Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Laguna S 2.1 running native NVFP4 Picked Blackwell hardware for this side-by-side: 🟢 DGX Spark | 19.44 tok/s | 162ms TTFT 🔵 RTX PRO 6000 | 108.54 tok/s | 266ms TTFT 🟣 4× RTX 5090 (TP4+EP4) | 145.81 tok/s | 521ms TTFT 117.6B MoE (8.5B active), quantized to FP4,...

stevibe's profile picture

stevibe

27,377 subscribers

22,889 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Gemma4 12B with Unsloth's Quant on DGX Spark Quants: - UD_Q4_K_XL - UD_Q5_K_XL - UD_Q6_K_XL - UD_Q8_K_XL Summary: - Q4: 25.21 tok/s, TTFT 168ms - Q5: 21.7 tok/s, TTFT 182ms - Q6: 17.68 tok/s, TTFT 193.95ms - Q8: 15.22 tok/s, TTFT 221ms
1:03

Gemma4 12B with Unsloth's Quant on DGX Spark Quants: - UD_Q4_K_XL - UD_Q5_K_XL - UD_Q6_K_XL - UD_Q8_K_XL Summary: - Q4: 25.21 tok/s, TTFT 168ms - Q5: 21.7 tok/s, TTFT 182ms - Q6: 17.68 tok/s, TTFT 193.95ms - Q8: 15.22 tok/s, TTFT 221ms

stevibe

18,639 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Qwen3.6 27B landed yesterday, so I ran it on 4 setups side-by-side to see how they stack up: 🔴 RTX 4090 — 45.59 tok/s, TTFT 525ms 🟢 RTX 5090 — 51.83 tok/s, TTFT 752ms ⚫️ M2 Ultra — 22.30 tok/s, TTFT 216ms 🟣 DGX Spark — 11.08 tok/s, TTFT 319ms This is a standard test: no tuning, just the out-of-the-box experience. For the NVIDIA cards I used llama.cpp with Unsloth's UD-Q4_K_XL quant. For the M2 Ultra I used MLX with Unsloth's UD-MLX-4bit quant, since MLX is the native path on Apple Silicon. Please consider this as the baseline, you can definitely squeeze more out of every one of these with fine-tuned settings.
3:49

Qwen3.6 27B landed yesterday, so I ran it on 4 setups side-by-side to see how they stack up: 🔴 RTX 4090 — 45.59 tok/s, TTFT 525ms 🟢 RTX 5090 — 51.83 tok/s, TTFT 752ms ⚫️ M2 Ultra — 22.30 tok/s, TTFT 216ms 🟣 DGX Spark — 11.08 tok/s, TTFT 319ms This is a standard test: no tuning, just the out-of-the-box experience. For the NVIDIA cards I used llama.cpp with Unsloth's UD-Q4_K_XL quant. For the M2 Ultra I used MLX with Unsloth's UD-MLX-4bit quant, since MLX is the native path on Apple Silicon. Please consider this as the baseline, you can definitely squeeze more out of every one of these with fine-tuned settings.

stevibe

104,479 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

"Why are you benchmarking DGX Spark? It's a training box." Yeah. Low bandwidth, but 128GB of unified memory is just sitting there. Plenty of room to optimize. DGX Spark + Qwen3.6 27B. Four backend/quant combos: 🔴 llama.cpp + UD_Q4_K_XL > 11.0 tok/s (baseline), TTFT 297ms 🟢 llama.cpp + DFlash > 20.4 tok/s (peaks at 97 tok/s), TTFT 320ms 🟡 vLLM FP8 + MTP > 13.1 tok/s, TTFT 540ms 🟣 vLLM NVFP4 + MTP > 24.2 tok/s, TTFT 376ms NVFP4+MTP is the winner for me, rock stable around 24 tok/s, no wild swings. DFlash is the wildcard: massive peaks, but fluctuates a lot. FP8+MTP barely beats baseline, and it's FP8. Love my Spark.
3:01

