diff --git a/docs/make.jl b/docs/make.jl
index eb0b7470b8..d5a2692244 100644
--- a/docs/make.jl
+++ b/docs/make.jl
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ makedocs(modules=[Flux, NNlib],
                   "One-Hot Encoding" => "data/onehot.md",
                   "GPU Support" => "gpu.md",
                   "Saving & Loading" => "saving.md",
+                  "Performance Tips" => "performance.md",
                   "Internals" =>
                     ["Backpropagation" => "internals/tracker.md"],
                   "Community" => "community.md"])
diff --git a/docs/src/performance.md b/docs/src/performance.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..00b94a9d10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/src/performance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Performance Tips
+
+All the usual [Julia performance tips apply](https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/performance-tips/).
+As always [profiling your code](https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/profile/#Profiling-1) is generally a useful way of finding bottlenecks.
+Below follow some Flux specific tips/reminders.
+
+## Don't use more precision than you need.
+
+Flux works great with all kinds of number types.
+But often you do not need to be working with say `Float64` (let alone `BigFloat`).
+Switching to `Float32` can give you a significant speed up,
+not because the operations are faster, but because the memory usage is halved.
+Which means allocations occur much faster.
+And you use less memory.
+
+
+## Make sure your custom activation functions preserve the type of their inputs
+Not only should your activation functions be [type-stable](https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/performance-tips/#Write-%22type-stable%22-functions-1),
+they should also preserve the type of their inputs.
+
+A very artificial example using an activatioon function like
+
+```
+    my_tanh(x) = Float64(tanh(x))
+```
+
+will result in performance on `Float32` input orders of magnitude slower than the normal `tanh` would,
+because it results in having to use slow mixed type multiplication in the dense layers.
+
+Which means if you change your data say from `Float64` to `Float32` (which should give a speedup: see above),
+you will see a large slow-down
+
+This can occur sneakily, because you can cause type-promotion by interacting with a numeric literals.
+E.g. the following will have run into the same problem as above:
+
+```
+    leaky_tanh(x) = 0.01x + tanh(x)
+```
+
+While one could change your activation function (e.g. to use `0.01f0x`) to avoid this when ever your inputs change,
+the idiomatic (and safe way) is to use `oftype`.
+
+```
+    leaky_tanh(x) = oftype(x/1, 0.01) + tanh(x)
+```
+
+
+## Evaluate batches as Matrices of features, rather than sequences of Vector features
+
+While it can sometimes be tempting to process your observations (feature vectors) one at a time
+e.g.
+```julia
+function loss_total(xs::AbstractVector{<:Vector}, ys::AbstractVector{<:Vector})
+    sum(zip(xs, ys)) do (x, y_target)
+        y_pred = model(x) #  evaluate the model
+        return loss(y_pred, y_target)
+    end
+end
+```
+
+It is much faster to concatenate them into a matrix,
+as this will hit BLAS matrix-matrix multiplication, which is much faster than the equivalent sequence of matrix-vector multiplications.
+Even though this means allocating new memory to store them contiguously.
+
+```julia
+x_batch = reduce(hcat, xs)
+y_batch = reduce(hcat, ys)
+...
+function loss_total(x_batch::Matrix, y_batch::Matrix)
+    y_preds = model(x_batch)
+    sum(loss.(y_preds, y_batch))
+end
+```
+
+When doing this kind of concatenation use `reduce(hcat, xs)` rather than `hcat(xs...)`.
+This will avoid the splatting penality, and will hit the optimised `reduce` method.