+- Inference (https://www.datasculpting.ai/inference)
+-- Forum: LLM Models (https://www.datasculpting.ai/inference/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: Proprietary / Frontier (https://www.datasculpting.ai/inference/forumdisplay.php?fid=48)
+--- Thread: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp (/showthread.php?tid=747)
Pages:
1
2
70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - quantsupply - 10-05-2026
Posting this in case it saves someone else a little time.
If you were starting from scratch today for this use case, what would you choose first and what would you ignore?
I'm especially interested in mistakes worth avoiding.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - vramarch - 10-05-2026
worth checking the driver first.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - orbitgarden - 10-05-2026
That matches what I was seeing. I don't think your conclusion is far off.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - latentscope35 - 10-05-2026
What worked for me was pretty simple. If you're on TensorRT-LLM, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious. Not glamorous advice, but repeatable baselines save a lot of time.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - oxideworks59 - 10-05-2026
Quote:What worked for me was pretty simple. If you're on TensorRT-LLM, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious
That matches what I was seeing. That matches what I saw on mini PC. Worth rechecking your defaults though, because one bad assumption can make the rest of the thread look confusing.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - modgarden - 10-05-2026
I'd approach it in a boring order. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at INT4. Not glamorous advice, but repeatable baselines save a lot of time.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - oxidegrove40 - 10-05-2026
Quote:I'd approach it in a boring order. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at INT4. Not glamorous advi
Interesting, I hadn't tried that. The pattern around MoE serving has been pretty similar for me. I got better results once I stopped chasing one metric and just looked at whether the workflow felt usable.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - pixelspark - 10-08-2026
Quote:[quote]I'd approach it in a boring order. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at INT4. Not glamoro
Thanks, that helps. I ended up in about the same place using LM Studio. The biggest change for me was simplifying the stack instead of adding one more optimization layer.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - stackpilot - 10-09-2026
Quote:[quote][quote]I'd approach it in a boring order. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at INT4. Not
What worked for me was pretty simple. If you're on LM Studio, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious. Not glamorous advice, but repeatable baselines save a lot of time. At this point the real bottleneck is my patience.
Re: 70B still worth the pain with llama.cpp - edgekite - 10-10-2026
That matches what I was seeing. I ended up in about the same place using llama.cpp.