Can I run GLM-4.7-Flash-REAP-23B-A3B on a Radeon RX 6500 XT?
Not at these settings. No indexed quantization of GLM-4.7-Flash-REAP-23B-A3B fits Radeon RX 6500 XT at any context we compute, with q4_0 KV. The smallest shipped quantization is 6.09 GiB in weights alone, against 3.72 GiB usable. CPU offload can still run it, slowly.
Every quantization at every context
| Quant | Weights● | 4K◐ | 8K◐ | 16K◐ | 32K◐ | 64K◐ | 128K◐ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BF16 | 42.85 GiB | 43.8 | 43.9 | 44.0 | 44.2 | 44.7 | 45.6 |
| Q8_0 | 22.78 GiB | 23.7 | 23.8 | 23.9 | 24.2 | 24.6 | 25.5 |
| Q6_K | 17.69 GiB | 18.7 | 18.7 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 19.5 | 20.5 |
| Q5_K_M | 15.35 GiB | 16.3 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 17.2 | 18.1 |
| Q5_K_S | 14.94 GiB | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 17.7 |
| Q4_1 | 13.62 GiB | 14.6 | 14.6 | 14.8 | 15.0 | 15.5 | 16.4 |
| Q4_K_M | 13.14 GiB | 14.1 | 14.2 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 15.9 |
| Q4_K_S | 12.41 GiB | 13.4 | 13.4 | 13.6 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 15.2 |
| Q4_0 | 12.38 GiB | 13.3 | 13.4 | 13.5 | 13.8 | 14.2 | 15.1 |
| IQ4_NL | 12.34 GiB | 13.3 | 13.4 | 13.5 | 13.7 | 14.2 | 15.1 |
| IQ4_XS | 11.71 GiB | 12.7 | 12.7 | 12.9 | 13.1 | 13.6 | 14.5 |
| Q3_K_M | 10.50 GiB | 11.5 | 11.5 | 11.6 | 11.9 | 12.3 | 13.3 |
| Q3_K_S | 9.59 GiB | 10.6 | 10.6 | 10.7 | 11.0 | 11.4 | 12.4 |
| UD-IQ3_XXS | 9.35 GiB | 10.3 | 10.4 | 10.5 | 10.7 | 11.2 | 12.1 |
| Q2_K_L | 8.24 GiB | 9.2 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 10.1 | 11.0 |
| Q2_K | 8.17 GiB | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 10.9 |
| UD-IQ2_M | 7.97 GiB | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.3 | 9.8 | 10.7 |
| UD-IQ2_XXS | 7.67 GiB | 8.6 | 8.7 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 9.5 | 10.4 |
| UD-IQ1_M | 7.07 GiB | 8.0 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.9 | 9.8 |
| UD-IQ1_S | 6.71 GiB | 7.7 | 7.7 | 7.9 | 8.1 | 8.5 | 9.5 |
| UD-TQ1_0 | 6.09 GiB | 7.1 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 8.9 |
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.