"Why are you benchmarking DGX Spark? It's a training box." Yeah. Low bandwidth, but 128GB of unified memory is just sitting there. Plenty of room to optimize. DGX Spark + Qwen3.6 27B. Four backend/quant combos: 🔴 llama.cpp + UD_Q4_K_XL > 11.0 tok/s (baseline), TTFT 297ms 🟢 llama.cpp + DFlash > 20.4 tok/s (peaks at 97 tok/s), TTFT 320ms 🟡 vLLM FP8 + MTP > 13.1 tok/s, TTFT 540ms 🟣 vLLM NVFP4 + MTP > 24.2 tok/s, TTFT 376ms NVFP4+MTP is the winner for me, rock stable around 24 tok/s, no wild swings. DFlash is the wildcard: massive peaks, but fluctuates a lot. FP8+MTP barely beats baseline, and it's FP8. Love my Spark.

stevibe

40,118 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

4×5090 lost badly in my last Ollama test But with vLLM + Nemotron 3 Super NVFP4, it came back swinging. 4×5090 - TTFT: 0.281s - Prompt eval: 608 tok/s - Generate eval: 110 tok/s PRO 6000 - TTFT: 0.123s - Prompt eval: 1390 tok/s - Generate eval: 81 tok/s So who wins? - PRO 6000 is still faster to respond - But 4×5090 now wins on raw generation speed
0:36

4×5090 lost badly in my last Ollama test But with vLLM + Nemotron 3 Super NVFP4, it came back swinging. 4×5090 - TTFT: 0.281s - Prompt eval: 608 tok/s - Generate eval: 110 tok/s PRO 6000 - TTFT: 0.123s - Prompt eval: 1390 tok/s - Generate eval: 81 tok/s So who wins? - PRO 6000 is still faster to respond - But 4×5090 now wins on raw generation speed

stevibe

16,984 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B dropped yesterday, so I ran it on 4 GPUs to see how it performs: 🟣 RTX 3090 — 49.78 tok/s, TTFT 852ms 🟡 RTX 4090 — 118.93 tok/s, TTFT 686ms 🟢 RTX 5090 — 160.37 tok/s, TTFT 409ms 🔵 DGX Spark — 59.98 tok/s, TTFT 228ms I went with ollama as the backend because honestly, it's the easiest way for most people to get started. One command, model pulled, done. I used Q4_K_M (24GB) across all four cards. The reason is the 3090 and 4090 don't support NVFP4 (only the 5090 and DGX Spark could use it). Keeping the same quant everywhere felt like the fairest way to compare. And yes, you can absolutely squeeze more performance out of every card with vLLM, SGLang, or TensorRT-LLM. But that's not what this test is about. This is just the out-of-the-box experience for folks who own a GPU and want to try the new model tonight.
1:24

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B dropped yesterday, so I ran it on 4 GPUs to see how it performs: 🟣 RTX 3090 — 49.78 tok/s, TTFT 852ms 🟡 RTX 4090 — 118.93 tok/s, TTFT 686ms 🟢 RTX 5090 — 160.37 tok/s, TTFT 409ms 🔵 DGX Spark — 59.98 tok/s, TTFT 228ms I went with ollama as the backend because honestly, it's the easiest way for most people to get started. One command, model pulled, done. I used Q4_K_M (24GB) across all four cards. The reason is the 3090 and 4090 don't support NVFP4 (only the 5090 and DGX Spark could use it). Keeping the same quant everywhere felt like the fairest way to compare. And yes, you can absolutely squeeze more performance out of every card with vLLM, SGLang, or TensorRT-LLM. But that's not what this test is about. This is just the out-of-the-box experience for folks who own a GPU and want to try the new model tonight.

stevibe

401,145 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Curious about ollama kimi-k2.6:cloud speed? 3 test runs: > 77.9 tok/s, TTFT 979ms > 114.3 tok/s, TTFT 788ms > 86.3 tok/s, TTFT 1117ms For comparison, OpenRouter stats: > Parasail: 14 tok/s > Moonshot AI: 27 tok/s > NovitaAI: 27 tok/s > Cloudflare: 71 tok/s Obvious caveat: cloud speeds fluctuate with load. Just sharing numbers for the curious.
0:58

