logoalt Hacker News

Show HN: Running 104GB Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on 48GB Mac with at ~12 tok/s

67 pointsby carloslfutoday at 4:42 PM52 commentsview on HN

I built slotstream, a way to run Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 4-bit on a low-memory mac starting from 16GB, a 125B parameter model that would need 100GB+ memory/RAM, thanks to expert-offloading/ssd-streaming. Easy to install/update, and mac-native using MLX and Swift.

It ships with auto-mode, which makes a good tradeoff between memory usage and speed. I'll be implementing and porting the MTP module for speculative decoding next


Comments

embedding-shapetoday at 5:32 PM

> Hugging Face is the bottleneck, not your link.

README could clearly make use of a cleanup, seems to be more like a session log dump now than a good introduction to the project for a new user. Maybe try something like "Remove anything from the README.md that wouldn't be helpful to someone who sees this project with zero context, for the first time. Rewrite all paragraphs and sections to be concise and remove all fluff, leave only important details new users must know before using the project".

show 3 replies
atif089today at 6:06 PM

As someone who is just looking at the theoretical benchmarks of each of these models I'm curious if anyone could share what are the problems (maybe around code) that flash-next was able to solve which 27b was not able to

whartungtoday at 5:38 PM

I'm hoping to see progress in this space.

Folks talking about how 32G is not enough for local use, but then there's been work like this to empower it.

My hope is that the new 32G M6 will be "useful" locally, possibly because of work like this.

show 1 reply
prometheus1992today at 5:40 PM

It's hard to believe 16GB unified memory will give you 5 tok/sec unless you are ignoring the thermal warnings. I am running Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on my 16GB M3 and get 7-8 tokens/sec with all the optimizations while keeping the peak memory and thermal warnings at check. https://github.com/deepanwadhwa/samosa-chat

ErenayDevtoday at 5:23 PM

how much energy does it consume?

show 1 reply
karmakazetoday at 5:27 PM

It seems we could use a new kind of memory that streams the weight data in, like GDDR in reverse.

show 2 replies
jonplacketttoday at 6:07 PM

Is this going to destroy my SSD?

show 2 replies
drcongotoday at 5:31 PM

"Disk is the gate that bites first"

AI;DR

show 1 reply
AmazingTurtletoday at 5:03 PM

There are already a handful of repos doing essentially exactly this: `mlx-moe-offload`, `streamlx`, `mlx-moe`, `mlx-flash`, and `deepseek-v4-flash-mlx` - i.e. keep the resident parts of an MoE in unified memory and page/stream routed experts from SSD on Apple Silicon.

At this point I'd much rather see people collaborate on one of these implementations, benchmark against them, or upstream the useful bits into MLX/MLX-LM instead of producing yet another near-identical repo.

The local-LLM ecosystem really does not need every implementation idea rediscovered five times and wrapped in a new README. AI-assisted coding makes producing a new repo cheap; maintaining, benchmarking, and integrating one is the actually valuable part.

show 6 replies
bewareofscamstoday at 5:36 PM

[dead]

bewareofscamstoday at 5:38 PM

[dead]

aislopnogotoday at 5:42 PM

[dead]