语音与实时 Agent 推理 API 延迟基准:TTFT 并非唯一指标
Lowest-Latency Inference APIs for Voice and Realtime Agents: A Time to First Token TTFT-First Benchmark
做语音 Agent 的工程师必看,这份基准把 TTFT、TTFS、延迟预算拆得很透,还给了各厂商实测数据,直接拿去选型或压测你的链路。
Time to first token (TTFT) is the metric teams use to pick an inference API for voice. It is also the metric that misleads them. TTFT marks when generation starts; a text-to-speech model cannot speak until a full clause arrives. Between those two points sits the difference between an agent that feels conversational and one that gets interrupted. This piece benchmarks every layer of the voice stack including LLM, speech-to-text, text-to-speech, and speech-to-speech.
首令牌时间(TTFT)是团队用来选择语音推理API的指标,但它也是误导他们的指标。TTFT标志着生成开始的时间;文本转语音模型在接收到完整从句之前无法发声。在这两个时间点之间,存在着一个感觉像对话的代理与被中断的代理之间的差异。本文对语音技术栈的每一层进行了基准测试,包括LLM、语音转文本、文本转语音和语音转语音。
Why TTFT Is the Right Entry Point and the Wrong Finish Line
为什么TTFT是正确的起点,却是错误的终点线
A voice agent is a latency budget with a language model inside it. Every stage spends milliseconds the user can hear.
语音代理是一个包含语言模型的延迟预算。每个阶段都会消耗用户能听到的毫秒数。
Time to first token (TTFT) is the interval between sending an inference request and receiving the first token back. IBM’s definition frames it as the moment a system transitions from idle to visibly active.
首令牌时间(TTFT)是发送推理请求到接收第一个令牌之间的间隔。IBM的定义将其描述为系统从空闲状态转变为可见活跃状态的时刻。
For chat, TTFT is close to the whole story. For voice, it is one term in a sum.
对于聊天,TTFT几乎就是全部。对于语音,它只是总和中的一项。
The reason is mechanical. A text-to-speech model cannot synthesize half a word. It needs a complete clause or sentence before it produces audio. LiveKit calls the resulting metric time-to-first-sentence (TTFS), and argues in its Gemma 4 deployment post that TTFS is what users actually feel.
原因是机械性的。文本转语音模型无法合成半个词。它需要完整的从句或句子才能生成音频。LiveKit将由此产生的指标称为首句时间(TTFS),并在其Gemma 4部署文章中主张,TTFS才是用户实际感受到的。
That gives you two knobs rather than one. TTFT controls when generation starts. Tokens per second controls how fast the first sentence completes. A provider that wins one and loses the other will not feel fast.
这样你就有两个旋钮而不是一个。TTFT控制生成开始的时间。每秒令牌数控制第一句话完成的速度。一个提供商如果在一个方面胜出而在另一个方面失败,就不会让人感觉快。
The Latency Budget: What One Voice Turn Actually Costs
延迟预算:一次语音轮次的实际成本
LiveKit’s voice agents overview breaks a turn into STT at roughly 100–200ms, LLM at 300–500ms with streaming, TTS at 100–200ms, and network at 50–150ms over WebRTC. It puts the practical end-to-end target at 700ms to 1.2s.
LiveKit的语音代理概览将一轮对话分解为:STT约100-200毫秒,LLM流式处理300-500毫秒,TTS 100-200毫秒,以及WebRTC网络延迟50-150毫秒。它将实际的端到端目标设定在700毫秒到1.2秒之间。
Kwindla Hultman Kramer, co-creator of Pipecat, has advised targeting 800ms median voice-to-voice latency, with a looser 1,500ms acceptable for a proof of concept. His rough arithmetic splits that four ways at roughly 200ms each: transport and media processing, STT plus phrase endpointing, LLM inference, and TTS.
Pipecat的联合创始人Kwindla Hultman Kramer建议以800毫秒的中位语音到语音延迟为目标,对于概念验证,1500毫秒的宽松标准也是可以接受的。他的粗略计算将其分为四部分,每部分约200毫秒:传输和媒体处理、STT加短语端点检测、LLM推理和TTS。
Daily’s earlier work on the fastest voice bot supplies the human baseline. Typical human response time in conversation is around 500ms. Pauses beyond 800ms start to feel unnatural.
