Actually perf (speed) is going to mostly on token output, and here Qwen 3.x historically tends to lose badly as it tends to overthink a lot. I'll be running evals on 3.8 myself this weekend to see how its reasoning levels perform.

I assume that AA will have 3.8 numbers soon and Intelligence Index vs Output Tokesn per Intelligence Index Task is a decent way to view that: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/muse-glimmer?intelligen...

A team from AMD maintains Lemonade, another all-in-one setp with convenient installers for setting everything up: https://lemonade-server.ai/

These are probably better than running against llama.cpp ROCm directly as there are frequent/constant regressions on the main branch, especially for gfx1151 (Strix Halo), but RDNA in general.

There are number of AMD-focused llama.cpp forks (nathanw1014, charlie12345, ciru-ai, justinappler, etc) - as well as a few alternatives like hipfire or my hipEngine. While ROCm has gotten a lot better, one of the things I've found after writing an inference engine that has completely custom tuned/fused C++/HIP kernels, is that while it's been pretty straightforward to match/beat llama.cpp ROCm performance, that Vulkan RADV has been a lot harder since RDNA3 support for ROCm has a few issues that make it underperform ACO on some common operations on both gfx1100 and gfx1151 (see: https://github.com/ROCm/ROCm/issues/6409 )

In general, for anyone just looking to run LLM models on an AMD card, I'd just recommend going with llama.cpp Vulkan and skipping ROCm completely.

I haven't finished comprehensive tests but I found:

- Vulkan is up to 2.25X faster for most coalesced, strided and interleave variants for memory-side scheduling/access shapes

- 3.3X faster on specific dot-path sweeps, including for scalar-dequant

- For matched LDS, Vulkan can be 8-14X+ faster (!!!) than matched HIP LDS

HIP doesn't always win against RADV/ACO, but on dispatch/runtime, it does appear to be quite a bit faster than HIP/LLVM on gfx1151 (Strix Halo). I'll be publishing sharing full data once I also run vs gfx1100...

Hardware is the exact same as what used to be available for $2K last year (and is still $1K cheaper from Chinese OEMs).

LTT Lab's LLM testing is getting more sophisticated, which is great - I think it's worth noting that ROCm/Vulkan versions and llama.cpp build versions are going to have some big differences for numbers.

For those wanting to get the most out of their Strix Halos, there's both kernel tweaks and utilities like ryzenadj that can help you get the most out of it. ( http://strixhalo.wiki/ has most of that documented). Also, if you're running for coding or agentic work, if you model supports MTP, that's mature and should give you a decent (30%?) decode boost.

    Model                              Adapter       Suite           Score   Passed  Tasks
    ---------------------------------  ------------  --------------  ------  ------  -----
    local/ornith-1.0-35b               little_coder  aider_polyglot  36.0%   81/225  225
    local/ornith-1.0-35b               pi_devstack   aider_polyglot  39.6%   89/225  225
    local/ornith-1.0-35b               pi_vanilla    aider_polyglot  32.0%   72/225  225

"A little secret. About 5% of our production traffic is on the Pi harness, about another 5% is on OpenCode. Reminder you can use your ChatGPT account in a flourishing set of other tools.

We’ll continue to make Codex awesome, but you have options."

It does good job on basic analysis, tasks, and some front-end/backend changes on a medium-sized Go codebase, but it reached its limits totally botching a longer (simple) kernel implementation job (about 100 iterations in Pi Agent harness) - this is the type of thing that stronger open models (Kimi K2.6, GLM 5.2) are able to do.

There's a docs/ folder in there that is probably of interest as well.

### Diagnosing parallelism pathologies (L1)

*Grid occupancy:* - `Grid_Size / Workgroup_Size >= CU count` (W7900 = 96, Strix Halo = 40)? - < 0.3 = massively undersubscribed. Fix grid FIRST. Micro-optimization will NOT help. - 0.3-1.0 = partially utilized; depends on VGPR/LDS pressure. - 1.0-4.0 = healthy; micro-optimization can help.

*Within-block distribution:* - Does the kernel do useful work across all threads, or is there an `if (threadIdx.x == 0)` gate around a serial top-k, reduction, or scan? For c=1 decode, many kernels can't grow the grid, but they can always parallelize inside the block. - `Scratch_Size > 0` from dynamically-indexed per-thread arrays is a strong secondary signal of the within-block pathology.

