89 pointsby joshcsimmons5 hours ago10 comments
  • lastdong4 minutes ago
    Strata, Project Maya, the FP8 3x speedup on memory-bound workloads on Ampere cards and now llama-mod chip. I’m amazed with all these optimisations and thinking outside the box. Well done, don’t stop!
  • antirez2 hours ago
    To put this on perspective, consider that with 128GB of unified RAM it can run even fast: https://x.com/antirez/status/2119392658661749175 Like, coding-agent acceptably fast. See later in the reply for the prefill at ~300 t/s but can go even faster for larger prefills.
    • sureglymop18 minutes ago
      This seems great. I have 128GB of unified RAM and a AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 that I can use but I feel I'm still not using it as well as I could...

      The main/best setup I have running so far is qwen flash next with halogen-server.

      But if anyone knows if and how one can run even more impressive stuff, please let me know!

    • embedding-shapean hour ago
      That video seems to show it takes ~4 seconds to process 43 input tokens. Considering the amount of tokens coding-agents chew through, even when just exploring and not even implementing anything, feels far away from "acceptably fast". Say one file is 500 tokens (small file), it'd take ~a minute just to process it?

      You mention "See later in the reply for the prefill at ~300 t/s" but I didn't see that in the video nor in any of the Twitter replies, could you link where that is supposed to be happening? Is that warm context perchance?

      • cyanydeezan hour ago
        all my local models do just fine (128GB Strix Halo, 72GB Blackwell) loading data. I'm not sure you were sold the right bill of goods for "agentic" work. I keep these things busy via mind power for a few hours, then get exhausted.

        So I implenented a task queue so when I do have all the ideas, I can just set them to work, and "chew" through the work.

        I get that you can concievably get 100 agents to do something interesting, but 99% of my work doesn't seem to need to divine naiver stokes.

        Other than that, you might just have a skill issue if you rely so heavily of spinning up a bunch of agents to tell you what the next TODO item is.

  • armcat2 hours ago
    Something to keep in mind with aggressive quantisation, is that it's been empirically proven [1] that (1) quantisation has non-linear performance behaviour, and (2) generally the peak size-to-performance ratio occurs at 4-bit; anything lower and you will see significant reduction in performance.

    Also, I've been playing with speech models for the past 2 years, and for me anything below 8-bit is a huge drop in quality; so quantisation for LLMs and for other bespoke modality models, is not 1:1.

    [1] "Reliability Scaling Laws for Quantized Large Language Models", TUM, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.10855

    • Youdenan hour ago
      I think your leading statement is a bit more authoritative than what the linked paper actually demonstrates. It demonstrates your claimed qualities for specific algorithms, methodologies, and models.

      It explicitly says that Quantization-Aware Training is out of scope, may reveal different trends and has potential for extreme quantization. Heavily-quantized model releases today generally use QAT or something similar, so I don't think the paper can be universally applied to modern quants (e.g. [0]).

      That said, I don't see any evidence that TFA does any of that so the paper's claims may be quite applicable there.

      [0]: https://huggingface.co/vcruz305/DSV4.1-Flash-1017-SAGE-REXL3...

    • onlyrealcuzzo2 hours ago
      I imagine that it's just the non-linearity of audio makes it easily apparent how much quantization really matters, and that benchmaxxing is so ingrained in LLMs that if you simply run them through benchmarks, they can do well under quantization, when in reality, they have a similar drop off that they do in audio, it just doesn't slam you in the face at every turn as obviously.
  • akie3 hours ago
    At which quantization? That's the only thing I want to know.

    EDIT: I think it's 2 bit? If so, would be curious to see the quality of the output. Not great, I think.

    • madduci3 hours ago
      Everything lower than 4/5 is really bad
      • latentseaan hour ago
        This mentality is really pervasive and yet I've found when a lower than 4-bit quant of a given model was all I could use, then using that was often better than using a 4-bit quant of a model that I could. YMMV. It just really made me rethink my stance on the whole thing. Most people likely see something like 2-bit and just feel like the want to puke without ever actually learning whether or not it can handle their tasks and how well relative to other models they run. I've been running Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at Q4, but was crazy surprised at the performance of Unsloth's IQ1_M of DeepSeek v4.1 Flash.
      • smallerize3 hours ago
        Well it's bad compared to the original model, but is it bad compared to what else you could run in 64 GB?
        • serf2 hours ago
          probably; 32-64 is the range where local models get extraordinarily useful, and in my experience any sub-4 quants get ridiculously incoherent, which is why those models tend to try to 'wow' people with tok/s rather than benchmarks.

          haven't tried it yet though.

