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
-
yandex/AliceAI-Foundation-80B-A3B-Base: Russian-developed competitor to Qwen 35B and DeepSeek V4 Flash
Sep 21
-
Huawei shelves global AI chip rollout as China's own demand outstrips supply — AMD and Nvidia no longer have to worry.
Sep 21
-
A better coder for the small-GPU/small-RAM crowd!
Sep 21
-
How it feels watching prices go up
Sep 21
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.