*Router top-k (within-block fix)*: - Kernel: `qwen35_router_select_kernel` @ c=1 decode - Before: grid=1 (can't help; num_tokens=1), blockDim=512, `if (threadIdx.x == 0)` gated 2048 serial compares. Scratch=144 B from spilled per-thread arrays. - Fix: warp-shuffle parallel argmax across the whole block + `__shared__` top_vals buffer eliminating the spill. - Result: 5.7× kernel speedup, +6.6% on 4K/D4K E2E.

I have an older W7900 (RDNA3) which, besides 48GB of VRAM, has some pretty decent roofline specs - 123 FP16 TFLOPS/INT8 TOPS, 864 GB/s MBW, but has had notoriously bad support both from AMD (ROCm) as well as llama.cpp.

Recently I decided I'd like to turn the card into a dedicated agentic/coder endpoint and I started tuning a W8A8-INT8 model. Over the course of a few days of autolooping (about 800 iterations using a variety of frontier/SOTA models, Kimi K2.6 did surprisingly well), and I ended up with prefill +20% and decode +50% faster than the best llama.cpp numbers for Qwen3.6 MoE.

I'm currently grinding MTP and DFlash optimization on it, but I've been pretty pleased with the results, and will probably try Gemma 4 next.

Some history on this laptop:

- The StarFighter 16 was originally announced back in November 2022 with an original delivery timeline of 3-4 months: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxhardware/comments/yjuahx/star_...

- Here's a 500-comment HN thread from Feb 2023 about it (3-4 months later) now with an additional 4-5 month lead time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34759507

- The latest production updates only go back to July 31 2025 - they mention a 3-5 month timeline from January 2025 (seeing a pattern?): https://starlabs.kb.help/starfighter-production-updates/

There's an "Unboxing" video from Star Labs on the StarFighter from January 22, 2026: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjYJS5AJZpE

So, 3.5 years later, the chassis is still neat, and good on them for plugging away I guess, but for anyone that actually needs a new computer, there's no shortage of higher-end Linux-centric laptops with a better shipping track record (Framework, Tuxedo Computers, Slimbook, etc).

Also, you can use HuggingFace Inference for DeepSeek V4 or Kimi K2.6, both of which work quite well and route through providers that you can enable/disable (like Together AI, DeepInfra, etc) - you'll have to check their policies but I think most of those commercial inference providers claim to not train on your data either.

(If you're just looking to learn, use the free Kaggle/Google Cola T4s/TPUs to get started.)

Current "TurboQuant" implementations are about 3.8X-4.9X on compression (w/ the higher end taking some significant hits of GSM8K performance) and with about 80-100% baseline speed (no improvement, regression): https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/38479

For those not paying attention, it's probably worth sending this and ongoing discussion for vLLM https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/38171 and llama.cpp through your summarizer of choice - TurboQuant is fine, but not a magic bullet. Personally, I've been experimenting with DMS and I think it has a lot more promise and can be stacked with various quantization schemes.

The biggest savings in kvcache though is in improved model architecture. Gemma 4's SWA/global hybrid saves up to 10X kvcache, MLA/DSA (the latter that helps solve global attention compute) does as well, and using linear, SSM layers saves even more.

None of these reduce memory demand (Jevon's paradox, etc), though. Looking at my coding tools, I'm using about 10-15B cached tokens/mo currently (was 5-8B a couple months ago) and while I think I'm probably above average on the curve, I don't consider myself doing anything especially crazy and this year, between mainstream developers, and more and more agents, I don't think there's really any limit to the number of tokens that people will want to consume.

I've been working on a wide range of relatively projects and I find that the latest GPT-5.2+ models seem to be generally better coders than Opus 4.6, however the latter tends to be better at big picture thinking, structuring, and communicating so I tend to iterate through Opus 4.6 max -> GPT-5.2 xhigh -> GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh -> GPT-5.4 xhigh. I've found GPT-5.3-Codex is the most detail oriented, but not necessarily the best coder. One interesting thing is for my high-stakes project, I have one coder lane but use all the models do independent review and they tend to catch different subsets of implementation bugs. I also notice huge behavioral changes based on changing AGENTS.md.

