Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Your gaming PC can now serve frontier models at interactive speed using official checkpoints without extreme quantization! Qwen3.6 35B → 8GB RTX 4060 laptop @ 39 tok/s DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B → RTX 5090 desktop @ 22-25 tok/s GLM-5.2 753B → RTX PRO 6000 workstation @ 15 tok/s Run your claude... show more

Shuo Yang

4,711 subscribers

1,055,859 просмотров • 4 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии Образование Игры

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

New LFM2.5-2.6B hits DeepSeek-V4 level on tool calling and runs 3.7x faster! We ran Liquid AI 's new LFM2.5-2.6B against DeepSeek-V4-Flash on one box with 4x RTX 5090. Both got the same three jobs, and each one only completes if the model fires every tool call Topics: -weather and local time in six cities -one budget into six currencies -four hotels checked and booked for one date Outputs: LFM2.5-2.6B: 35/35 tool-calls, 366 tok/s, 19s DeepSeek-V4-Flash: 35/35 tool-calls, 77 tok/s, 70s Both models made all 35 calls, and both fired twelve of them in one turn. LFM was trained for agents, and tool calling is where that shows. Strong result for a model you can run right on your phone

New LFM2.5-2.6B hits DeepSeek-V4 level on tool calling and runs 3.7x faster! We ran Liquid AI 's new LFM2.5-2.6B against DeepSeek-V4-Flash on one box with 4x RTX 5090. Both got the same three jobs, and each one only completes if the model fires every tool call Topics: -weather and local time in six cities -one budget into six currencies -four hotels checked and booked for one date Outputs: LFM2.5-2.6B: 35/35 tool-calls, 366 tok/s, 19s DeepSeek-V4-Flash: 35/35 tool-calls, 77 tok/s, 70s Both models made all 35 calls, and both fired twelve of them in one turn. LFM was trained for agents, and tool calling is where that shows. Strong result for a model you can run right on your phone

atomic.chat

112,171 просмотров • 19 дней назад

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.

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 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

six months ago this wasn't happening on 8gb vram. running unsloth's Q4_K_XL quant of gemma 4 26b-a4b-it-qat, a sparse MoE model with only 4b active params on a single rtx 4060 laptop gpu, 8gb vram, 20+ tok/s decode. no cloud, no api, no offload hacks. just a gaming laptop on battery. what makes it fit: google's QAT (quantization aware training), plus MTP (multi token prediction) support in the latest llama.cpp builds. that combo is the single biggest unlock for local inference on low vram. rtx 3060, rtx 3070, gtx 1070, gtx 1080, rtx 4050, rtx 4060, rtx 5050, rtx 5060 — any 6-8gb consumer gpu, old or new — this model runs on it. world cup season, so i told it to build a soccer themed flappy bird clone. one shot, zero iteration, fully playable. six months ago an 8gb model could barely clone vanilla flappy bird. now it's shipping a themed game from a sparse MoE model running locally on a laptop battery. inference benchmarks: - decode throughput: 30 tok/s - context: 64k. this is the real unlock. 64k ctx is what makes a hermes agent loop viable locally on this model, not just single-turn chat. llama.cpp flags: -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 64000 -cmoe --port 8080 game's deployed on my own site, built and shipped end to end with open source llm, zero closed source api dependency in the pipeline. link in the description. gguf weights on huggingface, link in the comments. pull it down, run it on whatever 8gb card is sitting in your rig. try the game and tell me your score and what you want in v2. local llms on consumer gpus stopped being a meme.

six months ago this wasn't happening on 8gb vram. running unsloth's Q4_K_XL quant of gemma 4 26b-a4b-it-qat, a sparse MoE model with only 4b active params on a single rtx 4060 laptop gpu, 8gb vram, 20+ tok/s decode. no cloud, no api, no offload hacks. just a gaming laptop on battery. what makes it fit: google's QAT (quantization aware training), plus MTP (multi token prediction) support in the latest llama.cpp builds. that combo is the single biggest unlock for local inference on low vram. rtx 3060, rtx 3070, gtx 1070, gtx 1080, rtx 4050, rtx 4060, rtx 5050, rtx 5060 — any 6-8gb consumer gpu, old or new — this model runs on it. world cup season, so i told it to build a soccer themed flappy bird clone. one shot, zero iteration, fully playable. six months ago an 8gb model could barely clone vanilla flappy bird. now it's shipping a themed game from a sparse MoE model running locally on a laptop battery. inference benchmarks: - decode throughput: 30 tok/s - context: 64k. this is the real unlock. 64k ctx is what makes a hermes agent loop viable locally on this model, not just single-turn chat. llama.cpp flags: -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 64000 -cmoe --port 8080 game's deployed on my own site, built and shipped end to end with open source llm, zero closed source api dependency in the pipeline. link in the description. gguf weights on huggingface, link in the comments. pull it down, run it on whatever 8gb card is sitting in your rig. try the game and tell me your score and what you want in v2. local llms on consumer gpus stopped being a meme.

Alok

60,866 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Anyone with 8GB or 12GB VRAM setups needs to understand that "-ncmoe" is the key flag to boost performance on llama.cpp Here are my results for Qwen3.6 35B A3B, with 64k q8_0 context on a 8GB RTX 3070Ti: ⚪️ no flag → 8.7 tok/s RAM: 13.6GB & VRAM: 7.8GB 🔴 -ncmoe 35 → 27.5 tok/s RAM: 12.1GB & VRAM: 4.3GB 🟢 -ncmoe 30 → 32.5 tok/s RAM: 12GB & VRAM: 5.6GB 🔵 -ncmoe 25 → 40.9 tok/s RAM: 12GB & VRAM: 6.9GB Please note the ram and vram usage you see are total usage of a windows pc, with the model running. My friend's setup: 8GB VRAM and 16GB RAM. You can boost performance by switching to Linux, just something to keep in mind. Basically, this flag keeps the MoE experts in the first X layers on your CPU + RAM, instead of eating all your VRAM straight away. This is a smart hybrid offload way that lets you run bigger models without OOM while keeping the rest on your GPU for speed. As we can see on the data, there's a sweet spot. When we lower it from 35 to 25, speed bumps +50% because there are more layers on your GPU (look at the VRAM usage). The key here is to play around with the number and fit as much as possible on your VRAM, goal is to have 1GB/800MB headroom to avoid stress. ↓ server flags below