Curious about ollama kimi-k2.6:cloud speed? 3 test runs: > 77.9 tok/s, TTFT 979ms > 114.3 tok/s, TTFT 788ms > 86.3 tok/s, TTFT 1117ms For comparison, OpenRouter stats: > Parasail: 14 tok/s > Moonshot AI: 27 tok/s > NovitaAI: 27 tok/s > Cloudflare: 71 tok/s Obvious caveat: cloud speeds fluctuate with load. Just sharing numbers for the curious.

stevibe

35,129 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

MiniMax M2.7 is 230B params. Can you actually run it at home? I tested Unsloth's UD-IQ3_XXS (80GB) on 4 different rigs: 🟠 4x RTX 4090 (96GB): 71.52 tok/s, TTFT 1045ms 🟢 4x RTX 5090 (128GB): 120.54 tok/s, TTFT 725ms 🟡 1x RTX PRO 6000 (96GB): 118.74 tok/s, TTFT 765ms 🟣 DGX Spark (128GB) — 24.41 tok/s, TTFT 741ms Backend: llama.cpp. Context: 32k. Max tokens: 4096. I went with IQ3_XXS because it's the biggest quant that fits in 96GB VRAM while still leaving safe headroom for 32k context. Same quant across all four rigs, fairest comparison I could run. Now look at rough peak GPU power draw: 🟠 4x4090 → 1,800W peak (450W × 4) 🟢 4x5090 → 2,300W peak (575W × 4) 🟡 RTX PRO 6000 → 600W peak 🟣 DGX Spark → 240W peak (whole system) The RTX PRO 6000 is the quiet winner. One card, 96GB, matching a 4x5090 rig at roughly a quarter of the power and zero multi-GPU headaches. Best tokens-per-watt by a wide margin. DGX Spark is slow on generation but pulls the least power of any rig here, around 240W for the whole system. Prefill-friendly, memory-rich, wall-socket-friendly. And yes, plenty of people cap their cards. Even then, 4x 4090 or 4x 5090 still pulls well over 1,200W from the GPUs alone.
1:21

MiniMax M2.7 is 230B params. Can you actually run it at home? I tested Unsloth's UD-IQ3_XXS (80GB) on 4 different rigs: 🟠 4x RTX 4090 (96GB): 71.52 tok/s, TTFT 1045ms 🟢 4x RTX 5090 (128GB): 120.54 tok/s, TTFT 725ms 🟡 1x RTX PRO 6000 (96GB): 118.74 tok/s, TTFT 765ms 🟣 DGX Spark (128GB) — 24.41 tok/s, TTFT 741ms Backend: llama.cpp. Context: 32k. Max tokens: 4096. I went with IQ3_XXS because it's the biggest quant that fits in 96GB VRAM while still leaving safe headroom for 32k context. Same quant across all four rigs, fairest comparison I could run. Now look at rough peak GPU power draw: 🟠 4x4090 → 1,800W peak (450W × 4) 🟢 4x5090 → 2,300W peak (575W × 4) 🟡 RTX PRO 6000 → 600W peak 🟣 DGX Spark → 240W peak (whole system) The RTX PRO 6000 is the quiet winner. One card, 96GB, matching a 4x5090 rig at roughly a quarter of the power and zero multi-GPU headaches. Best tokens-per-watt by a wide margin. DGX Spark is slow on generation but pulls the least power of any rig here, around 240W for the whole system. Prefill-friendly, memory-rich, wall-socket-friendly. And yes, plenty of people cap their cards. Even then, 4x 4090 or 4x 5090 still pulls well over 1,200W from the GPUs alone.

stevibe

191,782 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Everyone's comparing the DGX Spark to a 5090 and calling it slow. I think that's the wrong comparison. I ran Qwen3.6 35B-A3B FP8 with the full 262K context window enabled (~96GB RAM) — something gaming GPUs can't really do. Results: 🟢No context: 51.3 tok/s, TTFT 110ms 🟣200K prefill: 34.6 tok/s, TTFT 85s (~2,341 tok/s prefill) Prefill is way faster than a Mac. And 35 tok/s deep into 200K context, on a model this strong, is genuinely usable. The Spark plays a different game.
1:04