Daily早前关于最快语音机器人的工作提供了人类基线。对话中典型的人类响应时间约为500毫秒。超过800毫秒的停顿开始让人感觉不自然。
Daily’s February 2026 voice-agent LLM benchmark translates that into an LLM requirement directly. Natural conversation needs voice-to-voice under 1,500ms, which works out to roughly 700ms of TTFT budget for a text-mode LLM inside a transcription-to-LLM-to-voice harness.
Daily在2026年2月的语音代理LLM基准测试中,直接将其转化为对LLM的要求。自然对话需要语音到语音延迟低于1500毫秒,这相当于在转录到LLM再到语音的框架内,为文本模式LLM提供约700毫秒的TTFT预算。
That 700ms number is the bar to hold every provider against.
那个700毫秒的数字是衡量每个提供商的标准。
How to Read a TTFT Benchmark Without Being Misled
如何阅读TTFT基准而不被误导
Before the tables, five methodology facts that change what the numbers mean:
在表格之前,有五个方法论事实会改变数字的含义:
1. Workload shape dominates: Artificial Analysis changed its default workload in March 2026. The site now reports 10k input token prompts rather than 1k. Longer prompts raise both TTFT and output speed. LiveKit argues this is closer to reality for voice, because production agents front-load policy, persona, escalation rules, retrieved data, and tool schemas.
1. 工作负载形态占主导:Artificial Analysis在2026年3月更改了其默认工作负载。该网站现在报告10k输入令牌的提示,而不是1k。更长的提示会提高TTFT和输出速度。LiveKit认为这对语音来说更接近现实,因为生产代理会预先加载策略、角色、升级规则、检索数据和工具模式。
2. Server location is baked in: Artificial Analysis tests from a virtual machine in Google Cloud’s us-central1-a zone. It states plainly that TTFT includes network latency and may advantage or disadvantage providers based on where they serve.
2. 服务器位置已内置:Artificial Analysis从Google Cloud的us-central1-a区域中的虚拟机进行测试。它明确表示TTFT包括网络延迟,并可能根据提供商的服务位置而对其有利或不利。
3. Reasoning tokens count: In the Artificial Analysis definition, TTFT for a reasoning model is the first reasoning token, not the first answer token. Those are separate columns.
3. 推理令牌计入:在Artificial Analysis的定义中,推理模型的TTFT是第一个推理令牌,而不是第一个答案令牌。这些是单独的列。
4. Measure from the receiving side: Daily notes that model providers sometimes quote TTFT internal to their inference stacks. Daily measures from request send to first usable token off the API.
4. 从接收端测量:Daily指出,模型提供商有时会引用其推理栈内部的TTFT。Daily从请求发送到API返回第一个可用令牌进行测量。
5. Runs are not repeatable: Daily is blunt about this: TTFT varies substantially between benchmark runs, and providers change inference stacks and sometimes weights without changing model names.
5. 运行不可重复:Daily对此直言不讳:TTFT在基准运行之间差异很大,提供商更改推理栈,有时在不更改模型名称的情况下更改权重。
Layer 1: LLM Time to First Token
第一层:LLM首令牌时间
Figures below are from the Artificial Analysis API providers leaderboard, retrieved August 30, 2026. The “first chunk” column is TTFT. Workload is 10k input tokens, single prompt, median over 72 hours.
以下数据来自Artificial Analysis API提供商排行榜,检索于2026年8月30日。“首块”列是TTFT。工作负载为10k输入令牌,单提示,72小时中位数。
Lowest measured first-chunk latency
最低测得首块延迟
| Provider | Model | TTFT | Output speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseten | gpt-oss-120b (high) | 0.23s | 266 tok/s |
| Baseten | gpt-oss-120b (low) | 0.24s | 271 tok/s |
| DeepInfra | Nemotron 3 Ultra | 0.28s | 371 tok/s |
| Cohere | North Mini Code | 0.32s | 104 tok/s |
| Cohere | Command A+ | 0.40s | 239 tok/s |
| Baseten | Inkling Small | 0.42s | 337 tok/s |
| Modular | Gemma 4 31B (NVFP4) | 0.44s | 243 tok/s |
| Nebius | GLM-5.3-Flash | 0.46s | 206 tok/s |
| Fireworks | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | 0.46s | 501 tok/s |
| Together AI | Kimi K2.7 Code | 0.47s | 245 tok/s |
| Cerebras | gpt-oss-120b (high) | 0.49s | 1,697 tok/s |
| 提供商 | 模型 | TTFT | 输出速度 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseten | gpt-oss-120b (高) | 0.23秒 | 266令牌/秒 |
| Baseten | gpt-oss-120b (低) | 0.24秒 | 271令牌/秒 |
| DeepInfra | Nemotron 3 Ultra | 0.28秒 | 371令牌/秒 |
| Cohere | North Mini Code | 0.32秒 | 104令牌/秒 |
| Cohere | Command A+ | 0.40秒 | 239令牌/秒 |
| Baseten | Inkling Small | 0.42秒 | 337令牌/秒 |
| Modular | Gemma 4 31B (NVFP4) | 0.44秒 | 243令牌/秒 |
| Nebius | GLM-5.3-Flash | 0.46秒 | 206令牌/秒 |
| Fireworks | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | 0.46秒 | 501令牌/秒 |
| Together AI | Kimi K2.7 Code | 0.47秒 | 245令牌/秒 |
| Cerebras | gpt-oss-120b (高) | 0.49秒 | 1,697令牌/秒 |
The throughput trap
吞吐量陷阱
Silicon vendors optimize for a different metric than voice agents need.
