Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
prefix caching in llama.cpp: worth it?
#11
A couple questions before I guess too hard. What model, what runtime, and roughly what context size?
Reply
#12
Quote:A couple questions before I guess too hard. What model, what runtime, and roughly what context size?

That matches what I was seeing. I don't think your conclusion is far off.
Reply
#13
What worked for me was pretty simple. Before rebuilding anything, I'd test one clean baseline with Llama and compare from there. Not glamorous advice, but repeatable baselines save a lot of time.
7900 XTX / ROCm / somehow still optimistic
Reply
#14
A couple things I'd check first. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at small local stacks. A lot of these threads end up being one bad config plus a pile of conclusions drawn from it.
Reply
#15
Ran a quick check on my box. My result was mixed: first run looked bad, second run looked normal. The main thing that moved was latency, not quality.
2x3090 • llama.cpp • too much VRAM is still not enough
Reply
#16
My first guess would be this: Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at long context. Not glamorous advice, but repeatable baselines save a lot of time.
Apple Silicon • MLX mostly
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)