Can I run GLM-4.7-Flash on a RTX A1000?
Not at these settings. No indexed quantization of GLM-4.7-Flash fits RTX A1000 at any context we compute, with q4_0 KV. The smallest shipped quantization is 7.76 GiB in weights alone, against 7.44 GiB usable. CPU offload can still run it, slowly.
Every quantization at every context
| Quant | Weights● | 4K◐ | 8K◐ | 16K◐ | 32K◐ | 64K◐ | 128K◐ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BF16 | 55.79 GiB | 56.9 | 56.9 | 57.0 | 57.3 | 57.7 | 58.7 |
| Q8_0 | 29.66 GiB | 30.7 | 30.8 | 30.9 | 31.1 | 31.6 | 32.5 |
| Q6_K | 23.00 GiB | 24.1 | 24.1 | 24.2 | 24.5 | 24.9 | 25.9 |
| Q5_K_M | 19.94 GiB | 21.0 | 21.1 | 21.2 | 21.4 | 21.9 | 22.8 |
| Q5_K_S | 19.39 GiB | 20.5 | 20.5 | 20.6 | 20.9 | 21.3 | 22.3 |
| Q4_1 | 17.67 GiB | 18.7 | 18.8 | 18.9 | 19.1 | 19.6 | 20.5 |
| Q4_K_M | 17.05 GiB | 18.1 | 18.2 | 18.3 | 18.5 | 19.0 | 19.9 |
| Q4_K | 16.99 GiB | 18.1 | 18.1 | 18.2 | 18.5 | 18.9 | 19.9 |
| Q4_K_S | 16.08 GiB | 17.1 | 17.2 | 17.3 | 17.6 | 18.0 | 19.0 |
| Q4_0 | 16.03 GiB | 17.1 | 17.2 | 17.3 | 17.5 | 18.0 | 18.9 |
| IQ4_NL | 15.99 GiB | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.2 | 17.5 | 17.9 | 18.9 |
| IQ4_XS | 15.15 GiB | 16.2 | 16.3 | 16.4 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 18.0 |
| Q3_K_M | 13.61 GiB | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.9 | 15.1 | 15.5 | 16.5 |
| Q3_K_S | 12.38 GiB | 13.4 | 13.5 | 13.6 | 13.9 | 14.3 | 15.2 |
| UD-IQ3_XXS | 12.02 GiB | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.3 | 13.5 | 14.0 | 14.9 |
| Q2_K_L | 10.63 GiB | 11.7 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 12.1 | 12.6 | 13.5 |
| Q2_K | 10.57 GiB | 11.6 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 12.0 | 12.5 | 13.4 |
| UD-IQ2_M | 10.24 GiB | 11.3 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 11.7 | 12.2 | 13.1 |
| UD-IQ2_XXS | 9.79 GiB | 10.9 | 10.9 | 11.0 | 11.3 | 11.7 | 12.7 |
| UD-IQ1_M | 9.13 GiB | 10.2 | 10.3 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 11.1 | 12.0 |
| UD-IQ1_S | 8.61 GiB | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.9 | 10.1 | 10.6 | 11.5 |
| UD-TQ1_0 | 7.76 GiB | 8.8 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 10.6 |
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.