Can I run copywriter-gemma4-31b on a GeForce RTX 3050?
Not at these settings. No indexed quantization of copywriter-gemma4-31b fits GeForce RTX 3050 at any context we compute, with q8_0 KV. The smallest shipped quantization is 6.67 GiB in weights alone, against 5.58 GiB usable. CPU offload can still run it, slowly.
Every quantization at every context
| Quant | Weights● | 4K◐ | 8K◐ | 16K◐ | 32K◐ | 64K◐ | 128K◐ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q8_0 | 30.39 GiB | 32.2 | 32.6 | 33.2 | 34.6 | 37.2 | 42.5 |
| I1-Q6_K | 23.47 GiB | 25.3 | 25.6 | 26.3 | 27.6 | 30.3 | 35.6 |
| Q6_K | 23.47 GiB | 25.3 | 25.6 | 26.3 | 27.6 | 30.3 | 35.6 |
| I1-Q5_K_M | 20.35 GiB | 22.2 | 22.5 | 23.2 | 24.5 | 27.2 | 32.5 |
| Q5_K_M | 20.35 GiB | 22.2 | 22.5 | 23.2 | 24.5 | 27.2 | 32.5 |
| I1-Q5_K_S | 19.85 GiB | 21.7 | 22.0 | 22.7 | 24.0 | 26.7 | 32.0 |
| Q5_K_S | 19.85 GiB | 21.7 | 22.0 | 22.7 | 24.0 | 26.7 | 32.0 |
| I1-Q4_1 | 18.14 GiB | 20.0 | 20.3 | 21.0 | 22.3 | 25.0 | 30.3 |
| I1-Q4_K_M | 17.40 GiB | 19.2 | 19.6 | 20.2 | 21.6 | 24.2 | 29.5 |
| Q4_K_M | 17.40 GiB | 19.2 | 19.6 | 20.2 | 21.6 | 24.2 | 29.5 |
| I1-Q4_K_S | 16.54 GiB | 18.4 | 18.7 | 19.4 | 20.7 | 23.4 | 28.7 |
| Q4_K_S | 16.54 GiB | 18.4 | 18.7 | 19.4 | 20.7 | 23.4 | 28.7 |
| I1-Q4_0 | 16.49 GiB | 18.3 | 18.7 | 19.3 | 20.6 | 23.3 | 28.6 |
| IQ4_XS | 15.70 GiB | 17.5 | 17.9 | 18.5 | 19.9 | 22.5 | 27.8 |
| I1-IQ4_XS | 15.59 GiB | 17.4 | 17.8 | 18.4 | 19.7 | 22.4 | 27.7 |
| I1-Q3_K_L | 15.49 GiB | 17.3 | 17.7 | 18.3 | 19.6 | 22.3 | 27.6 |
| Q3_K_L | 15.49 GiB | 17.3 | 17.7 | 18.3 | 19.6 | 22.3 | 27.6 |
| I1-Q3_K_M | 14.24 GiB | 16.1 | 16.4 | 17.1 | 18.4 | 21.1 | 26.4 |
| Q3_K_M | 14.24 GiB | 16.1 | 16.4 | 17.1 | 18.4 | 21.1 | 26.4 |
| I1-IQ3_M | 13.43 GiB | 15.3 | 15.6 | 16.3 | 17.6 | 20.2 | 25.6 |
| I1-IQ3_S | 12.82 GiB | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.6 | 17.0 | 19.6 | 24.9 |
| I1-Q3_K_S | 12.82 GiB | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.6 | 17.0 | 19.6 | 24.9 |
| Q3_K_S | 12.82 GiB | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.6 | 17.0 | 19.6 | 24.9 |
| I1-IQ3_XS | 12.17 GiB | 14.0 | 14.3 | 15.0 | 16.3 | 19.0 | 24.3 |
| I1-IQ3_XXS | 11.25 GiB | 13.1 | 13.4 | 14.1 | 15.4 | 18.1 | 23.4 |
| I1-Q2_K | 11.10 GiB | 12.9 | 13.3 | 13.9 | 15.3 | 17.9 | 23.2 |
| Q2_K | 11.10 GiB | 12.9 | 13.3 | 13.9 | 15.3 | 17.9 | 23.2 |
| I1-Q2_K_S | 10.22 GiB | 12.1 | 12.4 | 13.1 | 14.4 | 17.0 | 22.4 |
| I1-IQ2_M | 10.17 GiB | 12.0 | 12.3 | 13.0 | 14.3 | 17.0 | 22.3 |
| I1-IQ2_S | 9.46 GiB | 11.3 | 11.6 | 12.3 | 13.6 | 16.3 | 21.6 |
| I1-IQ2_XS | 8.88 GiB | 10.7 | 11.0 | 11.7 | 13.0 | 15.7 | 21.0 |
| I1-IQ2_XXS | 8.08 GiB | 9.9 | 10.2 | 10.9 | 12.2 | 14.9 | 20.2 |
| I1-IQ1_M | 7.20 GiB | 9.0 | 9.4 | 10.0 | 11.4 | 14.0 | 19.3 |
| I1-IQ1_S | 6.67 GiB | 8.5 | 8.8 | 9.5 | 10.8 | 13.5 | 18.8 |
Figures are GiB of total memory: weights plus KV cache plus compute buffer and backend overhead. Weights and KV are near-exact; the overhead term is modeled. Hover any cell for the breakdown.
Why other calculators disagree
A parameters × bits ÷ 8 estimate ignores two things that dominate at long context. First, the weights themselves are not the nominal rate — quantizations are mixtures, so the real file is consistently larger than the label implies. Second, most of this model's layers cache only a 1,024-token window rather than the full context.