Anyone with 8GB or 12GB VRAM setups needs to understand that "-ncmoe" is the key flag to boost performance on llama.cpp Here are my results for Qwen3.6 35B A3B, with 64k q8_0 context on a 8GB RTX 3070Ti: ⚪️ no flag → 8.7 tok/s RAM: 13.6GB & VRAM: 7.8GB 🔴 -ncmoe 35 → 27.5 tok/s RAM: 12.1GB & VRAM: 4.3GB 🟢 -ncmoe 30 → 32.5 tok/s RAM: 12GB & VRAM: 5.6GB 🔵 -ncmoe 25 → 40.9 tok/s RAM: 12GB & VRAM: 6.9GB Please note the ram and vram usage you see are total usage of a windows pc, with the model running. My friend's setup: 8GB VRAM and 16GB RAM. You can boost performance by switching to Linux, just something to keep in mind. Basically, this flag keeps the MoE experts in the first X layers on your CPU + RAM, instead of eating all your VRAM straight away. This is a smart hybrid offload way that lets you run bigger models without OOM while keeping the rest on your GPU for speed. As we can see on the data, there's a sweet spot. When we lower it from 35 to 25, speed bumps +50% because there are more layers on your GPU (look at the VRAM usage). The key here is to play around with the number and fit as much as possible on your VRAM, goal is to have 1GB/800MB headroom to avoid stress. ↓ server flags below

left curve dev

166,478 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

$Gemma 4 12B QAT + MTP on 8GB VRAM. llama.cpp flags included. let's run it. 20+ tok/sec decode. 700+ tok/sec prefill. on a single RTX 4060. copy these exact flags: -m gemma-4-12B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf \ --spec-type draft-mtp \ --spec-draft-n-max 4 \ --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 \ --spec-draft-model gemma-4-12B-it-qat-assistant-MTP-Q8_0.gguf \ -c 48000 -ngl 38 -v → -ngl 99 if you're on 12–24GB VRAM (RTX 3090, 4090, 4080, 3080, 4070 Ti, 3080 Ti) → -ngl 38 for 8GB setups with 48k context (RTX 4060, 3060, 2080, 2070, 3070) → drop it (or the context) lower if you're squeezing on 4–6GB (RTX 2060, 3050, 1660) my rig: RTX 4060 8GB · i7H · 16GB RAM MTP is giving me 25–40% decode throughput gains across Gemma 4 models. nearly zero VRAM cost for that bump. the draft assistant GGUF is only ~300–400MB depending on quant. one thing to know (architectural catch): unlike Qwen3.6 and Qwen3.5 models which bakes MTP heads straight into the base GGUF, Gemma 4 needs a separate draft assistant model downloaded alongside. not a big deal. just don't forget it or MTP won't run. draft assistant GGUF link → comments while you wait for anthropic mythos release, test this and drop your decode numbers below, curious how it scales across different setups.$

Gemma 4 12B QAT + MTP on 8GB VRAM. llama.cpp flags included. let's run it. 20+ tok/sec decode. 700+ tok/sec prefill. on a single RTX 4060. copy these exact flags: -m gemma-4-12B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf \ --spec-type draft-mtp \ --spec-draft-n-max 4 \ --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 \ --spec-draft-model gemma-4-12B-it-qat-assistant-MTP-Q8_0.gguf \ -c 48000 -ngl 38 -v → -ngl 99 if you're on 12–24GB VRAM (RTX 3090, 4090, 4080, 3080, 4070 Ti, 3080 Ti) → -ngl 38 for 8GB setups with 48k context (RTX 4060, 3060, 2080, 2070, 3070) → drop it (or the context) lower if you're squeezing on 4–6GB (RTX 2060, 3050, 1660) my rig: RTX 4060 8GB · i7H · 16GB RAM MTP is giving me 25–40% decode throughput gains across Gemma 4 models. nearly zero VRAM cost for that bump. the draft assistant GGUF is only ~300–400MB depending on quant. one thing to know (architectural catch): unlike Qwen3.6 and Qwen3.5 models which bakes MTP heads straight into the base GGUF, Gemma 4 needs a separate draft assistant model downloaded alongside. not a big deal. just don't forget it or MTP won't run. draft assistant GGUF link → comments while you wait for anthropic mythos release, test this and drop your decode numbers below, curious how it scales across different setups.

Alok

28,957 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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?

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 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🤯 A localmaxxer hit ~381 tok/s on a SINGLE RTX 3090 with Qwen3.8-27B. This developer has turned a 24GB RTX 3090 into a monster Qwen inference box - w/some creativity. Four days ago 👉 ⚡ ~82 tok/s single-user Then 👉 ⚡ ~114 tok/s with optimized MTP ⚡ ~138 tok/s with DFlash2 + lookup drafting Now 👉 🔥 ~381 tok/s on ONE request How? The recipe combines ... 🧠 Qwen3.8-27B 🎮 1× RTX 3090 24GB @ 250W ⚙️ heavily optimized vLLM ⚡ DFlash2 speculative decoding 🔎 lookup-augmented drafting 📚 prefix caching 🧮 16-token verification blocks 💾 quantized KV / heads / activations DFlash2 normally proposes 7 tokens. The developer realized the verification block doesn't have to stop there. If Qwen is answering from a document already sitting in the prompt, the system can fill the remaining draft positions using tokens found directly in that context. 🎯 So the target model can verify 16 tokens at once. On a ~25K-token document reproduction task: Previous DFlash2 👉 ~260 tok/s Longer verification + context lookup 👉 🔥 ~382 tok/s Acceptance: 🤯 15 of 16 tokens per verification step That is where the crazy number comes from. ⚠️ On ordinary real-world chat prompts, the same setup is around ~133 tok/s Still extremely fast for a dense 27B model on an RTX 3090. The 381 tok/s mode shines when the answer largely comes from material already in context so these are best use cases 📚 RAG / document Q&A 💻 Coding assistants applying edits 📝 Quoting or rewriting documents 🔎 Extracting information from long prompts And another optimization 👉 With prefix caching, a second question against the same 25K-token document reportedly goes from: 🐌 22.4 sec TTFT → ⚡ 0.56 sec TTFT Because the model doesn't need to process the whole document again. 🎯 It's specifically a mode for RAG front ends and coding agents. Follow iamMess on Reddit or syv-ai on GitHub 🔗 Reddit: r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1vtup5s/ 🔗 GitHub: /syv-ai/qwen38-27b-rtx3090

