Posts: 123
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
Spent some time on this today and wanted to compare notes.
Two paths both seem viable, but they break down differently once continuous batching becomes important.
Trying to avoid rebuilding the whole thing twice.
post logs or it didn't happen
Posts: 36
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2026
Reputation:
0
Tried to reproduce it just now. My result was mixed: first run looked bad, second run looked normal. I expected the model choice to matter more than it did.
still benchmarking everything
Posts: 70
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Need a little more detail here. What model, what runtime, and roughly what context size?
Posts: 62
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
I'd approach it in a boring order. Before rebuilding anything, I'd test one clean baseline with Phi and compare from there.
Posts: 341
Threads: 51
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
that fixed it for me too.
measure twice, benchmark three times
Posts: 199
Threads: 27
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
Good point. The pattern around quant drift has been pretty similar for me.
M3 Max • MLX • local-first
Posts: 70
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Good point. I ended up in about the same place using llama.cpp. I got better results once I stopped chasing one metric and just looked at whether the workflow felt usable.