In terms of the apps, while Claude Code was ahead for a long while, I'd say Codex has largely caught up in terms of ergonomics, and in some things, like the way it let's you inline or append steering, I like it better now (or where it's far, far, ahead - the compaction is night and day better in Codex).

(These observations are based on about 10-20B/mo combined cached tokens, human-in-the-loop, so heavy usage and most code I no longer eyeball, but not dark factory/slop cannon levels. I haven't found (or built) a multi-agent control plane I really like yet.)

That being said, I've personally put 3 up recently (more than I've published in total). I'm sure they have close to zero downloads (why would they? they're brand new, solve my own problems, I'm not interested in marketing them or supporting them, they're just shared because they might be useful to others) so they wouldn't show up in their review. 2 of these are pretty meaty projects that would have taken weeks if not months of work but instead have been largely just built over a weekend or a few days. I'd say it's not just the speed, but that w/o the lowered effort, these projects just wouldn't ever have crossed the effort/need bar of ever being started.

I've probably coded 50-100X more AI-assisted code that will never go to pypi, even as someone that has released pypi packages before (which already puts me in a tiny minority of programmers, much less regular people that would even think about uploading a pypi project).

For those interested in the scope of the recent projects:

https://pypi.org/project/realitycheck/ - first pypi: Jan 21 - 57K SLoC - "weekend" project that kept growing. It's a framework that leverages agentic coding tools like Codex/Claude Code to do rigorous, systematic analysis of claims, sources, predictions, and argument chains.It has 400+ tests, and does basically everything I want it to do now. The repo has 20 stars and I'd estimate only a handful of people are using it.

https://pypi.org/project/tweetxvault/ - first pypi: Mar 16 - 29K SLoC - another weekend project (followup on a second weekend). This project is a tool for archiving your Twitter/X bookmarks, likes, and tweets into a local db, with support for importing from archives and letting you search through them. I actually found 3 or 4 other AI-coded projects that didn't do quite what I wanted so it I built my own. This repo has 4 stars, although a friend submitted a PR and mentioned it solved exactly their problem and saved them from having to build it themselves, so that was nice and justifies publishing for me.

https://pypi.org/project/batterylog/ - first pypi: Mar 22 - 857 SLoC - this project is actually something I wrote (and have been using daily) 3-4 years ago, but never bothered to properly package up - it tracks how much battery is drained by your laptop when asleep and it's basically the bare minimum script/installer to be useful. I never bothered to package it up b/c quite frankly, manual pypi releases are enough of a PITA to not bother, but LLMs now basically make it a matter of saying "cut a release," so when I wanted to add a new feature, I packaged it up as well, which I would never have done this otherwise. This repo has 42 stars and a few forks, although probably 0 downloads from pypi.

(I've spent the past couple years heavily using AI-assisted workflows, and only in the past few months (post Opus 4.6, GPT-5.2) would I have even considered AI tools reliable enough to consider trusting them to push new packages to pypi.)

I don't use KDE (or GNOME anymore) but while I had to deal with a lot of initial speedbumps a couple years ago, these days instead of a full DE, I'm using a Niri setup and it's worked out great for me.

For my laptop, I have my own monitor-detection/wl-mirror script for example that is faster and more reliable for plugging into projectors/meeting room HDMI than even my old Macs.

- My original setup left traces of the PDF paper and after GPT 5.3-Codex xhigh reached an impasse it went looking for it and found it!

- I went and did cleanroom (basically one-shot) passes for GPT 5.2 xhigh, GPT 5.3-Codex xhigh, and Claude Opus 4.6 ultrathink and 5.2/5.3 found alternate solutions for odd m >= 5 , Opus 4.6 did not find any proofs but tried more approaches to solving.

Full comparison/analysis here: https://github.com/lhl/claudecycles-revisited/blob/main/COMP...

I've also included the session traces and analysis in the repo branches. Also, the AGENTS.md was pretty simple, but that harness produced consistent process outcomes across all three models:

- All built verifiers first

- All maintained worklogs with exact commands

- All archived machine-readable artifacts

- All documented failed approaches

- All maintained restart-safe context capsules