🤯 A localmaxxer hit ~381 tok/s on a SINGLE RTX 3090 with Qwen3.8-27B. This developer has turned a 24GB RTX 3090 into a monster Qwen inference box - w/some creativity. Four days ago 👉 ⚡ ~82 tok/s single-user Then 👉 ⚡ ~114 tok/s with optimized MTP ⚡ ~138 tok/s with DFlash2 + lookup drafting Now 👉 🔥 ~381 tok/s on ONE request How? The recipe combines ... 🧠 Qwen3.8-27B 🎮 1× RTX 3090 24GB @ 250W ⚙️ heavily optimized vLLM ⚡ DFlash2 speculative decoding 🔎 lookup-augmented drafting 📚 prefix caching 🧮 16-token verification blocks 💾 quantized KV / heads / activations DFlash2 normally proposes 7 tokens. The developer realized the verification block doesn't have to stop there. If Qwen is answering from a document already sitting in the prompt, the system can fill the remaining draft positions using tokens found directly in that context. 🎯 So the target model can verify 16 tokens at once. On a ~25K-token document reproduction task: Previous DFlash2 👉 ~260 tok/s Longer verification + context lookup 👉 🔥 ~382 tok/s Acceptance: 🤯 15 of 16 tokens per verification step That is where the crazy number comes from. ⚠️ On ordinary real-world chat prompts, the same setup is around ~133 tok/s Still extremely fast for a dense 27B model on an RTX 3090. The 381 tok/s mode shines when the answer largely comes from material already in context so these are best use cases 📚 RAG / document Q&A 💻 Coding assistants applying edits 📝 Quoting or rewriting documents 🔎 Extracting information from long prompts And another optimization 👉 With prefix caching, a second question against the same 25K-token document reportedly goes from: 🐌 22.4 sec TTFT → ⚡ 0.56 sec TTFT Because the model doesn't need to process the whole document again. 🎯 It's specifically a mode for RAG front ends and coding agents. Follow iamMess on Reddit or syv-ai on GitHub 🔗 Reddit: r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1vtup5s/ 🔗 GitHub: /syv-ai/qwen38-27b-rtx3090

David Hendrickson

105,418 просмотров • 4 дней назад

i spent 3 hours finding the sweet spot for hermes 4.3 36B on a single RTX 3090. saving you the trouble, anon. the model is 21.8GB at Q4_K_M. that leaves 2.2GB free on 24GB VRAM. not much room for KV cache. here's what actually happened: 4K: 35.3 tok/s 8K: 35.2 tok/s 16K: 34.8 tok/s 32K: 34.6 tok/s 64K: 6.4 tok/s 128K: 1.9 tok/s flat from 4K to 32K. then it falls off a cliff at 64K. the trick is quantized KV cache. without it you OOM at 16K. with quantized KV cache you get 32K at full speed. all 64 layers on GPU. at 64K something weird happens. ngl 99 (all layers on GPU) = 3.96 tok/s. the KV cache silently spills to CPU. drop to ngl 55 and speed jumps to 6.37. drop to ngl 48 and it gets worse again (3.46). there's an offload sweet spot where you free just enough VRAM for the cache without losing too much compute to PCIe transfers. 128K works at ngl 32 but you're at 1.95 tok/s. half the model on CPU. usable for batch work, not for interactive. the sweet spot command: llama-server -m hermes-4.3-36b-Q4_K_M.gguf -ngl 99 -c 32768 --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 32K context. 34.6 tok/s. all on GPU. this is where dense 36B lives on 24GB. for comparison, qwen 3.5 (35B MoE, 3B active) holds 112 tok/s from 4K all the way to 262K on the same GPU. no speed drop. same total params, completely different architecture. hybrid linear attention means flat context scaling. dense pays for every token in the KV cache. code and quality comparison coming next. fast vs slow generation side by side in the videos below.

i spent 3 hours finding the sweet spot for hermes 4.3 36B on a single RTX 3090. saving you the trouble, anon. the model is 21.8GB at Q4_K_M. that leaves 2.2GB free on 24GB VRAM. not much room for KV cache. here's what actually happened: 4K: 35.3 tok/s 8K: 35.2 tok/s 16K: 34.8 tok/s 32K: 34.6 tok/s 64K: 6.4 tok/s 128K: 1.9 tok/s flat from 4K to 32K. then it falls off a cliff at 64K. the trick is quantized KV cache. without it you OOM at 16K. with quantized KV cache you get 32K at full speed. all 64 layers on GPU. at 64K something weird happens. ngl 99 (all layers on GPU) = 3.96 tok/s. the KV cache silently spills to CPU. drop to ngl 55 and speed jumps to 6.37. drop to ngl 48 and it gets worse again (3.46). there's an offload sweet spot where you free just enough VRAM for the cache without losing too much compute to PCIe transfers. 128K works at ngl 32 but you're at 1.95 tok/s. half the model on CPU. usable for batch work, not for interactive. the sweet spot command: llama-server -m hermes-4.3-36b-Q4_K_M.gguf -ngl 99 -c 32768 --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 32K context. 34.6 tok/s. all on GPU. this is where dense 36B lives on 24GB. for comparison, qwen 3.5 (35B MoE, 3B active) holds 112 tok/s from 4K all the way to 262K on the same GPU. no speed drop. same total params, completely different architecture. hybrid linear attention means flat context scaling. dense pays for every token in the KV cache. code and quality comparison coming next. fast vs slow generation side by side in the videos below.

Sudo su

52,268 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

DFlash makes Qwen 2.2x faster with no quality loss! We ran the same Qwen3.6-27B locally three ways on one RTX 6000: baseline, MTP, DFlash. The tasks only differ in one thing - how predictable the next word is: quicksort, describe a file in JSON, a logic puzzle, a sci-fi story. Outputs: Baseline: 44 tok/s · 1.00x MTP: 65 tok/s · 1.45x · 71% accepted DFlash: 98 tok/s · 2.20x · 30% accepted Baseline writes one token per step. MTP works inside the model itself and guesses 3 tokens ahead. DFlash is a separate small model that writes 15 tokens at once, and the big model only checks them. In JSON the same words repeat all the time, so most guesses were right: 152 tok/s, 3.4x speedup. In the story 9 guesses out of 10 were wrong. DFlash did all that extra work for nothing and became slower than baseline: 42 vs 44 tok/s. MTP guesses only 3 tokens, so a wrong guess costs very little: 46 tok/s and the win in that round. The output is identical in all three modes - DFlash is the pick for tasks with predictable output, like coding, and for chat and creative writing MTP works better. DFlash is now natively integrated into Atomic Chat on llama.cpp - speed up your Qwen models!

DFlash makes Qwen 2.2x faster with no quality loss! We ran the same Qwen3.6-27B locally three ways on one RTX 6000: baseline, MTP, DFlash. The tasks only differ in one thing - how predictable the next word is: quicksort, describe a file in JSON, a logic puzzle, a sci-fi story. Outputs: Baseline: 44 tok/s · 1.00x MTP: 65 tok/s · 1.45x · 71% accepted DFlash: 98 tok/s · 2.20x · 30% accepted Baseline writes one token per step. MTP works inside the model itself and guesses 3 tokens ahead. DFlash is a separate small model that writes 15 tokens at once, and the big model only checks them. In JSON the same words repeat all the time, so most guesses were right: 152 tok/s, 3.4x speedup. In the story 9 guesses out of 10 were wrong. DFlash did all that extra work for nothing and became slower than baseline: 42 vs 44 tok/s. MTP guesses only 3 tokens, so a wrong guess costs very little: 46 tok/s and the win in that round. The output is identical in all three modes - DFlash is the pick for tasks with predictable output, like coding, and for chat and creative writing MTP works better. DFlash is now natively integrated into Atomic Chat on llama.cpp - speed up your Qwen models!

