Larger INT4 footprint vs 5.2; is it possible to match 5.2's quantization coverage

#1
by themoatai - opened

Thanks for the GLM-5.3-AWQ-INT4 release! We run your GLM-5.2-AWQ-INT4 in production and hoped to drop 5.3 in behind the same stack.

On disk, 5.3 is ~48 GB larger than 5.2, and it looks like a few layers are kept in BF16 rather than INT4 (we're seeing this around layers 3 and 77, plus the layer-78 MTP head). On our 128 GB nodes that extra mass leaves no KV headroom, so we can't reach a usable context length that 5.2 handled.

Is the BF16 retention intentional? Would you be able to produce a 5.3 quant at the same coverage/footprint as 5.2 (i.e. those layers quantized to INT4)?

Thanks again for the work on these.

Is the BF16 retention intentional? Would you be able to produce a 5.3 quant at the same coverage/footprint as 5.2 (i.e. those layers quantized to INT4)?

I'm also curious about that...

Sign up or log in to comment