I have never tried one yet but I am considering trying that for a medium sized model.
I have never tried one yet but I am considering trying that for a medium sized model.
As I understand it if DeepSeek v4 Pro is a 1.6T, 49B active that means you'd need just 49B in memory, so ~100GB at 16 bit or ~50GB at 8bit quantized.
v4 Flash is 284B, 13B active so might even fit in <32GB.
My Mac can fit almost 70B (Q3_K_M) in memory at once, so I really need to try this out soon at maybe Q5-ish.
V4 is natively mixed FP4 and FP8, so significantly less than that. 50 GB max unquantized.
Streaming weights from RAM to GPU for decode makes no sense at all because batching requires multiple parallel streams.
Streaming weights from SSD _never_ makes sense because the delta between SSD and RAM is too large. There is no situation where you would not be able to fit a model in RAM and also have useful speeds from SSD.
Even worse, the github repo advertises:
> Pure C/Metal inference engine that runs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (a 397 billion parameter Mixture-of-Experts model) on a MacBook Pro with 48GB RAM at 4.4+ tokens/second with production-quality output including tool calling.
Hiding the fact that active params is _not_ 17B.
> Update: Dan's latest version upgrades to 4-bit quantization of the experts (209GB on disk, 4.36 tokens/second) after finding that the 2-bit version broke tool calling while 4-bit handles that well.
That was also just the first version of this pattern that I encountered, it's since seen a bunch of additional activity from other developers in other projects.
I linked to some of those in this follow-up: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Mar/24/streaming-experts/
They all do have a limitation from the SSD, but the Apple SSDs can do over 17GB/s (on high end models, the more normal ones are around 8GB/s)
Note: these were just two that I starred when I saw them posted here. I have not looked seriously at it at the moment,