Jim Keller's Tenstorrent is downgrading Blackhole p150 cards from 140 to 120 tensor cores via firmware update — will ship cards with 120 tensor cores going forward, company claims existing users should expect 1-2% performance drop

Tenstorrent Blackhole
(Image credit: TensTorrent)

Unlike many startups producing nothing but vaporware, Jim Keller's TensTorrent has actually delivered impressive-looking RISC-V AI accelerators, but there could be some trouble brewing. Starting with firmware version 19.5.0, the firm has now chopped the tensor core count on Blackhole p150 cards from 140 to 120, affecting both new cards and existing units already in customers' hands.

The news was apparently communicated to customers via email, with the same wording present on the firmware update's GitHub page. Tenstorrent isn't elaborating on why the change was made, leaving existing and potential buyers scratching their heads. The quote follows:

Beginning January 2026, all Blackhole p150 accelerator cards (p150a, p150b) will ship with 120 Tensix cores instead of 140. To present a unified interface to metal and other system software, firmware v19.5.0 and later will change the core count on all existing cards to 120. Typical workloads show a non-material (~1–2%) performance difference. You may observe a change in grid size in metal, which may require updates to applications that depend on grid layout.

Tenstorrent

The statement seems to raise more questions than answers. Twenty out of 140 cores is about a 14% chop. When comparing the old and new Blackhole p150 product pages on Tenstorrent's site, the raw compute capacity is 774 vs 664 TFLOPS, a change that appears substantial, especially in the context of multi-card setups like the QuietBox. And yet Tenstorrent claims that in practice, for one card, this should amount to a 1-2% performance delta when using TT-Metalium, a low-level developer kit that operates close to the hardware.

One user in the company's Discord server raised the question of whether the SDK even fully utilizes the underlying hardware to begin with, while another remarked that changing the core grid layout and timing can negatively affect existing, tested code. It's not that existing users have much of a choice, either: update the firmware and lose cores, or lose out on new features of a nascent, in-development product. Predictably, jokes about the 14% core chop were plentiful.

One can but hypothesize as to why the change was needed. Perhaps Tenstorrent wasn't getting good yields for their Blackhole chips, but that would be an odd twist given that they're reportedly manufactured on a 6-nm process, pretty mature technology by today's standards. Tenstorrent is already in conversations with multiple 2-nm chip manufacturers for its next generation of products, but in the meantime, has yet to deliver its upcoming two-chip, 64 GB Blackhole p300.

Tenstorrent's existing lineup of Blackhole products comprises AI accelerator cards for workstations and developers wanting to run AI models locally. They're actually reasonably priced, as the p150 model can deliver 664 TFLOPs and comes with 32 GB of VRAM for just $1,399, or about one-third the price of a single RTX 5090, while theoretically delivering several times the performance. The cards can be wired together to pool VRAM, too, and the chips combine CPU and tensor cores on the same die, bypassing a number of limitations of conventional designs.

It's reasonable to expect some turbulence, as it's exceedingly difficult to create an entire new AI accelerator plus its software, on an unusual architecture, with an unusual chip layout. TensTorrent's current aim at small-scale AI accelerators for small businesses, laboratories, and individuals may well carve out a niche of the market and offer dividends in the long run, so long as turbulence is kept to a minimum.

Google Preferred Source

Follow 3DTested on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Bruno Ferreira
Contributor
  • hotaru251
    this sounds like a lawsuit in waiting.

    If you paid for a 140core one and they force you to downgrade you no longer getting what you paid for and them purposefully cutting down your hardware via firmware w/o compensation seems a slippery slope.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    This is why I think my next rounds of upgrade in the future need to have mandatory OpenCORE, or Linux BIOS, or whatever open source firmware. Or I am not buying.

    None of these companies can be trusted. Even the relatively small guys like Tenstorrent. What a bunch of dishonest crooks.

    Open drivers, open firmware. Or BUST! We as consumers deserve to have a fully open stack from top to bottom to help serve as a bulwark against chicanery. All these companies can go pound sand.
    Reply
  • DS426
    Goodness sakes, why can't these companies just communicate the "why"? The lack of transparency definitely destroys trust, not to mention just being highly uncourteous.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    The fact that they're citing 1-2% performance loss would indicate something is bottlenecking the existing design. I'd be surprised if they were spinning up new silicon this late in the hardware cycle so it does leave lots of questions. I've seen some hypothesis that this is potentially related to power consumption/cooling. Regardless there should be some sort of indicator as to why it's being done in the first place.
    Reply
  • Forge64
    Always a great idea, making changes to a product after shipping, and then I always like to really make the users comfortable by dictating changes to them, and telling them "stop asking questions, it's going to be great" when they pester me with concerns.

    Just 10/10 handling all around. No notes.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    hotaru251 said:
    If you paid for a 140core one and they force you to downgrade you no longer getting what you paid for and them purposefully cutting down your hardware via firmware w/o compensation seems a slippery slope.
    The claim of only 1-2% performance loss is interesting. I wonder if they increased clock speeds to compensate, or if there was some other performance-robbing quick or bug workaround that the new update avoids.

    Companies usually have weasel words in their specifications, along the lines of: "specifications subject to change without notice"

    That won't necessarily hold up in court, but if the performance drop really is just 1-2%, then it seems not worth pursuing (and maybe a judge would throw it out, if they tried).
    Reply
  • bit_user
    ezst036 said:
    This is why I think my next rounds of upgrade in the future need to have mandatory OpenCORE, or Linux BIOS, or whatever open source firmware. Or I am not buying.

    None of these companies can be trusted. Even the relatively small guys like Tenstorrent. What a bunch of dishonest crooks.

    Open drivers, open firmware. Or BUST! We as consumers deserve to have a fully open stack from top to bottom to help serve as a bulwark against chicanery. All these companies can go pound sand.
    Okay, so then the last CPU you can buy is a POWER 9, from 7 years ago, and the last GPU is.... I don't even know! Https://www.raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/intro.html
    Seriously, all modern CPUs, GPUs, network cards, motherboard chipsets, SSDs, HDDs, USB hubs, keyboard, mice, etc. Have firmware blobs. There just doesn't seem to be a big enough market demanding completely open firmware.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Forge64 said:
    Always a great idea, making changes to a product after shipping,
    Yeah, like when Intel disabled TSX/HLE on Skylake+ CPUs, where it had been working fine (except for side-channel vulnerabilities).
    Reply