Everyone's comparing the DGX Spark to a 5090 and calling it slow. I think that's the wrong comparison. I ran Qwen3.6 35B-A3B FP8 with the full 262K context window enabled (~96GB RAM) — something gaming GPUs can't really do. Results: 🟢No context: 51.3 tok/s, TTFT 110ms 🟣200K prefill: 34.6 tok/s, TTFT 85s (~2,341 tok/s prefill) Prefill is way faster than a Mac. And 35 tok/s deep into 200K context, on a model this strong, is genuinely usable. The Spark plays a different game.

stevibe

34,109 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Finally got my hands on the big one. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B — 122 billion parameters. Too big for any single consumer GPU. So I rented 4 of each... and then one professional card to see if brute force even matters. - 1x RTX PRO 6000 (96GB): 101.4 tok/s - 4x 5090 (128GB): 87.0 tok/s - 4x 4090 (96GB): 25.1 tok/s - 4x 3090 (96GB): 20.8 tok/s One single $8,500 card beat four RTX 5090s
0:59

Finally got my hands on the big one. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B — 122 billion parameters. Too big for any single consumer GPU. So I rented 4 of each... and then one professional card to see if brute force even matters. - 1x RTX PRO 6000 (96GB): 101.4 tok/s - 4x 5090 (128GB): 87.0 tok/s - 4x 4090 (96GB): 25.1 tok/s - 4x 3090 (96GB): 20.8 tok/s One single $8,500 card beat four RTX 5090s

stevibe

195,832 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

GLM-5.1-478B-NVFP4 Running on: - 4x RTX Pro 6000 - Sglang - 370,000 max tokens (1.75x full context) - p10 27.7 | p90 45.6 tok/s decode (gen) - 1340 tok/s prefill I could get 2x decode if I limit to 64k context (100 tok/s) In this video it operates Figma (:
1:00

GLM-5.1-478B-NVFP4 Running on: - 4x RTX Pro 6000 - Sglang - 370,000 max tokens (1.75x full context) - p10 27.7 | p90 45.6 tok/s decode (gen) - 1340 tok/s prefill I could get 2x decode if I limit to 64k context (100 tok/s) In this video it operates Figma (:

0xSero

74,772 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Qwen3.5-35B with only 3B active parameters This MoE model runs FASTER than most 7B dense models. Tested on 3 generations of NVIDIA: - 5090: 137 tok/s - 4090: 112 tok/s - 3090: 78 tok/s The surprise? The 4090 <> 5090 gap is only 22%. With a 3B active MoE, even old GPUs fly.
0:30

Qwen3.5-35B with only 3B active parameters This MoE model runs FASTER than most 7B dense models. Tested on 3 generations of NVIDIA: - 5090: 137 tok/s - 4090: 112 tok/s - 3090: 78 tok/s The surprise? The 4090 <> 5090 gap is only 22%. With a 3B active MoE, even old GPUs fly.

stevibe

69,532 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

The RTX 3090 is a 5-year-old GPU and it still runs a 27B model at 20 tok/s I tested Qwen3.5:27b across 3 generations of NVIDIA: 5090 → ~60 tok/s 4090 → ~40 tok/s 3090 → ~20 tok/s Perfectly linear scaling. Double the generation, double the speed.
0:57

The RTX 3090 is a 5-year-old GPU and it still runs a 27B model at 20 tok/s I tested Qwen3.5:27b across 3 generations of NVIDIA: 5090 → ~60 tok/s 4090 → ~40 tok/s 3090 → ~20 tok/s Perfectly linear scaling. Double the generation, double the speed.

stevibe

142,493 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Step-3.7-Flash Q4_K_S on DGX Spark (GB10, 128GB): > ~27 tok/s generation > 198B sparse MoE, ~11B active > 256K context, native vision > Agentic / tool-calling / reasoning > Apache 2.0 I added a mobile chat screen on the right showing what 27 tok/s actually feels like streaming on a phone.
0:52

