Can I run GLM-5.2 on a AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (Radeon 8050S)?
Not at these settings. No indexed quantization of GLM-5.2 fits AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (Radeon 8050S) at any context we compute, with q8_0 KV. The smallest shipped quantization is 169.33 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◐ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BF16 | 1404.42 GiB | 1405.4 | 1405.5 | 1405.9 | 1406.6 | 1408.1 | 1411.0 |
| Q8_0 | 746.32 GiB | 747.3 | 747.4 | 747.8 | 748.5 | 750.0 | 752.9 |
| UD-Q6_K | 582.88 GiB | 583.8 | 584.0 | 584.4 | 585.1 | 586.5 | 589.5 |
| UD-Q5_K_M | 522.31 GiB | 523.2 | 523.4 | 523.8 | 524.5 | 526.0 | 528.9 |
| UD-Q5_K_S | 491.05 GiB | 492.0 | 492.2 | 492.5 | 493.3 | 494.7 | 497.6 |
| UD-Q4_K_M | 433.83 GiB | 434.8 | 434.9 | 435.3 | 436.0 | 437.5 | 440.4 |
| UD-Q4_K_S | 406.46 GiB | 407.4 | 407.6 | 407.9 | 408.7 | 410.1 | 413.0 |
| UD-IQ4_NL | 347.07 GiB | 348.0 | 348.2 | 348.5 | 349.3 | 350.7 | 353.6 |
| UD-IQ4_XS | 340.22 GiB | 341.2 | 341.3 | 341.7 | 342.4 | 343.9 | 346.8 |
| UD-Q3_K_M | 319.20 GiB | 320.1 | 320.3 | 320.7 | 321.4 | 322.9 | 325.8 |
| UD-IQ3_S | 287.44 GiB | 288.4 | 288.6 | 288.9 | 289.6 | 291.1 | 294.0 |
| UD-IQ3_XXS | 262.34 GiB | 263.3 | 263.5 | 263.8 | 264.5 | 266.0 | 268.9 |
| UD-IQ2_M | 222.19 GiB | 223.1 | 223.3 | 223.7 | 224.4 | 225.9 | 228.8 |
| UD-IQ2_XXS | 222.08 GiB | 223.0 | 223.2 | 223.6 | 224.3 | 225.7 | 228.7 |
| UD-IQ1_M | 215.35 GiB | 216.3 | 216.5 | 216.8 | 217.6 | 219.0 | 221.9 |
| UD-IQ1_S | 201.83 GiB | 202.8 | 202.9 | 203.3 | 204.0 | 205.5 | 208.4 |
| Q3_K_M | 169.33 GiB | 170.3 | 170.4 | 170.8 | 171.5 | 173.0 | 175.9 |
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.