atomic.chat

76,221 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

310,112 просмотров • 3 дней назад

a new 8GB VRAM GPU dense Local LLM leader was born yesterday runs on: RTX 4060 / RTX 3070 / RTX 2080. any 8GB card Qwen 3.5 9B (dense) was the go to for 6-8GB VRAM builds. Gemma 4 12B QAT (dense) just changed that. same llama.cpp + cuda 13.2. i7 12700H. 16GB RAM. same -ngl 99 flags. same 48k context. unsloth gemma-4-12b-it-Q4_K_M.gguf → 15 tok/sec @ 48k ctx unsloth gemma-4-12B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf → 32 tok/sec @ 48k ctx → 26 tok/sec @ 64k ctx 64k context is a big deal. Hermes 3 agent requires 64k minimum to run. you're now getting full hermes compatible context on a budget consumer GPU at 26 tok/sec locally. 2.1x faster on identical hardware. and here's the part that breaks your brain: the QAT-UD-Q4_K_XL is actually SMALLER than the Q4_K_M "XL" why? QAT = Quantization Aware Training Google didn't train the model first and compress it later they trained it to be quantized from day one the weights already know how to survive low precision that's why you get more quality per byte llamacpp flags: -m gemma-4-12B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -ngl 99 -c 48000 -v fits in 8GB VRAM clean. no API. no cloud. no subscription. and this isn't even the MTP variant yet Gemma-4-E2B QAT runs on 3GB RAM, E4B on 5GB, 12B on 7GB, 26-A4B on 15GB and 31B on 18GB. I have benchmarked the 26b and 31b qat as well on a single RTX 4090, checkout the comments for details. If you have a 6GB or 8GB VRAM GPU, post your numbers. more benchmarks and configs coming soon

a new 8GB VRAM GPU dense Local LLM leader was born yesterday runs on: RTX 4060 / RTX 3070 / RTX 2080. any 8GB card Qwen 3.5 9B (dense) was the go to for 6-8GB VRAM builds. Gemma 4 12B QAT (dense) just changed that. same llama.cpp + cuda 13.2. i7 12700H. 16GB RAM. same -ngl 99 flags. same 48k context. unsloth gemma-4-12b-it-Q4_K_M.gguf → 15 tok/sec @ 48k ctx unsloth gemma-4-12B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf → 32 tok/sec @ 48k ctx → 26 tok/sec @ 64k ctx 64k context is a big deal. Hermes 3 agent requires 64k minimum to run. you're now getting full hermes compatible context on a budget consumer GPU at 26 tok/sec locally. 2.1x faster on identical hardware. and here's the part that breaks your brain: the QAT-UD-Q4_K_XL is actually SMALLER than the Q4_K_M "XL" why? QAT = Quantization Aware Training Google didn't train the model first and compress it later they trained it to be quantized from day one the weights already know how to survive low precision that's why you get more quality per byte llamacpp flags: -m gemma-4-12B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -ngl 99 -c 48000 -v fits in 8GB VRAM clean. no API. no cloud. no subscription. and this isn't even the MTP variant yet Gemma-4-E2B QAT runs on 3GB RAM, E4B on 5GB, 12B on 7GB, 26-A4B on 15GB and 31B on 18GB. I have benchmarked the 26b and 31b qat as well on a single RTX 4090, checkout the comments for details. If you have a 6GB or 8GB VRAM GPU, post your numbers. more benchmarks and configs coming soon

Alok

259,993 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

$I just crammed the updated Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) with 180k context into an 8GB RTX 4060 (8 GB VRAM + 16 GB RAM only!!) and optimized the batch size. 23 tokens/sec decode, 300 tokens/sec prefill Yesterday I showed you a Gemma 4 31B dense model running flawlessly on an RTX 4090. Today, we're breaking the VRAM bank on a budget card using Unsloth’s new Gemma 4 26B (A4B) QAT quants. Following Google’s chat template update that boosted agentic benchmarks by +10%, I pushed this model to its absolute limits. Here is how you squeeze 250k context out of 8GB of VRAM. # The Setup & The Optimization - Hardware: Nvidia RTX 4060 (8GB VRAM) + 16GB System RAM - Environment: CUDA 13.0 build of llama.cpp - Model: gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf - Prompt: 28,000 tokens of prompt for each run If you read my L2 cache breakdown (attached in replies), you know the 4060’s 24MB cache maxes out at `-b 1024 -ub 1024`. Push past that, and prefill crashes. I locked those flags in for every test below to ensure maximum GEMM throughput. # 1. The Raw Context Push (Unquantized KV Cache) First, I wanted to see how far pure 8GB VRAM + 16GB RAM could stretch without touching the KV cache: - 80k Context: Prefill 385 t/s | Decode 25.5 t/s - 120k Context: Prefill 270 t/s | Decode 24 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 120000 --port 8080 -ub 1024 -b 1024 Without KV quantization, 120k is your hard ceiling. push past that prefill throughput drops off a cliff, making the model practically unusable for large agentic workloads. # 2. The Q8 KV Cache Lifeline To survive 250k context on a budget card, you have to quantize the KV cache. I enabled 8 bit KV cache (`-ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0`) and re ran: - 180k Context: Prefill 280 t/s | Decode 22.8 t/s - 250k Context: Prefill 115 t/s | Decode 20 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 180000 --port 8080 -b 1024 -ub 1024 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 Result: Q8 KV cache brings 250k context back from the dead. Decode speed stabilizes at a highly usable 20 t/s. You are trading a very small bit amount of reasoning precision for an extra 130,000 tokens of context window. if you own a single rtx 3050, 3060, 3070, 4050, 4060, 5050 or 5060, you must try this model and optimize your batch size for higher prefill. Hugging Face links to the updated Unsloth's QAT quants and performance graph are in the replies below. What model are you running on your 6GB, 8GB or 12GB cards right now? Let's see your setups.$