Step-3.7-Flash Q4_K_S on DGX Spark (GB10, 128GB): > ~27 tok/s generation > 198B sparse MoE, ~11B active > 256K context, native vision > Agentic / tool-calling / reasoning > Apache 2.0 I added a mobile chat screen on the right showing what 27 tok/s actually feels like streaming on a phone.

stevibe

19,658 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

How Fast is Gemma 4 on a MacBook Pro M4? Benchmarking Google's new MoE (26B-A4B) > Model size: 26.1 GiB > Load time: ~4.2s Comparing single request VS > concurrent requests performance > 32k total context, 4 parallel slots single request behavior > TTFT: 5.68s > prompt: 3,701 tokens @ 652 tok/s > decode: 40.08 tok/s sequential (1 request at a time): > avg duration: 20.5s > p99: 22.1s > throughput: 40.11 tok/s > clean finishes: 100% concurrent (4 parallel requests): > aggregate throughput: 47.25 tok/s > total system throughput: 262.27 tok/s > avg duration: 65.1s > p95 latency: 68.8s > req/sec: 0.058 Head-to-Head: Sequential vs Concurrent throughput: > 40.11 tok/s → 47.25 tok/s (+17.8%) > small gain despite 4x parallelism latency per request: > 20.5s → 65.1s (~3.2x slower) > you pay heavily for concurrency system throughput (true utilization): > ~40 tok/s → 262 tok/s (~6.5x total output) > this is where concurrency wins tokens per second (decode ceiling): > ~40 tok/s steady in both modes > hardware-bound, not scheduler-bound TTFT impact: > ~5.7s baseline → buried under queueing in concurrent > “headers waittime” becomes the bottleneck What this actually means? - You don’t get linear scaling from parallel slots - You trade latency for total output - Mac Unified Memory setup is clearly saturating - Bandwidth + Scheduling overhead show up immediately This is exactly why GPUs dominate here Concurrency without killing latency
2:42

How Fast is Gemma 4 on a MacBook Pro M4? Benchmarking Google's new MoE (26B-A4B) > Model size: 26.1 GiB > Load time: ~4.2s Comparing single request VS > concurrent requests performance > 32k total context, 4 parallel slots single request behavior > TTFT: 5.68s > prompt: 3,701 tokens @ 652 tok/s > decode: 40.08 tok/s sequential (1 request at a time): > avg duration: 20.5s > p99: 22.1s > throughput: 40.11 tok/s > clean finishes: 100% concurrent (4 parallel requests): > aggregate throughput: 47.25 tok/s > total system throughput: 262.27 tok/s > avg duration: 65.1s > p95 latency: 68.8s > req/sec: 0.058 Head-to-Head: Sequential vs Concurrent throughput: > 40.11 tok/s → 47.25 tok/s (+17.8%) > small gain despite 4x parallelism latency per request: > 20.5s → 65.1s (~3.2x slower) > you pay heavily for concurrency system throughput (true utilization): > ~40 tok/s → 262 tok/s (~6.5x total output) > this is where concurrency wins tokens per second (decode ceiling): > ~40 tok/s steady in both modes > hardware-bound, not scheduler-bound TTFT impact: > ~5.7s baseline → buried under queueing in concurrent > “headers waittime” becomes the bottleneck What this actually means? - You don’t get linear scaling from parallel slots - You trade latency for total output - Mac Unified Memory setup is clearly saturating - Bandwidth + Scheduling overhead show up immediately This is exactly why GPUs dominate here Concurrency without killing latency

Ahmad

88,866 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

DeepSeek V4 Flash & V4 Pro Official API Speed Test V4 Flash: 80.63 tok/s V4 Pro: 36.72 tok/s
0:22

DeepSeek V4 Flash & V4 Pro Official API Speed Test V4 Flash: 80.63 tok/s V4 Pro: 36.72 tok/s

stevibe

17,555 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Qwen3.5:9b reasoning head-to-head: Mac Studio M2 Ultra 64GB: 43.08 tok/s Mac Mini M4 16GB: 13.07 tok/s Qwen
1:18

