on

Can the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (128 GB) run Chandra OCR 2?

45Fair quality (C) · 45 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 60/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking.

Yes, it runs well

Runs well. At Q4_K_M it needs about 13.1 GB of 113 GB usable, with an estimated speed of 26.4 tok/s.

Best quant
Q4_K_M
Generation speed
26.4 tok/s
Prompt processing
75.5 tok/s
First token (1K prompt)
13.6 s
Largest safe context
256K

Best app to run it on the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (128 GB)

On Linux

llama.cpp

Command line + local API · runs on llama.cpp

  • Usually the first to support new model architectures.
llama-server -hf mradermacher/chandra-ocr-2-GGUF:Q4_K_M

How we choose: the files published for this model, which apps run in a container on a NAS without a graphics card (models run on its processor), and whether the model fits fully in the memory models can use. Details.

Download Chandra OCR 2

Recommended for the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (128 GB): Q4_K_M. Every other quantization has its own download link in the table below.

Quantized files · GGUF

Works in LM Studio, llama.cpp, Jan and Ollama. No sign-in needed.

Download the Q4_K_M file (opens in a new tab)

huggingface.co/mradermacher/chandra-ocr-2-GGUF (opens in a new tab)

ollama run hf.co/mradermacher/chandra-ocr-2-GGUF:Q4_K_M

Original weights · Hugging Face

Full-precision files from Datalab, for fine-tuning, vLLM, Transformers.

huggingface.co/datalab-to/chandra-ocr-2 (opens in a new tab)

No sign-in needed.

Official repo · GitHub

Reference code, inference scripts and docs from Datalab. The weights themselves download from Hugging Face.

github.com/datalab-to/chandra (opens in a new tab)

git clone https://github.com/datalab-to/chandra

Links checked 1 day ago against Hugging Face, Ollama and GitHub.

How it’s rated

Quality 45Fair quality (C) · 45 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 60/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking.
How capable the model itself is at Q4_K_M, from its editorial quality tier scaled by the quantization or precision. It’s the same on any hardware that runs this variant. Scale: A+ 85+ · A 70+ · B 55+ · C 40+ · D under 40.
Runs Runs well
How well it runs on the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (128 GB): speed, capped by how well it fits in memory. Runs great: 30+ tokens/s (or near the image, video or decision speed target) · Runs well: 10+ tokens/s · Slow: 3+ tokens/s · Very slow: under 3 · Won’t run: doesn’t fit even with offload. A tight fit or RAM offload caps it at Runs well; heavy offload caps it at Slow.

Match score

To order lists, each result also gets a match score out of 100 from four parts. It favors the most capable model that still runs well.

Model qualityEditorial quality tier of the model, scaled by the quantization or precision used.20.5 / 45
Memory fitFull marks when the model fits in the share of the NAS’s memory that models can use (the rest stays with the NAS system and its storage services); fewer when it goes past that limit.25.0 / 25
SpeedGeneration speed against a 40 tokens/s target for LLMs, or render time against a target for image and video.12.2 / 15
Memory useRewards using the memory you have, so a bigger, better variant beats a tiny one that leaves most memory idle.2.7 / 15
Match score60.4 / 100

The match score orders results; it is not shown as a grade. Quality and Runs are the two ratings in the tables.

Every quantization on the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (128 GB)

Quant Memory needed Available Speed Runs Quality Download
Q2_K 12.0 GB 113 GB 43.3 tok/s Runs great 33Basic quality (D) · 33 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 57/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
Q3_K_M 12.5 GB 113 GB 34.1 tok/s Runs great 40Fair quality (C) · 40 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 59/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
Q4_K_M 13.1 GB 113 GB 26.4 tok/s Runs well 45Fair quality (C) · 45 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 60/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
Q5_K_M 13.6 GB 113 GB 21.8 tok/s Runs well 46Fair quality (C) · 46 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 59/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
Q6_K 14.2 GB 113 GB 18.3 tok/s Runs well 47Fair quality (C) · 47 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 59/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
Q8_0 15.5 GB 113 GB 13.4 tok/s Runs well 48Fair quality (C) · 48 of 100: how capable the model is at Q8_0, whatever it runs on. Match score 58/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
F16 20.5 GB 113 GB 6.2 tok/s Slow 48Fair quality (C) · 48 of 100: how capable the model is at F16, whatever it runs on. Match score 56/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab) Original weights (opens in a new tab)

Memory figures assume 8K of context. Longer conversations or documents grow the KV cache.

Other hardware that runs it

Estimates come from published hardware specs and our open formulas, not from running the model on your machine. Real speed varies with runtime, drivers and settings. Numbers marked “Measured” come from a linked benchmark.

Was this page helpful?