131 pointsby jonesy8274 hours ago12 comments
  • Alephinitesimal10 minutes ago
    I mostly use local models when the data has personal information. Earlier this year, I felt the coding quality was still not as good as Claude Code.

    One thing that works for me is to ask the local model to make some fake data with the same format, let Claude Code work on the fake data, and then bring the code back and run it locally on the real data.

    This way the real data never leaves my machine, but I can still use a stronger model for most of the coding.

  • xlayn3 hours ago
    Hey Unsloth, your gguf are the first ones I look for when I want to download a gguf model. Today I was trying in fact to see, what's the smallest Qwen3.8-27B that I could run and get good results, say restricting it to 16GB of ram.. so I went, pick up the Qwen3.8-27B-UD-IQ2_XXS.gguf and them BAM, error on MTP... now I understand why after reading your announcement. Beyond the space saving, why removing the MTP? improves speed exactly for the group that could benefit from it.
    • gruturoan hour ago
      The reason for running those insanely low quants is to fit in extremely limited memory budgets. The first thing you sacrifice is speed, then context and accuracy (up to you in which order). IQ2_XXS and below is desperate/proof of concept territory. If you have a spare half gig for the MTP drafter, run a larger quant instead, it will be less incoherent, and damn the speed, it won't be garbage at least. Only around Q4 I'd allocate the comparative luxury of more memory for a speed increase. At least on a dense model. MTP makes a lot more sense (but helps statistically a bit less) on an MoE.

      Qwaiting for that 3.8-35B-A3B

    • mike-the-brain3 hours ago
      you can still have it, no?

      > We also removed the MTP module from smaller quants under UD-Q2_K_XL (8.37GB and lower) to converse around 500MB of disk space - you can use the Q4_0 MTP separate module if needed

      • xlayn2 hours ago
        my bad, you are totally right, thanks!
  • johndoughan hour ago
    Are there benchmarks for the various Qwen3.8-27B quants that actually measure writing code, maybe even with multiple steps? Low KL divergence does not mean much when the model gets stuck in doom loops all the time.

    I could of course download and test myself, but that would take days with my internet connection.

    • InvertedRhodiuman hour ago
      I tested Qwen 3.8 on the Blade CTF last night, it took 3 hours but got the correct answer.

      I know that didn’t answer your question but I was looking for a test suite and couldn’t find anything.

      After reading the logs, there is far less doom looping than with 3.6, but whether that’s a one off or not is up for debate.

      Q4_K_P

      • Balinares28 minutes ago
        I anecdotally observed the same.

        Interestingly, it also seems to tend toward self-correcting, which makes lower quantizations borderline usable. There'll be more faffing around, but still converging toward a solution. I wonder if that's a deliberate product of its RL.

  • mike-the-brain3 hours ago
    Might be off-topic but: is it possible to perform such a quantization on Apple devices? Something like Mac Studio Ultra M1 (even if it would take weeks/months)?
    • kristjansson7 minutes ago
      Just quantizing takes seconds-to-minutes, llama.cpp provides a nice tool[0]. Improving quality is then a matter of picking specific tensors to maintain at higher accuracy, checking on representative data, and repeating.

      [0]: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/tools/quan...

    • smcleod2 hours ago
      Unsloth use a property dataset they don't release, however you can indeed create quantisation locally on your machine and it's pretty easy, llama.cpp comes with everything you need.
    • verdverm8 minutes ago
      Quantization is typically very cheap and fast. It can even be done on hardware that does not fit the model, by processing the weights layer by layer.

      I use this project: https://github.com/vllm-project/llm-compressor

  • throwa3562623 hours ago

       "We also made some smaller UD-1bit quants with UD-IQ1_S being 6.2GB (without MTP) which retain around 72% top-1% accuracy yet being 89% smaller"
    
    
    This is crazy! But has anyone tried these lower quants on real projects?
    • kennywinker3 hours ago
      Not 1-bit, but I’m getting pretty good results with some light coding using unsloth’s previous 2-bit quant of qwen3.8-27b. With these new quants i may be able to bump up to 3bit, tho it’s already running so slow (15tok/s average for the first 32k of context) that the speed hit might make it not worth the extra smarts
  • jadbox3 hours ago
    The new IQ4XS has been working pretty well so far on 4090 16gb.
    • kamranjon2 hours ago
      What size context are you able to squeeze in with less than 2gb of headroom? I have had some luck using a quantized kv cache but i fear that also decreases overall quality.
  • QuantumNomad_2 hours ago
    Is it possible to use a model that needs around 64 GB VRAM if you have four GPUs with 16 GB VRAM each?
    • gruturoan hour ago
      Yes, and if you have the PCIe lanes (say, an x16 lane - actually delivering 16 lanes! - to each GPU) it's also quite performant - it's called a tensor split in llama-server.

