Does DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Instruct fit in 48GB of VRAM?
Not at these settings. No indexed quantization of DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Instruct fits 48GB card at any context we compute, with q8_0 KV. The smallest shipped quantization is 44.14 GiB in weights alone, against 44.64 GiB usable. CPU offload can still run it, slowly.
Every quantization at every context
| Quant | Weights● | 4K◐ | 8K◐ | 16K◐ | 32K◐ | 64K◐ | 128K◐ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F16 | 439.20 GiB | 440.2 | 440.3 | 440.6 | 441.2 | 442.3 | 444.5 |
| Q8_0 | 233.41 GiB | 234.4 | 234.5 | 234.8 | 235.4 | 236.5 | 238.7 |
| Q6_K | 180.25 GiB | 181.2 | 181.4 | 181.6 | 182.2 | 183.3 | 185.6 |
| Q5_K_M | 155.74 GiB | 156.7 | 156.9 | 157.1 | 157.7 | 158.8 | 161.1 |
| Q5_K | 155.74 GiB | 156.7 | 156.9 | 157.1 | 157.7 | 158.8 | 161.1 |
| Q5_0 | 151.16 GiB | 152.1 | 152.3 | 152.6 | 153.1 | 154.2 | 156.5 |
| Q5_K_S | 151.16 GiB | 152.1 | 152.3 | 152.6 | 153.1 | 154.2 | 156.5 |
| Q4_K | 132.67 GiB | 133.6 | 133.8 | 134.1 | 134.6 | 135.8 | 138.0 |
| Q4_K_M | 132.67 GiB | 133.6 | 133.8 | 134.1 | 134.6 | 135.8 | 138.0 |
| Q4_K_S | 124.68 GiB | 125.7 | 125.8 | 126.1 | 126.6 | 127.8 | 130.0 |
| IQ4_NL | 123.78 GiB | 124.8 | 124.9 | 125.2 | 125.7 | 126.9 | 129.1 |
| Q4_0 | 123.78 GiB | 124.8 | 124.9 | 125.2 | 125.7 | 126.9 | 129.1 |
| IQ4_XS | 116.94 GiB | 117.9 | 118.1 | 118.3 | 118.9 | 120.0 | 122.3 |
| Q3_K_L | 113.97 GiB | 114.9 | 115.1 | 115.4 | 115.9 | 117.0 | 119.3 |
| Q3_K | 104.93 GiB | 105.9 | 106.0 | 106.3 | 106.9 | 108.0 | 110.2 |
| Q3_K_M | 104.93 GiB | 105.9 | 106.0 | 106.3 | 106.9 | 108.0 | 110.2 |
| IQ3_M | 96.27 GiB | 97.3 | 97.4 | 97.7 | 98.2 | 99.4 | 101.6 |
| IQ3_S | 94.70 GiB | 95.7 | 95.8 | 96.1 | 96.7 | 97.8 | 100.0 |
| Q3_K_S | 94.70 GiB | 95.7 | 95.8 | 96.1 | 96.7 | 97.8 | 100.0 |
| IQ3_XS | 89.69 GiB | 90.7 | 90.8 | 91.1 | 91.7 | 92.8 | 95.0 |
| IQ3_XXS | 84.61 GiB | 85.6 | 85.7 | 86.0 | 86.6 | 87.7 | 89.9 |
| Q2_K_L | 81.44 GiB | 82.4 | 82.6 | 82.8 | 83.4 | 84.5 | 86.8 |
| Q2_K | 80.04 GiB | 81.0 | 81.2 | 81.4 | 82.0 | 83.1 | 85.4 |
| Q2_K_S | 74.13 GiB | 75.1 | 75.3 | 75.5 | 76.1 | 77.2 | 79.5 |
| IQ2_M | 71.64 GiB | 72.6 | 72.8 | 73.0 | 73.6 | 74.7 | 77.0 |
| IQ2_S | 65.07 GiB | 66.0 | 66.2 | 66.5 | 67.0 | 68.1 | 70.4 |
| IQ2_XS | 63.99 GiB | 65.0 | 65.1 | 65.4 | 66.0 | 67.1 | 69.3 |
| IQ2_XXS | 57.28 GiB | 58.3 | 58.4 | 58.7 | 59.2 | 60.4 | 62.6 |
| IQ1_M | 49.06 GiB | 50.0 | 50.2 | 50.5 | 51.0 | 52.1 | 54.4 |
| IQ1_S | 44.14 GiB | 45.1 | 45.3 | 45.5 | 46.1 | 47.2 | 49.5 |
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 there are no speeds on this page
A capacity is not a card. Whether a model fits depends only on memory, so every figure above holds for any 48GB accelerator. How fast it runs depends on memory bandwidth, which varies several-fold between cards of the same capacity — so putting a tokens-per-second number here would be inventing one. Pick a specific card from hardware and the speed column appears.
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, this model uses latent attention and allocates no V cache at all, so any formula reading num_key_value_heads overstates its cache by more than an order of magnitude.