Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
comparing models without fooling yourself with PyTorch
#11
What exact setup are you running? Do you see the same thing with a smaller batch or shorter prompt?
Reply
#12
Quote:What exact setup are you running? Do you see the same thing with a smaller batch or shorter prompt?

A couple things I'd check first. If you're on PyTorch, 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.
measure twice, benchmark three times
Reply
#13
Thanks, that helps. That matches what I saw on Threadripper box. Worth rechecking your defaults though, because one bad assumption can make the rest of the thread look confusing.
learning in public
Reply
#14
Good point. I don't think your conclusion is far off. I got better results once I stopped chasing one metric and just looked at whether the workflow felt usable.
small models can still be good
Reply
#15
I tested this tonight. My result was mixed: first run looked bad, second run looked normal. I expected the model choice to matter more than it did.

If you post your exact settings, people here can probably narrow it down pretty fast.
throughput matters, but tail latency matters too
Reply
#16
Quote:I tested this tonight. My result was mixed: first run looked bad, second run looked normal. I expected the model choice to matter more than it did.

What exact setup are you running? What model, what runtime, and roughly what context size?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)