tested UD-Q4_K_XL - it is terrible vs DS4F

#9
by alexbi29 - opened

On my math/physics/coding test:

Model Correct Failures Total completion tokens matching correct answers
MiniMax-M3 Q4 BF16KV 93/120 27 TO 42,354
DeepSeek V4 Flash CUTLASS 120/120 0 28,667

either is a bad quant or minimax m3 is hard to quantize.
Note: most of the failures are token limits.

I also have problem with the endless reasoning. I'm using Q4_K_XL.

I think that q4_k_xl is busted.

2026-06-22-002525_hyprshot

I think MiniMax-M3 is very sensitive to quantization for some reason. I think it currently breaks the model. We also have to remember that there is no real PR in llama.cpp that supports the architecture, so it could be due to that, as well.

But I can just say that M2.5 and M2.7 both had good quality at lower quants. But with M3, it produces way worse quality in terms of the responses at similar quants.

Related findings from https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pull/24908#issuecomment-4820585273:

This PR adds support for minimax m3 with MSA and vision. We consider this important because m3 was only trained to show 2048 tokens of context to any single indexer head. Unsloth's PR might be diluting the context by exposing all of it at once. I've compared them side by side and while I haven't run into a situation where unsloth's PR was broken, I generally prefer the outputs of this PR with MSA and find them more accurate. Plus vision is working and seems on par with vllm.

I encounter similar endless reasoning issue with dense attention, and no such issue with MSA from PR 24908. The GGUFs will need to be remade though. I am testing a IQ3_XXS/IQ4_XS mix.

Sign up or log in to comment