Qwen3.5:9b reasoning head-to-head: Mac Studio M2 Ultra 64GB: 43.08 tok/s Mac Mini M4 16GB: 13.07 tok/s Qwen

stevibe

243,343 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Update: Qwen3.5:9b head-to-head (MLX, Apple Silicon optimized) Mac Studio M2 Ultra: 89.74 tok/s Mac Mini M4: 20.82 tok/s MLX basically doubles the speed on both machines.
1:02

Update: Qwen3.5:9b head-to-head (MLX, Apple Silicon optimized) Mac Studio M2 Ultra: 89.74 tok/s Mac Mini M4: 20.82 tok/s MLX basically doubles the speed on both machines.

stevibe

134,256 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Qwen3.6-27B on RTX 5090, 4 power limits tested: 🔴 400W → 66.58 t/s · baseline (but fluctuates a lot — frequent dips) 🟢 450W → 69.79 t/s · +4.8% speed for +12.5% power (much more stable) 🟡 500W → 71.48 t/s · +2.4% speed for +11.1% power 🟣 575W → 72.64 t/s · +1.6% speed for +15.0% power ➡️ 400W → 575W: +44% power, +9% speed. Conclusion: 450W is the real sweet spot. 400W looks great on the average but the t/s curve is jittery; 450W trades 50W for consistent throughput. Above that, you're just heating your room.
0:42

Qwen3.6-27B on RTX 5090, 4 power limits tested: 🔴 400W → 66.58 t/s · baseline (but fluctuates a lot — frequent dips) 🟢 450W → 69.79 t/s · +4.8% speed for +12.5% power (much more stable) 🟡 500W → 71.48 t/s · +2.4% speed for +11.1% power 🟣 575W → 72.64 t/s · +1.6% speed for +15.0% power ➡️ 400W → 575W: +44% power, +9% speed. Conclusion: 450W is the real sweet spot. 400W looks great on the average but the t/s curve is jittery; 450W trades 50W for consistent throughput. Above that, you're just heating your room.

stevibe

55,052 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

nemotron 3 omni q8 on dgx spark 128gb vram cranking via hermes agent at 56 tok/s. first night of real local agentic on this box and local hits harder than i thought it would. q8 (near lossless quant, perplexity loss <1% vs fp16) running 256k context on 33 gb of unified memory, 90+ gb still free. multimodal omni weights included. hermes agent driving from telegram, talking to it from bed. speed: 56 tok/s generation, 1,300 tok/s prefill. for context, qwen 3.6 27b at q4 (heavy quant) on 3090 = 40 tok/s. nemotron at higher precision quant on spark beats qwen at lower precision quant on 3090. moe 3.5b active params architecture earns its keep. what i tested tonight: agentic tool calling works clean. ask it to check disks, it autonomously runs df -h through hermes agent. ask it to set up telegram gateway, it invokes the hermes-agent skill, walks through the prompts, completes the flow. overthinks a bit before tool calls (reasoning model trait) but lands the right move every time. researches api docs, internalizes, tests, documents. completes tasks. current models on dgx spark: 9 gguf files, 305 gb total, mix of qwen 3.6 27b dense (5 quants), nemotron omni (4 quants), deepseek v4-flash 158b q4 (the 112gb flagship test). more data coming this week as i benchmark each.
1:40

nemotron 3 omni q8 on dgx spark 128gb vram cranking via hermes agent at 56 tok/s. first night of real local agentic on this box and local hits harder than i thought it would. q8 (near lossless quant, perplexity loss <1% vs fp16) running 256k context on 33 gb of unified memory, 90+ gb still free. multimodal omni weights included. hermes agent driving from telegram, talking to it from bed. speed: 56 tok/s generation, 1,300 tok/s prefill. for context, qwen 3.6 27b at q4 (heavy quant) on 3090 = 40 tok/s. nemotron at higher precision quant on spark beats qwen at lower precision quant on 3090. moe 3.5b active params architecture earns its keep. what i tested tonight: agentic tool calling works clean. ask it to check disks, it autonomously runs df -h through hermes agent. ask it to set up telegram gateway, it invokes the hermes-agent skill, walks through the prompts, completes the flow. overthinks a bit before tool calls (reasoning model trait) but lands the right move every time. researches api docs, internalizes, tests, documents. completes tasks. current models on dgx spark: 9 gguf files, 305 gb total, mix of qwen 3.6 27b dense (5 quants), nemotron omni (4 quants), deepseek v4-flash 158b q4 (the 112gb flagship test). more data coming this week as i benchmark each.

