Posts: 48
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Spent some time on this today and wanted to compare notes.
I'm comparing two approaches here: keep it simple on dual 3090, or squeeze more out of the stack and deal with the complexity.
Interested in tradeoffs more than fan loyalty.
My use case is pretty ordinary: local chat, some document work, and occasional batch jobs.
Posts: 49
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Ran a quick check on my box. On A6000 with PyTorch, I saw basically the same behavior. I expected the model choice to matter more than it did.
Posts: 168
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
Interesting, I hadn't tried that. That matches what I saw on B200. I got better results once I stopped chasing one metric and just looked at whether the workflow felt usable.
2x3090 • llama.cpp • too much VRAM is still not enough
Posts: 68
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
Maybe, but I had the opposite result. I wouldn't optimize around that first. On my side the bigger swing came from the runtime and not the model. Worth testing the simpler explanation before adopting the more interesting one.
Posts: 63
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
I'd approach it in a boring order. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at structured output. Not glamorous advice, but repeatable baselines save a lot of time.
Posts: 37
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Interesting, I hadn't tried that. I don't think your conclusion is far off.
Posts: 73
Threads: 5
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
A couple things I'd check first. Before rebuilding anything, I'd test one clean baseline with FLUX and compare from there.