AI training's rising resource intensity is straining electricity supplies and carbon budgets, motivating systematic study of memory-efficient training on constrained hardware. We benchmark five gradient optimizers (SGD, Adam, Adagrad, Adadelta, and Conjugate Gradient Descent) under three memory strategies (standard training, gradient checkpointing, and gradient accumulation) across four transformer architectures (ViT, ModernBERT, Llama 3.1 1B, and NanoVLM), measuring training loss, GPU utilization, training time, and memory usage. Gradient accumulation emerges as the most reliable strategy, cutting training loss by roughly an order of magnitude on the vision-language model and about four-fold on the language model without additional GPU memory. Contrary to common practice, Adam is not universally superior: Adadelta and SGD outperform it on the encoder and autoregressive architectures. Gradient checkpointing's effect is strongly architecture-dependent, improving vision transformer loss while severely degrading the encoder model, and it increases training time by up to 60% on memory-bound models. GPU utilization is governed primarily by architecture, ranging from 8-15% for the memory-bound language model to 96-99% for compute-bound vision models. These findings provide practical guidelines for optimizer and gradient-strategy selection in resource-efficient model training and deployment.
Modern pretrained vision models achieve strong accuracy but demand substantial GPU memory for fine-tuning, making edge deployment impractical. This paper compares five parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods (Full FT, LoRA, AdaLoRA, QLoRA, BitFit) on Transformers- (ViT-Small, TinyViT) and Mamba-based vision backbones (Vim-Small, MambaVision-T) under an on-device VRAM budget (e.g., 2 GB), together with three gradient-checkpointing strategies (none, static, and a proposed memory-budget-aware adaptive algorithm); and we evaluate three families of foundation-model baselines: zero-shot contrastive vision language models (OpenCLIP, SigLIP), self-supervised vision backbones with lightweight evaluation protocols (DINOv2), and autoregressive VLMs for prompt-based classification (PaliGemma, MobileVLM, SmolVLM). Experiments on CIFAR-100 and DTD report accuracy, training time, energy, and the NetScore family of multi-objective metrics, which we extend with two deployment-aware variants. QLoRA and BitFit cut energy 20-30% at a 1-2% accuracy cost; the adaptive algorithm reduces peak memory 43-79% with 9-30% energy overhead. DINOv2 surpasses fine-tuned models on CIFAR-100 (0.917 vs. 0.897) at a fraction of the energy, while small autoregressive VLMs remain uncompetitive.