quantization

FP8 halves the cache and the attention bytes, and on short prompts it looks free. The answer explains why the scale matters less than people think for rounding and more than they think for clipping, and why the failures hide at 128K.

Keys and values take the same bytes, yet their errors reach the output by different roads. Trace both roads and the scale layout for each tensor follows, along with the bookkeeping that makes per-channel keys awkward to serve.

Three quantization points sit inside FP8 attention, and they fail for different reasons: outlier channels in keys, a probability matrix that lives near zero, and accumulators. The answer simulates each one and says which fix addresses which.

Finer scales buy accuracy, and the bytes they cost are easy to count. The answer counts them for a 70B model, then shows the cost that matters more: which scales can wait for the epilogue and which ones invade the inner loop.

Perplexity averages over the tokens a model finds easy and scores it on text it did not write. The answer builds the evaluation that catches what quantization actually breaks, and shows why a one-point drop on a benchmark can be noise or a real regression.

FP8 halves the weights and still leaves almost no memory for the cache. The answer does the budget line by line, picks the format pair that leaves room for real concurrency, and says which hardware change makes the opposite choice correct.

Lossless is a statement about one distribution, and quantization changes which one without raising any error. The answer separates the draft case from the target case, then shows two ways an FP8 deployment breaks exactness without touching the rejection rule.

One engine is built to run a model anywhere with one user; the other is built to share a datacenter GPU across hundreds. The answer turns that into memory-bandwidth arithmetic and finds the cases where the laptop wins.

FP8 halves the weight bytes, and the dashboard says the replica got slower. The answer computes what FP8 should have bought, splits the gap into kernel, scale and config terms with one profiler trace, and catches the regression that is not in the GPU at all.

Perplexity matches the BF16 baseline to two decimals and the needle-in-a-haystack score collapses past 16K. The answer explains why the two checks measure different things, isolates weights, KV and config with a small grid, and shows a measured case of a quantization scheme that only breaks at length.

Two nibbles per byte and a scale per 128 weights sounds like bookkeeping. The grader checks the sign extension, the nibble order, what happens when K is odd or not a multiple of the group, and whether your error test has a bound or just a vibe.