<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[TurboQuant 还真是比 FP8 慢了很多]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">TurboQuant 好处是 KVCache 容量比 FP8 大了将近1倍（仅以我的设备为例；vLLM）：</p>
<p dir="auto">FP8：</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">GPU KV cache size: 1,006,391 tokens</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">TurboQuant：</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">GPU KV cache size: 1,900,544 tokens</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p dir="auto">官方声称 TurboQuant 吞吐量比 FP8 低很多，我还不以为意；接入 harness 实战后，降速凸显：</p>
<p dir="auto">FP8，多并发：</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Avg generation throughput: 443.6 tokens/s, Running: 12 reqs, Waiting: 0 reqs, GPU KV cache usage: 18.0%</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">TurboQuant，多并发：</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Avg generation throughput: 264.0 tokens/s, Running: 12 reqs, Waiting: 0 reqs, GPU KV cache usage: 9.2%</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">FP8，单并发，约 72k 时：</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Avg generation throughput: 56.0 tokens/s, Running: 1 reqs, Waiting: 0 reqs, GPU KV cache usage: 7.3%</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">TurboQuant，单并发，约 72k 时：</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Avg generation throughput: 22.0 tokens/s, Running: 1 reqs, Waiting: 0 reqs, GPU KV cache usage: 3.8%</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">可见 TurboQuant 比 FP8 至少慢了 40%，而且越长越慢。真的是没有白捡的 KVCache</p>
]]></description><link>https://lcz.me/topic/1196</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 01:55:03 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://lcz.me/topic/1196.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:01:35 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>