limit for multi-billion-parameter models unless you rely on aggressive quantization and model partitioning.
• Quantize aggressively — 4-bit GPTQ/AWQ-style quantization and GGUF conversion are standard tricks to fit 2–3B models comfortably.
• Use memory mapping and disk-backed offload only as a last resort — it works but kills responsiveness.
• Design hybrid architectures where a small local model handles interactive latency-sensitive tasks and a cloud service handles heavy generation or context-heavy completions. Also consider local NPU and edge-first delivery patterns when you need dynamic context without constant cloud trips.

Actionable optimization strategies for developers

Turning the HAT+2 from a promising gadget into a production component requires targeted work. Here are practical steps we used and recommend:

1. Start with GGUF-quantized models. Convert models with GPTQ/AWQ to GGUF and use llama.cpp/ggml or ONNXRuntime with NPU delegates. This saves RAM without major accuracy loss for many applications.
2. Profile and tune decoding. Use greedy or constrained sampling for latency-sensitive flows. Limit max_tokens and use early-stop heuristics to cut average inference time.
3. Leverage batching smartly. HAT+2 is optimized for single-session latency; if you need throughput, batch requests locally only when you have multiple simultaneous users and your latency budget allows it.
4. Instrument power and memory. Use a USB power meter for system draw and the Linux perf / top utilities for memory profiling. Data will drive trade-offs between quantization and functional fidelity.
5. Adopt a hybrid edge-cloud fallback. Route heavy or context-rich requests to the cloud and keep baseline conversational models on the Pi+HAT to guarantee sub-100ms interactivity. Consider pairing with local cloud/edge orchestrators for seamless fallbacks.

Benchmarking script example (tokens/sec) — quick start

Below is an abridged example using llama.cpp to measure tokens/sec. This is a practical starting point for reproducible local tests.

# Example (bash) - run on Pi5+HAT+2 with llama.cpp build
./main -m model.gguf --prompt-file prompt.txt --n_predict 32 --threads 4 --repeat_last_n 64 --logits_all=false --perf

# On completion, look for tokens/sec and timing summary in stdout

Power measurement snippet (Python, INA219)

from adafruit_ina219 import INA219
from time import sleep
ina = INA219(i2c)
for i in range(10):
    print('Current mA:', ina.current)
    sleep(1)

Combine power traces with token timestamps to compute Joules/token.

Decision matrix: when to use AI HAT+ 2 vs. cloud vs. other SBC accelerators

Below is a pragmatic guide for choosing the right inference location in 2026.

• Use AI HAT+ 2 if: you need ultra-low-latency local interactions, single-user devices, offline and private deployments, or low-energy per-request for small models.
• Use cloud GPU if: you need high-concurrency, large models (>7–13B), heavy batching, or model training/fine-tuning workflows that exceed SBC memory and thermal budgets.
• Use other SBC accelerators (Coral, Jetson) if: your workload is vision-first (Edge TPU) or requires higher local throughput and more on-board memory (Jetson family). Hedge by testing the exact model and quantization path you plan to deploy.

Limitations, caveats, and operational considerations

Transparency: our lab network RTT to the cloud was ~20–40ms; your mileage will vary. Model variants and quantization strategies materially change numbers. Also, AI HAT+ 2 firmware and driver updates (common in late 2025/early 2026) can alter performance characteristics; keep firmware current.

2026 trends that change the calculus

• Memory pressure persists: DRAM supply and price dynamics in 2025–26 are still affecting device spec choices. Expect more aggressive quantization and memory-efficient runtimes to be standard practice.
• Standardization of GGUF and ONNX has simplified moving models across local NPUs and cloud accelerators, making hybrid deployments easier to implement in 2026.
• Edge NPUs are getting smarter: hardware and firmware updates have narrowed the gap for 2–4B models; expect more specialized NPUs in SBC form factors later in 2026.
• Better orchestration tooling: tooling that orchestrates dynamic model routing (local vs. cloud) based on latency/power/accuracy policies is maturing, lowering the operational cost of hybrid approaches. See CI/CD and orchestration playbooks for edge deployments.

Final recommendations — practical next steps

1. Run an on-site PoC: clone our basic benchmark steps and run the 2.7B GGUF test on your Pi5+HAT+2. Compare tokens/sec and latency to your cloud baseline under realistic RTT.
2. Quantize aggressively and measure accuracy trade-offs; start with 4-bit for 2–3B models.
3. Adopt a hybrid fallback: keep a local small model for latency-sensitive flows and route heavy requests to cloud.
4. Monitor memory and power in production and design fail-open/limit behaviors to prevent swapping or overcurrent scenarios.

Closing — what developers should expect from the AI HAT+ 2 in 2026

The AI HAT+ 2 meaningfully changes the economics of local generative AI for Raspberry Pi 5. It transforms the Pi from an educational toy to a viable edge inference host for small to mid-sized models, enabling sub-100ms interactive agents while consuming modest power. It won't replace cloud GPUs for large multi-user services, but for single-user, privacy-sensitive, or offline scenarios, it is a practical and cost-effective tool.

If you need deterministic, high-throughput inference for many users, the cloud still wins. If you value responsiveness, energy efficiency, and the ability to operate disconnected, the AI HAT+ 2 is a powerful addition — provided you design for its memory constraints and tune models for quantized edge execution.

Call to action

Ready to test the HAT+2 on your stack? Download our benchmark scripts, conversion recipes, and power-measurement utilities from the AllTechBlaze benchmarking repo (search “AllTechBlaze AI HAT+2 Benchmarks” in 2026). Run them on your Pi5, share the results, and join our community benchmarking efforts — we publish aggregated results monthly to help teams make better deployment decisions.

Related Reading

• Edge for Microbrands: Cost‑Effective, Privacy‑First Architecture Strategies in 2026
• Field Review: Portable Edge Kits and Mobile Creator Gear (2026)
• Running Scalable Micro‑Event Streams at the Edge (2026)
• The Modern Home Cloud Studio in 2026: Building a Creator‑First Edge at Home
• Gardening Meets Graphic Novel: A How-To for Turning Your Garden Stories Into Visual Narratives
• Pentest Methodology: How to Test for WhisperPair and Bluetooth Tracking in Physical Assessments
• How to Make Your Microapp GDPR-Compliant When Using Third-Party Maps and LLMs
• How Gmail’s AI Changes Quantum Project Communications and Outreach
• Pet-Friendly Photo Spots Across London: Capture Your Dog in Classic City Settings