I just crammed the updated Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) with 180k context into an 8GB RTX 4060 (8 GB VRAM + 16 GB RAM only!!) and optimized the batch size. 23 tokens/sec decode, 300 tokens/sec prefill Yesterday I showed you a Gemma 4 31B dense model running flawlessly on an RTX 4090. Today, we're breaking the VRAM bank on a budget card using Unsloth’s new Gemma 4 26B (A4B) QAT quants. Following Google’s chat template update that boosted agentic benchmarks by +10%, I pushed this model to its absolute limits. Here is how you squeeze 250k context out of 8GB of VRAM. # The Setup & The Optimization - Hardware: Nvidia RTX 4060 (8GB VRAM) + 16GB System RAM - Environment: CUDA 13.0 build of llama.cpp - Model: gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf - Prompt: 28,000 tokens of prompt for each run If you read my L2 cache breakdown (attached in replies), you know the 4060’s 24MB cache maxes out at `-b 1024 -ub 1024`. Push past that, and prefill crashes. I locked those flags in for every test below to ensure maximum GEMM throughput. # 1. The Raw Context Push (Unquantized KV Cache) First, I wanted to see how far pure 8GB VRAM + 16GB RAM could stretch without touching the KV cache: - 80k Context: Prefill 385 t/s | Decode 25.5 t/s - 120k Context: Prefill 270 t/s | Decode 24 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 120000 --port 8080 -ub 1024 -b 1024 Without KV quantization, 120k is your hard ceiling. push past that prefill throughput drops off a cliff, making the model practically unusable for large agentic workloads. # 2. The Q8 KV Cache Lifeline To survive 250k context on a budget card, you have to quantize the KV cache. I enabled 8 bit KV cache (`-ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0`) and re ran: - 180k Context: Prefill 280 t/s | Decode 22.8 t/s - 250k Context: Prefill 115 t/s | Decode 20 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 180000 --port 8080 -b 1024 -ub 1024 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 Result: Q8 KV cache brings 250k context back from the dead. Decode speed stabilizes at a highly usable 20 t/s. You are trading a very small bit amount of reasoning precision for an extra 130,000 tokens of context window. if you own a single rtx 3050, 3060, 3070, 4050, 4060, 5050 or 5060, you must try this model and optimize your batch size for higher prefill. Hugging Face links to the updated Unsloth's QAT quants and performance graph are in the replies below. What model are you running on your 6GB, 8GB or 12GB cards right now? Let's see your setups.

Alok

36,617 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

$$50 free credits for GLM 5.2, KIMI 2.7, and DeepSeek V4 Pro. No promo most people know about. Your buddy pays $20/mo for Claude Pro and burns through it in a week. > You get $50 in credits on Aiand for models that actually beat Sonnet on code benchmarks - and the balance barely moves. Inside: → GLM 5.2 - the model that shipped with better coding scores than closed frontier → KIMI K2.7 Code - long-context beast, sits at the top of open leaderboards → DeepSeek V4 Pro - reasoning at a fraction of GPT-5.6 cost → OpenAI-compatible endpoint - plug into any agent, IDE, or tool you already run Setup, 5 steps: → aiand(.)com → Sign up with Google or GitHub → If the page won't load, switch to an EU VPN and retry → Top right corner - click Credits, select $50 → In Stripe checkout, apply promo code: UNITABETAI → $50 lands. Start firing prompts. Balance drains slowly. I've been running agents on it for days and barely dented it. The promo code is valid as of the time of publication Bookmark this before they cap the promo.$

$50 free credits for GLM 5.2, KIMI 2.7, and DeepSeek V4 Pro. No promo most people know about. Your buddy pays $20/mo for Claude Pro and burns through it in a week. > You get $50 in credits on Aiand for models that actually beat Sonnet on code benchmarks - and the balance barely moves. Inside: → GLM 5.2 - the model that shipped with better coding scores than closed frontier → KIMI K2.7 Code - long-context beast, sits at the top of open leaderboards → DeepSeek V4 Pro - reasoning at a fraction of GPT-5.6 cost → OpenAI-compatible endpoint - plug into any agent, IDE, or tool you already run Setup, 5 steps: → aiand(.)com → Sign up with Google or GitHub → If the page won't load, switch to an EU VPN and retry → Top right corner - click Credits, select $50 → In Stripe checkout, apply promo code: UNITABETAI → $50 lands. Start firing prompts. Balance drains slowly. I've been running agents on it for days and barely dented it. The promo code is valid as of the time of publication Bookmark this before they cap the promo.

Atenov int.

14,619 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 (Q2) - 12 tokens/sec - Single RTX 4090 - 650+ tokens/sec prefill - 250k context - no kv cache quantization! DeepSeek just dropped the official V4 Flash 0731 two days ago with a massive agent capabilities upgrade. The official benchmarks are literally crushing their own V4-Pro-Preview on agentic tasks like Terminal Bench 2.1 and DeepSWE. Unsloth AI said they couldn't wait to bring it to local devices, and they delivered. If you thought my 118B Poolside Laguna S 2.1 MoE run last week on a single GPU was wild, hold onto your hardware. I just successfully ran Unsloth’s brand new 91GB DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 (UD-IQ2_M) GGUF entirely locally. And I pushed it to a mind-bending 250,000 context window. The VRAM ceiling is an illusion if you know how to optimize llama.cpp. Here are the benchmarks and the cheat codes to run a local frontier class model yourself. For the hardware and setup, I used a single NVIDIA RTX 4090 (24GB VRAM) hooked up via a PCIe 4 bus, running Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and CUDA 13.0. You don't need a massive enterprise server for this, if you have more than 80 GB of standard DDR4 RAM and a 24GB card like an RTX 3090 or 4090, you can run this exact stack yourself. All benchmarks were run using a massive 28k token prompt to truly stress test the prefill limits. no kv cache quantization THE BENCHMARKS (Scaling Context): # 80k Context (Baseline: -b 2048 -ub 2048): Prefill: 465.43 t/s | Decode: 13.00 t/s | VRAM: 22.87 GB # 80k Context (Optimized: -b 4096 -ub 4096): Prefill: 643.15 t/s | Decode: 12.20 t/s | VRAM: 23.00 GB (Notice how doubling the batch flags spiked my prefill throughput by nearly 200 t/s with almost zero VRAM penalty) # 180k Context (-b 4096 -ub 4096): Prefill: 629.18 t/s | Decode: 11.92 t/s | VRAM: 23.40 GB # 250k Context MAXIMUM (-b 4096 -ub 4096): Prefill: 619.02 t/s | Decode: 11.54 t/s | VRAM: 23.40 GB # THE SECRET SAUCE (Why this works): Unsloth’s UD-IQ2_M quant is ~91GB across 3 files. Since I only have 24GB of VRAM, the PCIe 4 bus and system RAM have to do the heavy lifting. The magic bullet is the --no-mmap flag. By completely bypassing OS disk paging, I forced llama.cpp to load the massive model weights directly into the system RAM upfront. Combined with Flash Attention (-fa on) and exactly 12 CPU threads (--threads 12), I maintained an incredibly stable 11.5+ tokens/sec decode speed even at a quarter million token context. # THE EXACT COMMAND: ./build/bin/llama-server -m /workspace/models/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ2_M-00001-of-00003.gguf -c 250000 -fa on --port 8080 --threads 12 -b 4096 -ub 4096 --no-mmap -v Local conversational and agentic coding AI is fully here. You don’t need an API or an H100 cluster. Qwen 3.8 27b drops next week making the 24GB VRAM tier even more worthwhile. What does your current local AI rig look like, and what's the craziest model you've managed to squeeze into it? Official huggingface GGUF links from Unsloth and performance graphs are dropped in the replies below!

