on

Can the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (256 GB) run Ling 3.0 flash Sante?

64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 75/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking.

Yes, it runs well

Runs well. At Q4_K_M it needs about 96.9 GB of 230 GB usable, with an estimated speed of 25.1 tok/s.

Best quant
Q4_K_M
Generation speed
25.1 tok/s
Prompt processing
78.4 tok/s
First token (1K prompt)
13.1 s
Largest safe context
256K

Best app to run it on the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (256 GB)

On Linux

llama.cpp

Command line + local API · runs on llama.cpp

  • Usually the first to support new model architectures.
llama-server -hf bartowski/Ling-3.0-flash-Sante-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 Ling 3.0 flash Sante

Recommended for the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (256 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 files (opens in a new tab)

huggingface.co/bartowski/Ling-3.0-flash-Sante-GGUF (opens in a new tab)

ollama run hf.co/bartowski/Ling-3.0-flash-Sante-GGUF

Original weights · Hugging Face

Full-precision files from Ant Group (inclusionAI), for fine-tuning, vLLM, Transformers.

huggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-flash-Sante (opens in a new tab)

No sign-in needed.

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

How it’s rated

Quality 64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 75/100 (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 (256 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.29.1 / 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.11.9 / 15
Memory useRewards using the memory you have, so a bigger, better variant beats a tiny one that leaves most memory idle.9.7 / 15
Match score75.6 / 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 (256 GB)

Quant Memory needed Available Speed Runs Quality Download
Q2_K 70.1 GB 230 GB 39.4 tok/s Runs great 47Fair quality (C) · 47 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 68/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
Q3_K_M 81.6 GB 230 GB 31.8 tok/s Runs great 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 72/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF · folder (opens in a new tab)
Q4_K_M 96.9 GB 230 GB 25.1 tok/s Runs well 64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 75/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF · folder (opens in a new tab)
Q5_K_M 110 GB 230 GB 21.0 tok/s Runs well 65Good quality (B) · 65 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF · folder (opens in a new tab)
Q6_K 124 GB 230 GB 17.8 tok/s Runs well 67Good quality (B) · 67 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF · folder (opens in a new tab)
Q8_0 154 GB 230 GB 13.2 tok/s Runs well 68Good quality (B) · 68 of 100: how capable the model is at Q8_0, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF · folder (opens in a new tab)
F16 274 GB 230 GB — Won't run 68Good quality (B) · 68 of 100: how capable the model is at F16, whatever it runs on. Match score 9/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF · folder (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?