      If your motherboard/cpu doesn't actually have those (few do outside some xeons, epycs and threadrippers) you can still do it - it's called a layer split and will work even with 1 lane per GPU. Each GPU will work at its maximum speed, but only 1 will be active at any given instant - imagine a relay race.

      (Didn't mention which PCIe generation - obviously the higher the better. At v4 and up, even 8 lanes per GPU would be enough for a performant tensor 4-way split)

      Edit: If you have more than 1 user at a time, the GPU can actually all be working all the time, if there are enough parallel requests to serve. But you need enough KV cache for all the sessions you're running in parallel.

    • strictnein8 minutes ago
      Yes, you can. Ideally though, you want to minimize the number of cards and maximize the amount of memory in each card.

      Using multiple cards is one of the things that the models and software that Unsloth releases does really well in terms of ease of use and relatively good performance.

    • xlayn2 hours ago
      I do use 2 amd gpus and I get high 40 for generation, 500 for pp and low 20/100 by the end of the context of 256k.

      llama-server --host 0.0.0.0 --port 8089 -m Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q8_u.gguf --spec-type draft-mtp,ngram-mod --spec-draft-n-max 3 --spec-draft-n-min 1

      if you have an igpu and want to exclude or just use some gpus you can use

      --device Vulkan3,Vulkan2,Vulkan1

      in my case vulkan because of amd, you can see your devices with

      llama-server2 --list-devices

      Available devices: Vulkan0: AMD Radeon Graphics (RADV RAPHAEL_MENDOCINO) (33515 MiB, 29349 MiB free) Vulkan1: AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (RADV NAVI31) (24560 MiB, 4911 MiB free) Vulkan2: AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (RADV NAVI31) (24560 MiB, 7681 MiB free)

    • sharmajai2 hours ago
      I am getting 14 t/s on my 16 GB card at full context with the UD-Q3_K_XL quant. Model link: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF.
      • Balinares26 minutes ago
        Wow, interesting. What KV cache quantization do you use?
    • charcircuit2 hours ago
      Of course. Models don't actually require VRAM. Nor do they require regular RAM. You could have 1 GB of RAM and swap the model to disk as you need different parts of it. And if you didn't have enough disks you could access weights via a network connection.
      • leoooodiasan hour ago
        You don’t even need electricity. You could print the model weights onto millions of sheets of paper, and hire a team of carrier pigeons to fly them into your office one by one. No VRAM!
    • segbrk2 hours ago
      Yes, but unless they support NVLink (they don't), it's quite slow.
  • tetsuo4202 hours ago
    It seems the NVFP4 quants have a preview version of this Unsloth Dynamic 3.0. Is this close to the finished version, or would it be better to switch to one of the newer quants?
  • josh-wralean hour ago
    Sidebar: single threaded inference isn’t good enough anymore
    • sosodevan hour ago
      What about do you mean by single threaded? Each token is predicted by using parallel computation on the GPU.
      • josh-wrale37 minutes ago
        Multiple agents need tokens. Should optimize for that instead of one agent blocking the others.
  • acuozzoan hour ago
    Can this help tiny models like Qwen3.5-0.8B?
  • spwa42 hours ago
    No MLX versions for 3.8 though.
  • lostmsu2 hours ago
    Cool. Now run TerminalHard and compare to unquantized 27B.

    KLD of 1%, or similar error metric that multiplies, on 10000 tokens would give accumulated error of 2,000,000%

    • sosodevan hour ago
      That's not how that works. Selecting a different token is not inherently erroneous. A correct solution can still be found despite divergence.
    • maxbondan hour ago
      I don't think you can extrapolate that measurement across multiple sequential draws like that. We presumably are comparing against a single trajectory rather than a tree of trajectories. So once we make the wrong choice and step off of the blessed path, we have no way to assign a ranking to the next token; it's error is undefined.

      I've seen LLMs self correct in chains of thought ("because of foo and bar, I need to... Wait, bar is not true, so that won't work") so I have to imagine this is a massive overestimate, errors do not necessarily compound.