Alok

45,767 просмотров • 22 дней назад

$I nearly 2x'd the speed while only using +1GB VRAM with the new MTP update in llama.cpp 🤯 You need to add these flags to start using it: --spec-type draft-mtp \ --spec-draft-p-min 0.75 \ --spec-draft-n-max 2 My results with Qwen3.6 27B on a single RTX 5080 ↓ ⚪️ no flag (without mtp) → 54.3 tok/s with 13.26GB VRAM 🔵 --spec-draft-n-max 2 → 90.7 tok/s with 14.29GB VRAM 🔴 --spec-draft-n-max 2 --spec-draft-p-min 0.75 → 93.9 tok/s with 14.30GB VRAM 🟢 --spec-draft-n-max 6 --spec-draft-p-min 0.75 → 93.9 tok/s with 14.87GB VRAM Increasing to 6 draft tokens didn't help my setup for some reason. I made sure to test with a low context length to have enough headroom and eliminate risk of vram stress. From my understanding: 1) The speed gains are very task-dependent. You need to test across a wide range of tasks to get a realistic idea of the benefits 2) We’re already running heavily quantized GGUF models (Q3, Q4, Q6, etc.), so we already benefit from strong speed/performance thanks to the reduced size. That’s why some people are seeing little to no improvement compared to MLX or other quantized versions The progress over the past few days has been insane to say the least. However, MTP now consumes significantly more VRAM. Personally 16GB just isn't enough to use MTP and run it with a good context size. Time to upgrade lads, 24GB+ users are eating GOOD today 🔥 Full setup below ↓$

I nearly 2x'd the speed while only using +1GB VRAM with the new MTP update in llama.cpp 🤯 You need to add these flags to start using it: --spec-type draft-mtp \ --spec-draft-p-min 0.75 \ --spec-draft-n-max 2 My results with Qwen3.6 27B on a single RTX 5080 ↓ ⚪️ no flag (without mtp) → 54.3 tok/s with 13.26GB VRAM 🔵 --spec-draft-n-max 2 → 90.7 tok/s with 14.29GB VRAM 🔴 --spec-draft-n-max 2 --spec-draft-p-min 0.75 → 93.9 tok/s with 14.30GB VRAM 🟢 --spec-draft-n-max 6 --spec-draft-p-min 0.75 → 93.9 tok/s with 14.87GB VRAM Increasing to 6 draft tokens didn't help my setup for some reason. I made sure to test with a low context length to have enough headroom and eliminate risk of vram stress. From my understanding: 1) The speed gains are very task-dependent. You need to test across a wide range of tasks to get a realistic idea of the benefits 2) We’re already running heavily quantized GGUF models (Q3, Q4, Q6, etc.), so we already benefit from strong speed/performance thanks to the reduced size. That’s why some people are seeing little to no improvement compared to MLX or other quantized versions The progress over the past few days has been insane to say the least. However, MTP now consumes significantly more VRAM. Personally 16GB just isn't enough to use MTP and run it with a good context size. Time to upgrade lads, 24GB+ users are eating GOOD today 🔥 Full setup below ↓

left curve dev

30,086 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

People made fun of Alex Finn for buying three Mac Studios to run AI at home. Then Fable got banned for a week, GLM 5.2 dropped, and those exact Mac Studios started reselling for 4x what he paid. He showed me how he built his home AI lab from scratch. Here's the playbook: 1) The hardware. three 512GB Mac Studios, an NVIDIA DGX Spark, a custom RTX 5090 build, and a few Mac Minis. ~$30k all in. 2) The buying framework... - Mac Studio: huge memory, runs GLM 5.2 (open weights, near Opus 4.8 on benchmarks), but slow. - DGX Spark ($4,800): the sweet spot for most people. - RTX 5090: smaller models at blazing speed (Qwen's 29B now hits Sonnet 4 level). 3) Tailscale networks every machine into one private network with root access to each other. Only one machine is plugged into a monitor. 4) A Nous Research Hermes agent is his IT guy. New model drops? It SSHs into the right box, loads 5 candidates, runs evals overnight, and reports back which task belongs on which machine. Alex has literally never loaded a model himself. 5) The whole point: achieving "ambient intelligence." Always-on jobs that would bankrupt you on per-token billing. A security sweep of his API endpoints every hour. Code optimization every 20 minutes. Database anomaly & churn detection. Hourly scraping of X, Reddit & Hacker News for business opportunities. 6) Running those workloads on frontier models would cost thousands a month. His actual cost: ~$60 more in electricity. 7) Btw he's not anti-frontier. He still maxes out his Claude plan. The way he sees it: frontier is for hard thinking, local is for the foot soldiers that never sleep. 8) "We own everything except for the intelligence. Why can't we own the intelligence?" 9) He thinks frontier-level intelligence runs on consumer hardware within 6 months.

People made fun of Alex Finn for buying three Mac Studios to run AI at home. Then Fable got banned for a week, GLM 5.2 dropped, and those exact Mac Studios started reselling for 4x what he paid. He showed me how he built his home AI lab from scratch. Here's the playbook: 1) The hardware. three 512GB Mac Studios, an NVIDIA DGX Spark, a custom RTX 5090 build, and a few Mac Minis. ~$30k all in. 2) The buying framework... - Mac Studio: huge memory, runs GLM 5.2 (open weights, near Opus 4.8 on benchmarks), but slow. - DGX Spark ($4,800): the sweet spot for most people. - RTX 5090: smaller models at blazing speed (Qwen's 29B now hits Sonnet 4 level). 3) Tailscale networks every machine into one private network with root access to each other. Only one machine is plugged into a monitor. 4) A Nous Research Hermes agent is his IT guy. New model drops? It SSHs into the right box, loads 5 candidates, runs evals overnight, and reports back which task belongs on which machine. Alex has literally never loaded a model himself. 5) The whole point: achieving "ambient intelligence." Always-on jobs that would bankrupt you on per-token billing. A security sweep of his API endpoints every hour. Code optimization every 20 minutes. Database anomaly & churn detection. Hourly scraping of X, Reddit & Hacker News for business opportunities. 6) Running those workloads on frontier models would cost thousands a month. His actual cost: ~$60 more in electricity. 7) Btw he's not anti-frontier. He still maxes out his Claude plan. The way he sees it: frontier is for hard thinking, local is for the foot soldiers that never sleep. 8) "We own everything except for the intelligence. Why can't we own the intelligence?" 9) He thinks frontier-level intelligence runs on consumer hardware within 6 months.

Alex Lieberman

57,764 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Qwopus on a single RTX 3090. Claude Opus 4.6 reasoning distilled into Qwen 3.5 27B dense, running through Claude's own coding agent (claude code). 29-35 tok/s with thinking mode on. the jinja bug that kills thinking on base Qwen doesn't carry over. harness and model matched. the base model would pause mid task on Claude Code. just stop generating. that's why i ran it through OpenCode, which handles stalled states automatically. this distilled version doesn't stall. it waits for tool outputs, reads them, selfcorrects when something breaks, and keeps going. i gave it a benchmark analysis task. went 9 minutes autonomous. wrote a README nobody asked for. zero steering. video is 5x speed but fully uncut. if you have a 3090, you can run this right now. free. no API. no subscription. opus structured reasoning on localhost. octopus invaders is next. same prompt that base qwen passed in 13 minutes and hermes 4.3 failed on 2x the hardware. i want to see if the distillation changes the outcome or just the style. more data soon.