          • cyanydeezan hour ago
            Qwen3.8-Flash-Next fits in 80GB on strix halo. That's when I started real "vibe" coding with them. Speed is still an issue if I want to move fast and break things, but I've built a little universe for development (I assume many people have also) and it's cruising.

            But yeah, 32-64 is the gateway I think. If Qwen4 can make a leap in the flast-next MoE and hit 64 GB on VRAM w/context, that's definitely the cloud killer to me.

        • Tepix2 hours ago
          I’m wondering myself: Do bigger models suffer less from quantization? Are there papers?
          • ricardobeat2 hours ago
            They seem to degrade a lot less.

            You don't need papers, good quants are usually published with benchmark data, for example: https://huggingface.co/ISTA-DASLab/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017-... which maintains parity with FP8 even at 2 bit.

            • alfiedotwtfan hour ago
              Always check the label and if pain persists, see your doctor!

              The ISTA accuracy looks good on that page, but it's only a chosen handful. Instead, look at most of the graphs on Unsloth's Qwen 3.8 Flash Next - https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3.8-next

              As always, check the quant vs KLD graphs (half way down that page).. I found that not all quants are the same - Unsloth's GLM Q4 -> Q3 degrades a lot faster than their Minimax M3.1 Q4 -> Q3 ggufs.

        • pitchlatte2 hours ago
          you can get a lot done with models well under that - the google and qwen 20-30B class models are fantastic
      • LeBit2 hours ago
        This but also the kv quantization shouldn’t be lower than 8 bits.
      • mt_2 hours ago
        Next frontier is achieving good output with that kind of quant dimension
      • ranger_danger40 minutes ago
        There are solutions for that: https://prismml.com/news/bonsai-2-27b

        (and before you crap on it, this is not the same as the original Bonsai, this newer one is much better, and upstream support in llama.cpp etc. is being worked on)

    • adrian172 hours ago
      I’m confused too and the slop readme doesn’t help at all.

      > Shrinks DeepSeek-V4-Flash from 76.87 GiB (which crashes in OOM on 64 GB Linux) down to 56.56 GiB

      And later

      > Standard IQ2_XXS (76.87 GiB, Unpatched)

      Except unsloth’s IQ2_XXS GGUF is 91GB, even their smallest IQ1_S is 82.5GB. So I wonder which model/quant the number even refers to.

      Also the mentions of “compression” and “MoE pruning” also make it sound lobotomized even more than unsloth’s IQ1 quants.

    • Tepix2 hours ago
      This 100%

      Reddit is flooded with these breathless headlines “xyz tokens/s on my light switch”. It’s always quantizations below 4 bits per weight. Mostly useless.

  • superkickstartan hour ago
    I wish people would clean up the ai spammed emoji from the github readme. The readability is just horrible.
    • micromacrofoot36 minutes ago
      you're supposed to have your LLM summarize it
  • walrus012 hours ago
    I very recently spent a lot of time using deepseek v4 flash 0731 before it was superseded by newer more capable things (glm 5.3-flash, v4.1 flash 1017, etc) and I am exceedingly skeptical of anyone that claims to get good QUALITY results out of it at that size. Whatever they're doing to shrink it will make it worse than an unsloth Q2XS quantization of it or equivalent. That size of model needs something like 150GB of RAM to run properly with full unquantized kv cache and not with a ton of training data discarded.

    I remain exceedingly skeptical of people who are claiming to run fairly large models in ridiculously tiny sizes. For comparison a 'regular' version of v4 flash 0731 has file sizes more like this: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-GGUF

    Even the 97GB Q2XS will show very significant divergence from the full precision thing. Running a lobotomized model just to say you're doing it is really not accomplishing anything special.

  • spwa4an hour ago
    Anyone else finding these AI generated pages really hard to read?
  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • intoXbox3 hours ago
    This is quite an obnoxious Readme.md with AI slop. It wraps around llama.cpp but without seeing what platform assumptions it makes its unclear for other readers whether this is worth testing.
  • outfinity3 hours ago
    It is 2 bit? anybody tested this? is any good?
    • efficax2 hours ago
      yeah 2 bit quantization, so probably not that great for actual work