Can I run DeepSeek-V3.2 on a Apple M3 Pro?

Not at these settings. No indexed quantization of DeepSeek-V3.2 fits Apple M3 Pro at any context we compute, with f16 KV. The smallest shipped quantization is 138.82 GiB in weights alone, against 12.56 GiB usable. CPU offload can still run it, slowly.

From the file· weights summed from filesFrom the file· KV computed per layerPredicted· speed and compute buffer
KV cache dtypef16q8_0q4_018 GB card, 12.56 GiB usable after overhead

Every quantization at every context

total memory required; green fits, red does not
QuantWeights4K8K16K32K64K128K
BF161250.09 GiB1251.01251.31251.81252.91255.01259.3
Q8_0664.30 GiB665.2665.5666.0667.1669.2673.5
Q6_K513.45 GiB514.3514.6515.2516.2518.4522.7
Q5_K_M443.46 GiB444.4444.6445.2446.2448.4452.7
Q5_K_S430.86 GiB431.8432.0432.6433.6435.8440.1
Q4_1391.87 GiB392.8393.0393.6394.6396.8401.1
Q4_K_M377.56 GiB378.5378.7379.3380.3382.5386.8
Q4_K_S354.89 GiB355.8356.1356.6357.7359.8364.1
Q4_0353.99 GiB354.9355.2355.7356.8358.9363.2
IQ4_NL353.10 GiB354.0354.3354.8355.9358.0362.3
IQ4_XS333.74 GiB334.6334.9335.4336.5338.7342.9
Q3_K_M298.24 GiB299.1299.4299.9301.0303.2307.4
Q3_K_S270.50 GiB271.4271.7272.2273.3275.4279.7
UD-IQ3_XXS254.37 GiB255.3255.5256.1257.1259.3263.6
Q2_K_L228.72 GiB229.6229.9230.4231.5233.6237.9
Q2_K228.51 GiB229.4229.7230.2231.3233.4237.7
UD-IQ2_M212.44 GiB213.3213.6214.1215.2217.4221.7
UD-IQ2_XXS202.22 GiB203.1203.4203.9205.0207.1211.4
UD-IQ1_M185.62 GiB186.5186.8187.3188.4190.5194.8
UD-IQ1_S171.48 GiB172.4172.6173.2174.3176.4180.7
IQ2_XXS162.59 GiB163.5163.8164.3165.4167.5171.8
UD-TQ1_0150.20 GiB151.1151.4151.9153.0155.1159.4
IQ1_M138.82 GiB139.7140.0140.5141.6143.7148.0
From the filePredictedwhat these mean

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, 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.