Question: Why is prefill unbelievably faster in vLLM than other inference engines?
Mirrored from r/LocalLLaMA for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
I only started using some vLLM forks recently in a 4 x 48GB 4090 system.
DS4F - ~5000pp/180tg (DSpark)
Qwen3.8 Flash next - ~7500pp/135tg (MTP)
This is amazing, like having the API in my house. But it's also really hard to go back.
It's weird that we never come close to prefill numbers like this in llama.cpp or ik_llama. The narrative is that vLLM is around the same speed for single requests, but that is clearly not true.
There must some HUGE difference that constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to achieving such speeds in llama.cpp and many other inference engines. Does anyone know exactly what it is?
edit: These results are from my benchmark script that actually times the response, not the vLLM log. And they are not cache hits. My benchmark script deliberately busts cache. Actual cache hits, which I also measure, are like 20k-100k+.
[link] [comments]
More from r/LocalLLaMA
-
Someone apparently managed to kind of replicate what V4.1 flash does on KV for fast prefill on Qwen
Sep 11
-
New Music Model YuE2-3B Released!
Sep 11
-
Artificial Analysis is not "broken", and they prove it.
Sep 10
-
Faster than Light in Air: 8-22 tg/s Qwen3.8-Flash-Next (Q4/Q4ish) on a 32GB M4 MacBook Air
Sep 10
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.