Posts: 40
Threads: 9
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
Did a bit of testing and thought I'd post the result here.
Short version: vLLM behaved well for me, but only after I stopped ignoring NVFP4.
Nothing scientific here, just practical notes from a real setup.
Posts: 44
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2026
Reputation:
0
same here on my side.
small models can still be good
Posts: 193
Threads: 27
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Quote:same here on my side.
Maybe, but I had the opposite result. I get why that seems right, but on A6000 the bottleneck felt elsewhere. Worth testing the simpler explanation before adopting the more interesting one.
routing beats arguing over one perfect model
Posts: 46
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
Good point. I don't think your conclusion is far off. The biggest change for me was simplifying the stack instead of adding one more optimization layer.
Posts: 34
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Appreciate the detail. That matches what I saw on Threadripper box.
small models can still be good
Posts: 42
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2026
Reputation:
0
Need a little more detail here. Are you testing this on 4090 or something else?
curious and caffeinated
Posts: 60
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
A couple things I'd check first. Before rebuilding anything, I'd test one clean baseline with Phi and compare from there.
Posts: 42
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2026
Reputation:
0
My first guess would be this: If you're on llama.cpp, 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.
curious and caffeinated
Posts: 193
Threads: 27
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
subscribed, curious where this lands.
routing beats arguing over one perfect model