Comment by jkingsman

5 hours ago

What kind of throughput do you see on what models?

GB10 boxes have way more compute than they have memory bandwidth, which nicely fits medium sized MoE models with speculative execution (MTP, DSpark/DFlash, etc)

Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (what I'm running basically entirely now) sees 30 / 35.0 / 45 tk/s for prose, analysis and code respectively for actual use (not short context benchmarking) with Pi. Thinking blocks are ~35tk/s or so.

The GB10 having so much compute is great for prefill too, 2000-3000/s for 14k to 64k token prompts (cold cache too) in the quick benchmark I did. 3500tk/s for warm cache which is nice :)

When I accidentally streamed my ngrams over the 2.5Gb/s network, it cut all the throughput down in half basically. Especially notable for the time-to-first-token, which is what clued me in that I'd messed up somehow!

For Qwen 3.8 27B, I got it up to a consistent 20tk-25tk/s but 27B thinks so much that it was honestly too painful: Flash Next is as smart, as useful, but much faster for real agentic dev usage IMO

Laguna S 2.1 saw similar numbers to Flash Next if I remember right, but their latest updates means it doesn't quite fit a GB10 128GB anymore at full context which is a shame.

Note: these are all NVFP4 quants (usually a dynamic one where some tensor layers are left at full precision though)

  • I personally stopped caring as much about the tok/s as the agents are largely in the background, and so have also moved preference from MoE to dense

    I want to see about fine-tuning these models a bit on the GB10 to tame that over thinking and some other behaviors (like using tools I don't use)

    qwen 3.8 seems to have been trained with some `rkt` that messes with tool outputs to "save tokens"