硅供应商优化的指标与语音代理所需的不同。
| Provider | Model | TTFT | Output speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cerebras | gpt-oss-120b (high) | 0.49s | 1,697 tok/s |
| Celeris | Celeris-1 | 0.62s | 1,612 tok/s |
| Cerebras | Gemma 4 31B | 0.53s | 1,351 tok/s |
| Groq | gpt-oss-20b (high) | 0.82s | 957 tok/s |
| SambaNova | gpt-oss-120b (high) | 0.92s | 706 tok/s |
| Groq | gpt-oss-120b (low) | 0.69s | 473 tok/s |
| Inception | Mercury 2 | 3.07s | 770 tok/s |
| 提供商 | 模型 | 首令牌时间 | 输出速度 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cerebras | gpt-oss-120b (高) | 0.49秒 | 1,697 令牌/秒 |
| Celeris | Celeris-1 | 0.62秒 | 1,612 令牌/秒 |
| Cerebras | Gemma 4 31B | 0.53秒 | 1,351 令牌/秒 |
| Groq | gpt-oss-20b (高) | 0.82秒 | 957 令牌/秒 |
| SambaNova | gpt-oss-120b (高) | 0.92秒 | 706 令牌/秒 |
| Groq | gpt-oss-120b (低) | 0.69秒 | 473 令牌/秒 |
| Inception | Mercury 2 | 3.07秒 | 770 令牌/秒 |
Mercury 2 is the clearest illustration. It is a diffusion-based language model, and it generates 770 tokens per second. Its first chunk arrives at 3.07s. That is four times the entire LLM budget for a natural conversation.
Mercury 2 是最清晰的例证。它是一个基于扩散的语言模型,每秒生成770个令牌。其首个数据块在3.07秒到达。这相当于自然对话中整个LLM预算的四倍。
Cerebras and Groq are a different case. Their TTFT is respectable and their throughput is exceptional. For TTFS specifically, that combination is strong, because the sentence completes almost immediately after the first token lands.
Cerebras 和 Groq 是另一种情况。它们的首令牌时间可观,吞吐量卓越。特别是对于首令牌到完整句子时间,这种组合非常强大,因为句子在首个令牌到达后几乎立即完成。
Frontier and proprietary endpoints
前沿和专有端点
| Provider | Model | TTFT | Output speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | GPT-5.6 Luna (non-reasoning) | 0.59s | 181 tok/s |
| Amazon Bedrock | GPT-5.6 Terra (non-reasoning) | 0.72s | 103 tok/s |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Luna (non-reasoning) | 0.74s | 113 tok/s |
| Gemini 3.7 Flash (low), AI Studio | 0.84s | 315 tok/s | |
| Anthropic | Claude 4.5 Haiku (non-reasoning) | 0.84s | 82 tok/s |
| Amazon Bedrock | Nova Micro | 0.86s | 264 tok/s |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal), AI Studio | 0.90s | 202 tok/s | |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Sol (non-reasoning) | 1.06s | 71 tok/s |
| 提供商 | 模型 | 首令牌时间 | 输出速度 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | GPT-5.6 Luna (非推理) | 0.59秒 | 181 令牌/秒 |
| Amazon Bedrock | GPT-5.6 Terra (非推理) | 0.72秒 | 103 令牌/秒 |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Luna (非推理) | 0.74秒 | 113 令牌/秒 |
| Gemini 3.7 Flash (低), AI Studio | 0.84秒 | 315 令牌/秒 | |
| Anthropic | Claude 4.5 Haiku (非推理) | 0.84秒 | 82 令牌/秒 |
| Amazon Bedrock | Nova Micro | 0.86秒 | 264 令牌/秒 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash (最小), AI Studio | 0.90秒 | 202 令牌/秒 | |
| OpenAI | GPT-5.6 Sol (非推理) | 1.06秒 | 71 令牌/秒 |
Note the same model on different hosts. GPT-5.6 Luna non-reasoning measures 0.59s on Amazon Bedrock and 0.74s on OpenAI’s own API. Hosting and routing matter as much as the weights.
