on

Can the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (64 GB) run PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 0.9B?

42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at Q8_0, whatever it runs on. Match score 61/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking.

Yes, it runs great

Runs great. At Q8_0 it needs about 6.1 GB of 54.4 GB usable, with an estimated speed of 74.1 tok/s.

Best quant
Q8_0
Generation speed
74.1 tok/s
Prompt processing
417 tok/s
First token (1K prompt)
2.5 s
Largest safe context
128K

Best app to run it on the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (64 GB)

On Linux

llama.cpp

Command line + local API · runs on llama.cpp

  • Usually the first to support new model architectures.
llama-server -hf PaddlePaddle/PaddleOCR-VL-1.6-GGUF:Q8_0

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 PaddleOCR-VL 1.6 0.9B

Quantized files · GGUF

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

huggingface.co/PaddlePaddle/PaddleOCR-VL-1.6-GGUF (opens in a new tab)

ollama run hf.co/PaddlePaddle/PaddleOCR-VL-1.6-GGUF

Original weights · Hugging Face

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

huggingface.co/PaddlePaddle/PaddleOCR-VL-1.6 (opens in a new tab)

No sign-in needed.

Official repo · GitHub

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

github.com/PaddlePaddle/PaddleOCR (opens in a new tab)

git clone https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/PaddleOCR

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

How it’s rated

Quality 42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at Q8_0, whatever it runs on. Match score 61/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking.
How capable the model itself is at Q8_0, 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 great
How well it runs on the AMD EPYC 7002 / 7003 series NAS (64 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.18.9 / 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.15.0 / 15
Memory useRewards using the memory you have, so a bigger, better variant beats a tiny one that leaves most memory idle.2.6 / 15
Match score61.5 / 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 (64 GB)

Quant Memory needed Available Speed Runs Quality Download
Q2_K 5.5 GB 54.4 GB 239 tok/s Runs great 29Basic quality (D) · 29 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 55/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
Q3_K_M 5.6 GB 54.4 GB 188 tok/s Runs great 35Basic quality (D) · 35 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 58/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
Q4_K_M 5.7 GB 54.4 GB 145 tok/s Runs great 39Basic quality (D) · 39 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 files (opens in a new tab)
Q5_K_M 5.8 GB 54.4 GB 120 tok/s Runs great 40Fair quality (C) · 40 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 60/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
Q6_K 5.9 GB 54.4 GB 101 tok/s Runs great 41Fair quality (C) · 41 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 61/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
Q8_0 6.1 GB 54.4 GB 74.1 tok/s Runs great 42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at Q8_0, whatever it runs on. Match score 61/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. GGUF files (opens in a new tab)
F16 7.0 GB 54.4 GB 34.1 tok/s Runs great 42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at F16, whatever it runs on. Match score 60/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. 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?