Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Strata vs llama.cpp on an RTX 3090: 78 tok/s vs 18 on the Full Flash-Next
The full Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on a 24 GB RTX 3090 with 64 GB of DDR4. Strata decodes at 78 tok/s against llama.cpp's 18, and reads prompts about 3x faster.
Strata vs llama.cpp on a 3060: The 7x Is Real. Two Flags Halve It
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Coder on a 12 GB RTX 3060 and 32 GB of DDR4. Strata prefills 6-7x faster than stock llama.cpp. One batch setting closes most of that.
Nineteen gigabytes of my 3090 sat empty. The 3060 kept up.
Stock llama.cpp put 5.4 GB of a 177B MoE on an RTX 3090 and a 3060 kept pace; -ncmoe 29 buys 34 to 40 percent and a real 32 GB box does 8.7 tok/s. Plus a 4 GB GTX 1650 at 20 tok/s on a 35B MoE, and the MoE primer corrected in public.
A 177B Model on a 3060: The 32 GB Number Nobody Measured
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on an RTX 3090 and a 3060. Stock, the 3090 matches the video's 3060. One flag buys 34 to 40 percent. A real 32 GB box: 8.7 tok/s, not 22.
A weekly email with every new guide and measured benchmark.
Subscribe — free, no spam