Qwopus on a single RTX 3090. Claude Opus 4.6 reasoning distilled into Qwen 3.5 27B dense, running through Claude's own coding agent (claude code). 29-35 tok/s with thinking mode on. the jinja bug that kills thinking on base Qwen doesn't carry over. harness and model matched. the base model would pause mid task on Claude Code. just stop generating. that's why i ran it through OpenCode, which handles stalled states automatically. this distilled version doesn't stall. it waits for tool outputs, reads them, selfcorrects when something breaks, and keeps going. i gave it a benchmark analysis task. went 9 minutes autonomous. wrote a README nobody asked for. zero steering. video is 5x speed but fully uncut. if you have a 3090, you can run this right now. free. no API. no subscription. opus structured reasoning on localhost. octopus invaders is next. same prompt that base qwen passed in 13 minutes and hermes 4.3 failed on 2x the hardware. i want to see if the distillation changes the outcome or just the style. more data soon.

Sudo su

295,349 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Run Updated Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) with Vision at 25 tokens/sec and massive 120k context window on a single RTX 4060 (8 GB VRAM + 16 GB RAM Only!!) Yesterday I pushed Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT to 250k context on a single RTX 4060 using nothing but Q8 KV cache and optimized -b and -ub flags for higher prefill throughput. Today I stacked Multi Token Prediction (MTP) self speculative decoding AND the vision projector (mmproj) on top of that same card, same batch size optimization, same $250 GPU and pushed it until it broke, then found the fix. All text only runs consist of a 28k prompt. vision runs consist of 28k text prompt + an image. # 1. MTP alone. near free decode speed, no catch MTP draft assistant is a separate small model (MTP heads are backed into the main model itself for the qwen 3.5+ models but its a separate small model for gemma 4 series), 240 MB gguf 80k ctx: Prefill 510 t/s | Decode 29.5 t/s 120k ctx: Prefill 433 t/s | Decode 29 t/s 180k ctx: Prefill 240 t/s | Decode 24.9 t/s 250k ctx: Prefill 63 t/s | Decode 13 t/s llama.cpp flags: m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf --spec-type draft-mtp -md mtp-gemma-4-26B-A4B-it.gguf-c 180000 -b 1024 -ub 1024 --spec-draft-n-max 6 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 # 2. Add vision on top. the tax you actually pay the vision projector gguf is about 1.1 GBs 80k ctx: Prefill 360 t/s | Decode 25.4 t/s 120k ctx: Prefill 230 t/s | Decode 23.8 t/s 180k ctx (Q8 KV): Prefill 75 t/s | Decode 12.5 t/s - cliff flags: -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf --spec-type draft-mtp -md mtp-gemma-4-26B-A4B-it.gguf -c 80000 --port 8080 -b 1024 -ub 1024 --spec-draft-n-max 6 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 --mmproj mmproj-F16.gguf # 3. The fix if you want to run vision over 120k context: swap Q8 KV for Q4 KV past 120k Stack MTP + vision + Q8 KV past 120k context and you hit a wall. draft model overhead plus KV pressure tanks everything. Drop to Q4 KV and the wall disappears: 180k ctx (Q4 KV): Prefill 220 t/s | Decode 25.5 t/s -ctk q4_0 -ctv q4_0 --mmproj mmproj-F16.gguf (rest same as above) Bottom line: MTP gives you a near free +20-30% decode boost up to 120k context. Past that, it's fighting your VRAM, not helping and if vision is loaded too, Q4 KV isn't optional past 120k, it's mandatory. 30% boost is model and card specific, MTP boosted decode 2x for gemma 4 31b on a single rtx 4090. Same 8GB card. Same $250 GPU. Multimodal, speculative decoding, 180k usable context, zero upgrades. You gotta try this if you have a single NVIDIA RTX 3050, 3060, 3070, 4050, 4060, 5050 or 5060. You can try it with a 6 GB VRAM card as well but you will have to lower the context window. Hugging Face links to the updated Unsloth's QAT quants and performance graph are in the replies below. Which models are you running on your 6/8/12GB cards with MTP?

Run Updated Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) with Vision at 25 tokens/sec and massive 120k context window on a single RTX 4060 (8 GB VRAM + 16 GB RAM Only!!) Yesterday I pushed Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT to 250k context on a single RTX 4060 using nothing but Q8 KV cache and optimized -b and -ub flags for higher prefill throughput. Today I stacked Multi Token Prediction (MTP) self speculative decoding AND the vision projector (mmproj) on top of that same card, same batch size optimization, same $250 GPU and pushed it until it broke, then found the fix. All text only runs consist of a 28k prompt. vision runs consist of 28k text prompt + an image. # 1. MTP alone. near free decode speed, no catch MTP draft assistant is a separate small model (MTP heads are backed into the main model itself for the qwen 3.5+ models but its a separate small model for gemma 4 series), 240 MB gguf 80k ctx: Prefill 510 t/s | Decode 29.5 t/s 120k ctx: Prefill 433 t/s | Decode 29 t/s 180k ctx: Prefill 240 t/s | Decode 24.9 t/s 250k ctx: Prefill 63 t/s | Decode 13 t/s llama.cpp flags: m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf --spec-type draft-mtp -md mtp-gemma-4-26B-A4B-it.gguf-c 180000 -b 1024 -ub 1024 --spec-draft-n-max 6 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 # 2. Add vision on top. the tax you actually pay the vision projector gguf is about 1.1 GBs 80k ctx: Prefill 360 t/s | Decode 25.4 t/s 120k ctx: Prefill 230 t/s | Decode 23.8 t/s 180k ctx (Q8 KV): Prefill 75 t/s | Decode 12.5 t/s - cliff flags: -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf --spec-type draft-mtp -md mtp-gemma-4-26B-A4B-it.gguf -c 80000 --port 8080 -b 1024 -ub 1024 --spec-draft-n-max 6 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 --mmproj mmproj-F16.gguf # 3. The fix if you want to run vision over 120k context: swap Q8 KV for Q4 KV past 120k Stack MTP + vision + Q8 KV past 120k context and you hit a wall. draft model overhead plus KV pressure tanks everything. Drop to Q4 KV and the wall disappears: 180k ctx (Q4 KV): Prefill 220 t/s | Decode 25.5 t/s -ctk q4_0 -ctv q4_0 --mmproj mmproj-F16.gguf (rest same as above) Bottom line: MTP gives you a near free +20-30% decode boost up to 120k context. Past that, it's fighting your VRAM, not helping and if vision is loaded too, Q4 KV isn't optional past 120k, it's mandatory. 30% boost is model and card specific, MTP boosted decode 2x for gemma 4 31b on a single rtx 4090. Same 8GB card. Same $250 GPU. Multimodal, speculative decoding, 180k usable context, zero upgrades. You gotta try this if you have a single NVIDIA RTX 3050, 3060, 3070, 4050, 4060, 5050 or 5060. You can try it with a 6 GB VRAM card as well but you will have to lower the context window. Hugging Face links to the updated Unsloth's QAT quants and performance graph are in the replies below. Which models are you running on your 6/8/12GB cards with MTP?

