Can I run Muse-Glimmer-30B on a GeForce RTX 3050?
Not at these settings. No indexed quantization of Muse-Glimmer-30B fits GeForce RTX 3050 at any context we compute, with q4_0 KV. The smallest shipped quantization is 8.31 GiB in weights alone, against 5.58 GiB usable. CPU offload can still run it, slowly.
Every quantization at every context
| Quant | Weights● | 4K◐ | 8K◐ | 16K◐ | 32K◐ | 64K◐ | 128K◐ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BF16 | 51.90 GiB | 52.8 | 52.8 | 52.9 | 52.9 | 53.0 | 53.3 |
| Q8_0 | 30.12 GiB | 31.0 | 31.1 | 31.1 | 31.1 | 31.3 | 31.5 |
| Q6_K_L | 22.41 GiB | 23.3 | 23.4 | 23.4 | 23.4 | 23.6 | 23.8 |
| Q6_K | 21.81 GiB | 22.7 | 22.7 | 22.8 | 22.8 | 22.9 | 23.2 |
| Q5_K_L | 19.50 GiB | 20.4 | 20.4 | 20.5 | 20.5 | 20.6 | 20.9 |
| Q5_K_M | 18.72 GiB | 19.6 | 19.7 | 19.7 | 19.7 | 19.9 | 20.1 |
| UD-Q5_K_L | 18.41 GiB | 19.3 | 19.3 | 19.4 | 19.4 | 19.5 | 19.8 |
| Q5_K_S | 18.11 GiB | 19.0 | 19.0 | 19.1 | 19.1 | 19.2 | 19.5 |
| UD-Q5_K_M | 17.88 GiB | 18.8 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 18.9 | 19.0 | 19.2 |
| Q4_K_M | 17.13 GiB | 18.0 | 18.1 | 18.1 | 18.1 | 18.3 | 18.5 |
| Q4_K_L | 17.05 GiB | 18.0 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 18.1 | 18.2 | 18.4 |
| Q4_1 | 16.60 GiB | 17.5 | 17.5 | 17.6 | 17.6 | 17.7 | 18.0 |
| Q4_0 | 16.50 GiB | 17.4 | 17.4 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 17.6 | 17.9 |
| Q4_K_S | 15.20 GiB | 16.1 | 16.1 | 16.2 | 16.2 | 16.3 | 16.6 |
| IQ4_NL | 15.12 GiB | 16.0 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.5 |
| IQ4_XS | 14.38 GiB | 15.3 | 15.3 | 15.3 | 15.4 | 15.5 | 15.7 |
| Q3_K_L | 13.77 GiB | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 15.1 |
| UD-IQ3_M | 13.15 GiB | 14.1 | 14.1 | 14.1 | 14.2 | 14.3 | 14.5 |
| Q3_K_M | 13.00 GiB | 13.9 | 13.9 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 | 14.4 |
| UD-IQ3_XXS | 12.23 GiB | 13.2 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 13.4 | 13.6 |
| IQ3_M | 12.21 GiB | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 13.6 |
| Q3_K_S | 11.91 GiB | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 13.0 | 13.3 |
| Q2_K_L | 11.50 GiB | 12.4 | 12.4 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.6 | 12.9 |
| IQ3_XS | 11.47 GiB | 12.4 | 12.4 | 12.4 | 12.5 | 12.6 | 12.8 |
| UD-IQ2_M | 11.41 GiB | 12.3 | 12.4 | 12.4 | 12.4 | 12.6 | 12.8 |
| IQ3_XXS | 10.75 GiB | 11.7 | 11.7 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 11.9 | 12.1 |
| UD-IQ2_XS | 10.72 GiB | 11.6 | 11.7 | 11.7 | 11.7 | 11.9 | 12.1 |
| Q2_K | 10.28 GiB | 11.2 | 11.2 | 11.2 | 11.3 | 11.4 | 11.6 |
| UD-IQ2_XXS | 10.01 GiB | 10.9 | 10.9 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 11.1 | 11.4 |
| IQ2_M | 9.93 GiB | 10.8 | 10.9 | 10.9 | 10.9 | 11.1 | 11.3 |
| IQ2_S | 9.35 GiB | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.4 | 10.5 | 10.7 |
| IQ2_XS | 8.92 GiB | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 10.1 | 10.3 |
| IQ2_XXS | 8.31 GiB | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.7 |
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, most of this model's layers cache only a 2,048-token window rather than the full context.