End-to-End MXFP8 Reinforcement Learning on Blackwell: What Matching Buys, When It Pays Off, and How It Fails
Low-precision arithmetic can make reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models cheaper, but RL requires the sampler and the learner to agree. Several frameworks now run FP8 on both sides. We implement end-to-end MXFP8 RL in verl (Megatron/Transformer Engine training; vLLM and SGLang rollout; dense and MoE models) and measure on B200 GPUs, with Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-30B-A3B, what this design buys, when it is faster, and how it fails. (1) Matching. For an MXFP8 learner, a sampler on the learner's grid is more consistent than a higher-precision BF16 sampler: in one engine at fixed weights, train-rollout KL is 11% lower with half of the sampler's linear layers on the grid and 16% lower with all of them, and the synchronized weights we checked equal the learner's FP8 forward weights byte for byte. On the MoE model, an FP8 pipeline whose sampler uses another grid has twice the shared-grid pipeline's KL from the first step. Without a quantized KV cache, BF16 end to end remains 2.5-10x more consistent. (2) Speed. MXFP8 training adds a fixed cost per micro-batch and saves a per-token cost, so in our dense setting it pays off only above about 4.5k tokens per micro-batch; a micro-batch sweep on identical data confirms the per-micro-batch cost, and a trace shows the GPU waiting for the host for most of the added time. End to end, MXFP8 cuts MoE step time by 10.7% and generation time by 24%, and slows a short-sequence dense workload by 5%. (3) Correctness. We state seven conditions every weight synchronization must preserve and checks that test them against the live engine. Each of the seven failures we met on hardware broke one condition, five silently; the checks caught two at their first opportunity, each missed by the other checks, and CPU fault-injection tests reproduce five. All runs are single-seed and at most 60 steps long; we make no claim about final model quality.