Sudo su

30,228 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Google's Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT hits 25+ tokens/sec and 320+ tokens/sec prefill on 8 GB VRAM (RTX 4060) + 16 GB RAM using TurboQuant Prefill just went from 200 → 320+ tok/s on the same 8GB card. 1.6x, no new hardware, no new quant, just a KV cache trick stacked on top of the Gemma 4 26B MoE setup from a few days ago. A few days ago I posted Gemma 4 26B A4B hitting 28 tok/s decode on 8GB VRAM using native MTP. prefill was stuck around 200 tok/s. fair callout by the community. So today I tested something I'd already been meaning to try: TheTom/llama-cpp-turboquant, the TurboQuant KV cache fork by Tom Turney (Tom Turney). (github link in the comments) thanks to him, the fork just got resynced to mainline, so MTP + TurboQuant now run together cleanly (I didnt see any meaningful gains by using MTP with this setup though but you can try). The flags (No MTP): -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -c 64000 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 Results on the same RTX 4060 8GB, tested with a 27k token prompt at 64k context loaded: Prefill: 200 tok/s → 320+ tok/s Decode: stayed above 25 tok/s (without MTP) Why it works: TurboQuant uses walsh hadamard rotation + polar quantization on the KV cache. keys are sensitive to compression, values aren't much, so it splits the difference: K stays at q8_0, V drops to turbo3 (~3 bits). bonus from the memory savings: same 8GB card can now stretch to 100-120k context with minimal decode penalty. It should now be snappier with any agent harness such as hermes agent without compromise on intelligence. If you're already running Gemma 4 on a small card, this stacks on top for free. Try --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 on your setup and report back what your prefill/decode split looks like. unsloth model gguf and llama.cpp turboquant fork links in the comments. what's your prefill number before vs after?
0:31

Google's Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT hits 25+ tokens/sec and 320+ tokens/sec prefill on 8 GB VRAM (RTX 4060) + 16 GB RAM using TurboQuant Prefill just went from 200 → 320+ tok/s on the same 8GB card. 1.6x, no new hardware, no new quant, just a KV cache trick stacked on top of the Gemma 4 26B MoE setup from a few days ago. A few days ago I posted Gemma 4 26B A4B hitting 28 tok/s decode on 8GB VRAM using native MTP. prefill was stuck around 200 tok/s. fair callout by the community. So today I tested something I'd already been meaning to try: TheTom/llama-cpp-turboquant, the TurboQuant KV cache fork by Tom Turney (Tom Turney). (github link in the comments) thanks to him, the fork just got resynced to mainline, so MTP + TurboQuant now run together cleanly (I didnt see any meaningful gains by using MTP with this setup though but you can try). The flags (No MTP): -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -c 64000 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 Results on the same RTX 4060 8GB, tested with a 27k token prompt at 64k context loaded: Prefill: 200 tok/s → 320+ tok/s Decode: stayed above 25 tok/s (without MTP) Why it works: TurboQuant uses walsh hadamard rotation + polar quantization on the KV cache. keys are sensitive to compression, values aren't much, so it splits the difference: K stays at q8_0, V drops to turbo3 (~3 bits). bonus from the memory savings: same 8GB card can now stretch to 100-120k context with minimal decode penalty. It should now be snappier with any agent harness such as hermes agent without compromise on intelligence. If you're already running Gemma 4 on a small card, this stacks on top for free. Try --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 on your setup and report back what your prefill/decode split looks like. unsloth model gguf and llama.cpp turboquant fork links in the comments. what's your prefill number before vs after?

Alok

119,821 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce