HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
turboderp
exllama
Python2023–2025
turboderp / exllama

exllama

A more memory-efficient rewrite of the HF transformers implementation of Llama for use with quantized weights.

11Distinct people
18Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.9KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A more memory-efficient rewrite of the HF transformers implementation of Llama for use with quantized weights.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 8:59:20 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month18 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-05-23 05:41:18 UTC to 2025-03-24 22:40:26 UTC.

02462023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMay 20232023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 0 submissions, 6 comments2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsApr 20242024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMar 2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
May 20232023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jun 20232023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC505
Jul 20232023-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC606
Aug 20232023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Sep 20232023-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 20232023-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20232023-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20232023-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20242024-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20242024-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20242024-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC101
May 20242024-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20242024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 20242024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20242024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20242024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20242024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20242024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20242024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20252025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20252025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

6 sources
> We serve Llama on 2 80-GB A100 GPUs, as that is the minumum required to fit Llama in memory (with 16-bit precision) Well there is your problem. LLaMA quantized to 4 bits fits in 40GB. And it gets similar throughput split between dual consumer GPUs, which likely means much better throughput on a single 40GB A100 (or a cheaper 48GB Pro GPU) https://github.com/turboderp/exllama#dual-gpu-results And this is without any consideration of batching (which I am not familiar with TBH). Also, I'm not sure which model was tested, but Llama 70B chat should have better performance than the base model if the prompting syntax is right. That was only reverse engineered from the Meta demo implementation recently. There are other "perks" from llama too, like manually adjusting various generation parameters, custom grammar during generation and extended co
Read the rest
ntext.
In Llama Is Expensive
ExLlama still uses a bit less VRAM than anything else out there: https://github.com/turboderp/exllama#new-implementation - this is sometimes significant since from my personal experience it can support full context on a quantized llama-33b model on a 24GB GPU that can OOM w/ other inference engines. oobabooga recently did a direct perplexity comparison against various engines/quants: https://oobabooga.github.io/blog/posts/perplexities/ On wikitext, for llama-13b, the perplexity of a q4_K_M GGML on llama.cpp was within 0.3% of the perplexity of a 4-bit 128g desc_act GPTQ on ExLlama, so basically interchangeable. There are some new quantization formats being proposed like AWQ, SpQR, SqueezeLLM that perform slightly better, but none have been implemented in any real systems yet (the paper for SqueezeLLM is the latest, and has comparison vs A
Read the rest
WQ and SpQR if you want to read about it: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.07629.pdf)
In GPT-4 API General Availability
For those getting started, the easiest one click installer I've used is Nomic.ai's gpt4all: https://gpt4all.io/ This runs with a simple GUI on Windows/Mac/Linux, leverages a fork of llama.cpp on the backend and supports GPU acceleration, and LLaMA, Falcon, MPT, and GPT-J models. It also has API/CLI bindings. I just saw a slick new tool https://ollama.ai/ that will let you install a llama2-7b with a single `ollama run llama2` command that has a very simple 1-click installer for Apple Silicon Mac (but need to build from source for anything else atm). It looks like it only supports llamas OOTB but it also seems to use llama.cpp (via Go adapter) on the backend - it seemed to be CPU-only on my MBA, but I didn't poke too much and it's brand new, so we'll see. For anyone on HN, they should probably be looking at https://github.com/ggerganov/llam
Read the rest
a.cpp and https://github.com/ggerganov/ggml directly. If you have a high-end Nvidia consumer card (3090/4090) I'd highly recommend looking into https://github.com/turboderp/exllama For those generally confused, the r/LocalLLaMA wiki is a good place to start: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/wiki/guide/ I've also been porting my own notes into a single location that tracks models, evals, and has guides focused on local models: https://llm-tracker.info/
In Accessing Llama 2 from the command-line with the LLM-replicate plugin
LLaMA 30B or 60B can be very impressive when correctly prompted. Deploying the 60B version is a challenge though and you might need to apply 4-bit quantization with something like https://github.com/PanQiWei/AutoGPTQ or https://github.com/qwopqwop200/GPTQ-for-LLaMa . Then you can improve the inference speed by using https://github.com/turboderp/exllama . If you prefer to use an "instruct" model à la ChatGPT (i.e. that does not need few-shot learning to output good results) you can use something like this: https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Wizard-Vicuna-30B-Uncensored... The interesting thing with these Uncensored models is that they don't constantly answer that they cannot help you (which is what ChatGPT and GPT-4 are doing more and more).
In GPT-4 details leaked?
In terms of speed, we're talking about 140t/s for 7B models, and 40t/s for 33B models on a 3090/4090 now.[1] (1 token ~= 0.75 word) It's quite zippy. llama.cpp performs close on Nvidia GPUs now (but they don't have a handy chart) and you can get decent performance on 13B models on M1/M2 Macs. You can take a look at a list of evals here: https://llm-tracker.info/books/evals/page/list-of-evals - for general usage, I think home-rolled evals like llm-jeopardy [2] and local-llm-comparison [3] by hobbyists are more useful than most of the benchmark rankings. That being said, personally I mostly use GPT-4 for code assistance to that's what I'm most interested in, and the latest code assistants are scoring quite well: https://github.com/abacaj/code-eval - a recent replit-3b fine tune the human-eval results for open models (as a point of reference
Read the rest
, GPT-3.5 gets 60.4 on pass@1 and 68.9 on pass@10 [4]) - I've only just started playing around with it since replit model tooling is not as good as llamas (doc here: https://llm-tracker.info/books/howto-guides/page/replit-mode...). I'm interested in potentially applying reflexion or some of the other techniques that have been tried to even further increase coding abilities. (InterCode in particular has caught my eye https://intercode-benchmark.github.io/) [1] https://github.com/turboderp/exllama#results-so-far [2] https://github.com/aigoopy/llm-jeopardy [3] https://github.com/Troyanovsky/Local-LLM-comparison/tree/mai... [4] https://github.com/nlpxucan/WizardLM/tree/main/WizardCoder
In GPT-4 API General Availability

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.