Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
Massive breakthrough in speculative decoding! It made a 9B LLM on my MacBook 4x faster, and 2.6x faster than regular speculative decoding. I ran Qwen3.5 9B on my M5 MacBook Pro with the same prompt, three ways: - No speculative decoding: done in 42s - Regular speculative decoding: done... show more
25,804 Aufrufe โข vor 2 Tagen โขvia X (Twitter)
28 Kommentare

Standard vs. Speculative vs. UZU decoding:

42s down to 11s is wild

4x faster on a macbook means my agents can now be confidently wrong at 4x the speed, with no api bill left to blame

Your MacBook just found another gear

What acceptance rate did the draft get on that prompt?

Can you show: uzu without speculative decoding. uzu with DFlash alone. uzu with DFlash + Weaver. Your 4ร result doesnโt tell us how much acceleration Weaver itself contributes.

On linux you pick the gpu, the driver and the engine, and can patch any of them when a new decoding trick lands. a macbook gives you what apple exposes ๐ง

now it can be wrong in 10 seconds instead of 42

11s on a laptop is lil crazy, now the slow part of local RAG is going to be retrieval

Speedup numbers like this depend a lot on draft acceptance rate, so log accepted tokens per step on your own prompts, not just wall time. Also compare against a batch size above 1, since the gain usually shrinks once the target model is compute-bound.

massive breakthrough in speculative decoding, proven by timing how fast it generates a function that merges two sorted lists

4x on a 9B is wild. Curious if it holds on a 27B, my Qwen3.8 27B sits at 37.4 tok/s on a Mac mini M5 Pro and that's the one I'd love to see doubled

4x on a MacBook with better speculative decoding is a huge local win.

would like to see the 4x on a long multi-step run where the context keeps growing

this is what makes local agents usable. a 9b that answers in 10s instead of 42 can sit inside a tool loop without you walking away

7.5 tokens per pass is kinda absurd. really curious how that holds up at longer context, across a wide range of workflows. speculative decoding can have a wide performance range based on the task, wonder how weaver affects that aspect

Batch size 1 is the best case for this. on a serving box at high batch the verify pass stops being free and most of the gain shrinks. curious where weaver crosses over.

This is an exciting development for local LLM performance.

quick math from your numbers: 42s to 11s is 3.8x. 7.5 tokens per pass would give 7.5x if passes were free, so each tree-verify pass (drafter included) costs ~2x a plain decode step on the M5, if output length matched. still a great trade. what tokens/pass on a non-code prompt?

4x on a 9B is wild. Does it hold on bigger models like 27B ? That's where local starts to feel slow on my M5 Max

on the quality question, it shouldn't drop if it uses the usual check. the big model still looks at every guessed token and throws out any it wouldn't have picked itself, so you get the same answer it would give alone. only the speed changes

watch your acceptance rate, the speedup follows it closely

4x on a 9B model, locally on a laptop, is wild. And 2.6x over vanilla speculative decoding means it's more than just a better draft model. Curious how the speedup holds up on longer contexts.

The gap between 30 and 11 seconds is all in the adapter. Does the tree hold up on longer prompts, or does the acceptance rate fall once the context grows?

what did you use as the draft model? and does the 4x hold on long outputs or mostly on shorter answers?

The tree of continuations verified in one pass is what makes the 7.5 tokens per pass believable. Does the Weaver adapter add much memory overhead on the Mac next to the 9B model?

Vietnamese. This is an impressive technical breakthrough!

Does this work with 1bit,2bit models? Iโm talking about Bonsai, Underdog, ISO ones