注意同一模型在不同主机上的表现。GPT-5.6 Luna 非推理在 Amazon Bedrock 上测得0.59秒,在 OpenAI 自己的 API 上为0.74秒。托管和路由与权重同样重要。
The vendor-measured outlier
供应商测量的异常值
LiveKit publishes TTFT figures for its own inference product. Gemma 4 31B on LiveKit Inference measured 192ms, against Gemini 2.5 Flash at 911ms, GPT-5.5 at 966ms, GPT-4.1 at 1,006ms, and the same Gemma 4 31B via OpenRouter at 1,876ms.
LiveKit 为其自身推理产品发布了首令牌时间数据。Gemma 4 31B 在 LiveKit 推理上测得192毫秒,而 Gemini 2.5 Flash 为911毫秒,GPT-5.5 为966毫秒,GPT-4.1 为1,006毫秒,同一 Gemma 4 31B 通过 OpenRouter 为1,876毫秒。
LiveKit is transparent about the mechanism, which makes the claim more credible than most. It runs Gemma behind SGLang with speculative decoding, and deliberately under-packs each GPU so queueing delay stays low. A warm request, it says, starts returning tokens in around 100ms. The tradeoff is cost, at $1.20 per 1M output tokens.
LiveKit 对其机制透明,这使得其声明比大多数更可信。它在 SGLang 后运行 Gemma,并采用推测解码,且故意让每个 GPU 负载不足,以保持低排队延迟。它表示,热请求大约在100毫秒内开始返回令牌。代价是成本,每100万输出令牌1.20美元。
The same post reports TTFS across full conversations: 354ms for Gemma 4 31B on LiveKit, 1,034ms for Gemini 2.5 Flash, 1,088ms for GPT-4.1, 1,267ms for Gemini 3.0 Flash, and 1,404ms for GPT-5.5.
同一篇文章报告了完整对话中的首令牌到完整句子时间:LiveKit 上的 Gemma 4 31B 为354毫秒,Gemini 2.5 Flash 为1,034毫秒,GPT-4.1 为1,088毫秒,Gemini 3.0 Flash 为1,267毫秒,GPT-5.5 为1,404毫秒。
Capability numbers accompany it. On IFBench, independently scored by Artificial Analysis, Gemma 4 31B scores 75.6% against GPT-5.5 at 75.9%, GPT-4.1 at 43%, and Gemini 2.5 Flash at 39%. On τ²-bench, GPT-5.5 leads at 93.9% with Gemma 4 31B at 76.9%.
能力数据随之而来。在IFBench上,由Artificial Analysis独立评分,Gemma 4 31B得分75.6%,对比GPT-5.5的75.9%、GPT-4.1的43%和Gemini 2.5 Flash的39%。在τ²-bench上,GPT-5.5以93.9%领先,Gemma 4 31B为76.9%。
Layer 2: Speech-to-Text and Turn Detection
第2层:语音转文本与话轮检测
For voice, STT latency is not transcription speed. It is how long after the user stops talking the pipeline knows the user stopped talking.
对于语音,STT延迟不是转录速度。它是指用户停止说话后,管道知道用户已停止说话所需的时间。
Artificial Analysis measures two things on its streaming STT leaderboard, both starting from a SileroVAD-detected end of speech: time to first partial transcript, and time to final transcript. Its AA-WER Streaming index draws on roughly 8 hours of audio, weighted AA-AgentTalk 50%, VoxPopuli 25%, Earnings-22 25%.
Artificial Analysis在其流式STT排行榜上测量两项指标,均从SileroVAD检测到的语音结束点开始:首次部分转录的时间,以及最终转录的时间。其AA-WER流式指数基于约8小时的音频,加权为AA-AgentTalk 50%、VoxPopuli 25%、Earnings-22 25%。
Vendor-published latency figures:
供应商公布的延迟数据:
更进一步:量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径,把它变成能交付的工程能力