Danny-Dasilva commited on
Commit
f9172f5
Β·
verified Β·
1 Parent(s): f209f08

Upload README.md with huggingface_hub

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +34 -10
README.md CHANGED
@@ -44,17 +44,41 @@ build/bin/llama-server \
44
  -ngl 999 -ngld 999 -fa on -c 16384 -np 1
45
  ```
46
 
47
- ## Benchmark (RTX 5090, greedy, bs=1, 256 tok)
48
- | Config | tok/s | accept | note |
49
- |---|---|---|---|
50
- | **DSpark, code prompt** | **186.2** | 78.6% | **1.16Γ— over native** |
51
- | Native (llama-bench tg256) | 161.2 | β€” | reference |
52
- | Native (llama-server decode) | 157.5 | β€” | |
53
- | DSpark, prose prompt | 132.8 | 51% | low-accept workloads slower |
54
 
55
- DSpark speedup is workload-dependent: on predictable content (code, high accept) it beats native;
56
- the 1-bit target is so bandwidth-cheap (3.5 GB) that low-accept drafting overhead can dominate.
57
- The 5090 exceeds prism-ml's published H100 native (104.8 t/s) β€” this 1-bit model is memory-bandwidth-bound.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
58
 
59
  ## Antidoom (FTPO) pass β€” what was done
60
  Bonsai-27B is unusually **doom-loop resistant** (it self-corrects repetition and stays coherent even
 
44
  -ngl 999 -ngld 999 -fa on -c 16384 -np 1
45
  ```
46
 
47
+ ## Speed comparison β€” all four models (RTX 5090, 32 GB)
 
 
 
 
 
 
48
 
49
+ Single stream, greedy, 256 new tokens, PrismML llama.cpp fork (CUDA 13 / sm_120).
50
+ Native = `llama-bench` tg256 (fa=1, r=2). DSpark = `llama-speculative-simple`,
51
+ `--spec-draft-n-max 4`, code prompt (high-acceptance workload); all four runs measured
52
+ back-to-back in the same session.
53
+
54
+ | Model | Native tok/s | + DSpark tok/s | Accept | DSpark speedup |
55
+ |---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
56
+ | Bonsai-27B **1-bit** (base) | 166.0 | **208.3** | 78.6% | 1.25Γ— |
57
+ | **Bonsai-27B 1-bit antidoom** (this family) | 153.7 | **192.4** | 74.6% | 1.25Γ— |
58
+ | Ternary-Bonsai-27B (base) | 136.5 | **185.9** | 69.2% | 1.36Γ— |
59
+ | **Ternary-Bonsai-27B antidoom** (this family) | 129.2 | **184.6** | 69.2% | 1.43Γ— |
60
+
61
+ ```
62
+ tok/s (code prompt, bs=1) native β–’ +DSpark β–ˆ
63
+ Bonsai 1-bit base β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’ 166.0
64
+ β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ 208.3
65
+ Bonsai 1-bit antidoom β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’ 153.7
66
+ β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ 192.4
67
+ Ternary base β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’ 136.5
68
+ β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ 185.9
69
+ Ternary antidoom β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’β–’ 129.2
70
+ β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ 184.6
71
+ ```
72
+
73
+ Notes:
74
+ - DSpark's gain is workload-dependent: on low-acceptance prose (~51%) the 1-bit target can be
75
+ *slower* than native because the tiny weights make drafting overhead relatively expensive.
76
+ - The antidoom variants are ~5–8% slower natively because re-quantization stored the output
77
+ tensor at q6_K (prism's originals pack it smaller); with DSpark the gap mostly closes.
78
+ - FTPO does not hurt the DSpark drafter (accept 74.6–78.6% 1-bit, 69.2% ternary, unchanged
79
+ base vs antidoom for ternary).
80
+ - All numbers beat prism-ml's published H100 figures (104.8β†’143.8 1-bit, 98.0β†’131.8 ternary):
81
+ these models are memory-bandwidth-bound and the 5090 has more bandwidth headroom at bs=1.
82
 
83
  ## Antidoom (FTPO) pass β€” what was done
84
  Bonsai-27B is unusually **doom-loop resistant** (it self-corrects repetition and stays coherent even