DFlash draft model instead of MTP one

#54
by artden111 - opened

Is it possible? Will DFlash draft model be faster than MTP? Muse-Glimmer-30B uses DFlash draft model and it very fast

Got this errors on llama.cpp

wrong number of tensors; expected 62, got 58

We really need a functional DFlash implementation. For some reason 30B Muse Glimmer runs almost 6-7 times faster than the new Qwen with DFlash . 5-6tok/s vs 50-60tok/s ... For a bit less intelligent model trade of I guess I will stick to the Muse Glimmer for now . Qwen 3.8 27B is really exceptionally good but not really usable with that speed on a 16gb vram

btw guys just an instant idea I had (different dspar model per thinking level might be a smart thing that can be done)

btw guys just an instant idea I had (different dspar model per thinking level might be a smart thing that can be done)

I'd really love to see somebody test a different dspark or mtp model for the different thinking levels. It's got to have a small but meaningful impact right.

i went the other way, model's own mtp head, trimmed on its own gens. 140 tok/s spec on one 6000.
draft: https://huggingface.co/Avifenesh/Qwen3.8-27B-NVFP4-MTP-GGUF
engine: https://github.com/avifenesh/memra
https://inference.tiyuvta.ai/app

DFlash is not better than MTP, the MTP is 2x or 3x faster on token ingestion the Dflash is trash there, using it defeats the point of faster generation at all.

DFlash is not better than MTP, the MTP is 2x or 3x faster on token ingestion the Dflash is trash there, using it defeats the point of faster generation at all.

DFlash in theory should be faster with enough compute (vs. bandwidth), and code-like usecases (where it's easy to specuate reasonably right tokens). Of course, in many real usecases / hardware you won't see that lift

Managed to get one working with 50% first token acceptance based on 3.6 since they share the same shape.. Its slower than the stock MTP, but faster than plain https://huggingface.co/mrchuy/Qwen3.8-27B-DFlash-drafter-bootstrap-GGUF

Mode Draft depth Prompt tok/s Decode tok/s vs Plain Draft acceptance llama.cpp mean len Acceptance by position
Plain Qwen3.8 Q4 โ€” 1008.97 23.73 baseline โ€” โ€” โ€”
Qwen3.6 โ†’ Qwen3.8 DFlash 3 783.93 31.94 +34.6% 34.04% 2.02 57.2%, 29.7%, 15.2%
Native Qwen3.8 MTP 3 959.32 50.70 +113.7% 71.65% 3.15 85.5%, 71.0%, 58.5%

Sign up or log in to comment