on

Can the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (256 GB) run MiMo V2.6 Flash (310B-A15B)?

81Great quality (A) · 81 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking.

Yes, it runs well

Runs well. At Q3_K_M it needs about 172 GB of 230 GB usable, with an estimated speed of 11.6 tok/s.

Best quant
Q3_K_M
Generation speed
11.6 tok/s
Prompt processing
26.7 tok/s
First token (1K prompt)
38.4 s
Largest safe context
1,024K

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 ggml-org/MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL-GGUF:Q3_K_M

Want an agent? MiMo V2.6 Flash (310B-A15B) supports tool use, so you can pair a llama.cpp or MLX LM server with one of these. Apps that run on this computer come first.

Coding agents

Personal assistants

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 MiMo V2.6 Flash (310B-A15B)

Quantized files · GGUF

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

huggingface.co/ggml-org/MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL-GGUF (opens in a new tab)

ollama run hf.co/ggml-org/MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL-GGUF

Original weights · Hugging Face

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

huggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL (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 81Great quality (A) · 81 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking.
How capable the model itself is at Q3_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.36.5 / 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.8.1 / 15
Memory useRewards using the memory you have, so a bigger, better variant beats a tiny one that leaves most memory idle.15.0 / 15
Match score84.6 / 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 144 GB 230 GB 14.6 tok/s Runs well 67Good quality (B) · 67 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 78/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF · part 1 of 2 (opens in a new tab)
Q3_K_M 172 GB 230 GB 11.6 tok/s Runs well 81Great quality (A) · 81 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
Q4_K_M 209 GB 230 GB 9.0 tok/s Slowtight fit 91Excellent quality (A+) · 91 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 87/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (Q4_0) (opens in a new tab)
Q5_K_M 240 GB 230 GB — Won't run 93Excellent quality (A+) · 93 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 12/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
Q6_K 274 GB 230 GB — Won't run 95Excellent quality (A+) · 95 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 12/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
Q8_0 349 GB 230 GB — Won't run 96Excellent quality (A+) · 96 of 100: how capable the model is at Q8_0, whatever it runs on. Match score 13/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF (opens in a new tab)
F16 641 GB 230 GB — Won't run 96Excellent quality (A+) · 96 of 100: how capable the model is at F16, whatever it runs on. Match score 13/100 (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?