Utilyze – an open source GPU monitoring tool more accurate than nvtop

The standard GPU utilization metric reported by nvidia-smi, nvtop, Weights & Biases, Amazon CloudWatch, Google Cloud Monitoring, and Azure Monitor is highly misleading. It reports the fraction of time that any kernel is running on the GPU, which means a GPU can report 100% utilization even if only a small portion of its compute capacity is actually being used. In practice, we've seen workloads with ~1–10% real compute throughput while dashboards show 100%.This becomes a problem when teams rely on that metric for capacity planning or optimization decisions, it can make underutilized systems look saturated.We're releasing an open-source (Apache 2.0) tool, Utilyze, to measure GPU utilization differently. It samples hardware performance counters and reports compute and memory throughput relative to the hardware's theoretical limits. It also estimates an attainable utilization ceiling for a given workload.GitHub link: https://github.com/systalyze/utilyzeWe'd love to hear your thoughts!

Hacker NewsToolAISource
0Sign in to voteCopy link

FL score

72

out of 100

Verdict

VALIDATE

medium confidence

Competition

No competitor data yet

Trend

No signal yet

Open-source GPU monitoring tool that measures actual compute throughput instead of misleading kernel runtime metrics.

The pain

Teams making capacity planning and optimization decisions based on GPU utilization dashboards that show 100% usage when the GPU is actually 1-10% utilized. This leads to wrong infrastructure investments, missed optimization opportunities, and false confidence in system saturation.

The gap

Every major monitoring platform (nvidia-smi, nvtop, W&B, CloudWatch, Cloud Monitoring, Azure Monitor) reports the same flawed metric. No standard tool exists that samples hardware performance counters to show real compute and memory throughput relative to theoretical limits.

Build angle

Start by validating that this problem causes measurable business impact. Interview 20-30 ML ops teams and infrastructure engineers at companies running significant GPU workloads. Quantify: (1) how often they make wrong decisions based on current metrics, (2) the cost of those decisions, (3) whether they'd adopt a tool that required sampling performance counters. Then decide between open-source community play vs. commercial SaaS wrapper with alerting and historical analysis.

Strengths

  • Solves a real, specific technical problem with measurable ground truth (hardware performance counters don't lie)
  • Addresses a pain point across the entire ML infrastructure stack, relevant to any company running GPUs
  • Open-source positioning removes adoption friction and builds credibility in developer community
  • Clear technical differentiation: performance counter sampling vs. kernel runtime tracking
  • Timing advantage: GPU utilization is becoming a bottleneck as teams scale ML workloads

Risks

  • Open-source tool alone has no revenue model and limited defensibility, competitors can fork or cloud providers can integrate
  • Adoption requires teams to change their monitoring workflows and trust a new metric; inertia is high
  • Hardware performance counter APIs vary across GPU vendors (NVIDIA, AMD, Intel); tool may not generalize
  • Market size unclear: how many teams actually care enough about utilization accuracy to switch tools?
  • No evidence yet that wrong capacity planning decisions are frequent enough or costly enough to drive adoption
  • Requires deep systems knowledge to maintain; small team risk if founders move on

Questions about this idea?

FlyBot reads the scoring and gives you a second opinion on “Utilyze – an open source GPU monitoring tool more accurate than nvtop”.

Open FlyBot