Alok

16,266 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

HERMES AGENT SUPPORTS 300+ MODELS. PICKING THE RIGHT ONE PER TASK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $5/MONTH AND $50. STARTING OUT: Claude Sonnet 4.6. official recommendation from Nous Research. "the model this project was built and tested with." strong reasoning. reliable tool calling. mid-range pricing. PREMIUM TIER: Claude Opus 4.8. best coding benchmarks available. self-correcting reasoning. catches its own mistakes. 1M context. use for demanding tasks where quality matters. GPT-5.5. #1 Chatbot Arena. #1 GPQA Diamond reasoning (94.1%). #1 creative writing. 2M context. handles entire codebases in one pass. Grok 4.30. the only frontier model with live X firehose access. real-time social data, breaking news, market sentiment. connects via Grok OAuth. no separate API key. Grok-Composer-2.5-Fast (v0.17.0). Cursor's coding model. 200K context. available through your Grok subscription via OAuth. no extra cost if you already pay for Grok. MID-RANGE TIER: Claude Sonnet 4.6. best balance of quality and cost for daily use. strongest prose and tool calling in this tier. Gemini 2.5 Pro. Google Search grounding built in. cites sources. verifies claims. pulls current data. 2M context. best for research-heavy workflows. GPT-4.1. reliable tool calling. solid general reasoning. good middle ground when you need OpenAI compatibility. BUDGET TIER: Claude Haiku 4.5. fastest Anthropic model. cheapest paid Claude option. strong at classification, routing, simple queries. use for auxiliary tasks: compression, vision, web extraction, approval scoring. DeepSeek V4. best cost-to-quality ratio in the market. 90% cache discount on repeated context. use for sub-agents and bulk parallel work. DeepSeek V4 Flash. cheapest paid model worth using. 1M context. MIT license. self-hostable. use for cron jobs, monitoring, routine searches. MiniMax M3. Nous Research and MiniMax collaborating on optimization. 1M context via lightning attention. 59% SWE-Bench Pro. beats several premium models on coding. one of the most-used models inside Hermes. FREE / LOCAL: Qwen 3.5 27B via Ollama. 16GB VRAM. reliable tool calling. best free local model for Hermes as of mid-2026. Qwen 3 8B. 8GB VRAM. fits a $7 VPS. handles routine tasks at zero API cost. Llama 4 Maverick. best open-weight tool calling. 1M context. needs more VRAM but strongest local option. HOW TO ASSIGN MODELS: main model: Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → switch sub-agent model: set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: delegation: model: "deepseek/deepseek-v4" auxiliary models (compression, vision, web extract): Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → Auxiliary Haiku 4.5 or Gemini Flash work well here. saves significantly when your main model is premium. per-profile: each Hermes profile gets its own model. Scout on DeepSeek. Analyst on Sonnet. Briefer on budget model. Coder on Opus. per-cron-job: pin a specific model to any cron job. morning brief on Haiku. deep research on Sonnet. monitoring on DeepSeek Flash. each job uses only the model it needs. per-session: /model deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash hot-swap mid-conversation. no restart needed. FALLBACK CHAINS: if your primary model is unavailable, Hermes automatically switches to the next provider. rate limit or server error = next model in the chain. no failed runs. no manual intervention. set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: fallback_providers: - openrouter - nous - codex PROVIDER PATHS: OPENROUTER: 300+ models under one API key. pay per token. most flexible. NOUS PORTAL: 300+ models + Tool Gateway (web search, image gen, TTS, browser). one OAuth. one subscription. 10% off token-billed providers. CHATGPT SUB: GPT-5.5 + Grok via OAuth. included tokens with $20 subscription. OLLAMA: free. local. private. zero API cost. your hardware only. mix providers across profiles and tasks. Scout on OpenRouter. Analyst on Nous Portal. Coder on ChatGPT sub. Monitor on Ollama. THE RULE: premium for work that needs deep reasoning. mid-range for daily driver tasks. budget for volume and background work. free for monitoring and routine jobs. pricing changes fast. check openrouter ai for current rates before committing. Which is your favourite model and for what task? full 15 levels breakdown in the article 👇

YanXbt

17,138 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

here's what i vibecoded today: punchingface 🥊 an app to make Hugging Face models fight each other on coding and canvas challenges, built with qwen3.6 35b a3b in 24 hours! benchmarks numbers don't mean anything anymore, we need a way to visualize what the models are actually capable of, and canvas are one the best way to showcase it imo. why? because one single error in the code and everything breaks it shows the differences in a matter of seconds, way easier than manually reviewing the quality of the code produced for a complex project; much needed in the space with all the new finetunes dropping everyday! i did a little demo here with qwen3.6 vs qwopus glm 18b merged, the frankenstein model from Kyle Hessling the winner is clear here, qwen is crazy good and has nothing to prove. that said, qwopus 18b isn't terrible at all; the result isn’t the prettiest to the eye, but hey… it works! i've seen so many models just output a blank page (completely non-working code) so this is already a win frankenstein talks and thinks but he needs some extra brain surgery 🧠 results were expected (it's a very experimental model) but love the effort in the 18b direction from jackrong and kyle! the app was entirely vibecoded with qwen3.6, i didn't edit a single file manually. i can say with confidence that it really has the intelligence of claude sonnet 4.5 at a speed of 125tok/s on an rtx 5080 which models should i make fight next?

here's what i vibecoded today: punchingface 🥊 an app to make Hugging Face models fight each other on coding and canvas challenges, built with qwen3.6 35b a3b in 24 hours! benchmarks numbers don't mean anything anymore, we need a way to visualize what the models are actually capable of, and canvas are one the best way to showcase it imo. why? because one single error in the code and everything breaks it shows the differences in a matter of seconds, way easier than manually reviewing the quality of the code produced for a complex project; much needed in the space with all the new finetunes dropping everyday! i did a little demo here with qwen3.6 vs qwopus glm 18b merged, the frankenstein model from Kyle Hessling the winner is clear here, qwen is crazy good and has nothing to prove. that said, qwopus 18b isn't terrible at all; the result isn’t the prettiest to the eye, but hey… it works! i've seen so many models just output a blank page (completely non-working code) so this is already a win frankenstein talks and thinks but he needs some extra brain surgery 🧠 results were expected (it's a very experimental model) but love the effort in the 18b direction from jackrong and kyle! the app was entirely vibecoded with qwen3.6, i didn't edit a single file manually. i can say with confidence that it really has the intelligence of claude sonnet 4.5 at a speed of 125tok/s on an rtx 5080 which models should i make fight next?

left curve dev

19,153 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад