vLLM vs llama.cpp vs Ollama: What Happens When Your Model Doesn't Fit in 24GB VRAM
Article summary
Quick briefing — cleaned from the original RSS feed
TL;DR Benchmarked llama.cpp, Ollama, and vLLM across 5 models (1B to 116.8B params) on one RTX 3090 (24GB) + 128GB RAM home-lab box, priced through HomeLab Monitor . Inside 24GB, vLLM's continuous batching scales aggregate throughput 3.9x-5.4x from concurrency 1 to 8 (llama.cpp only manages 1.2x-1.9x , even with -np 8 explicitly set to match). Past 24GB — two models deliberately chosen to force RAM-spill — llama.cpp and Ollama both degrade to single-digit tok/s and keep generating. vLLM OOMs…
1Key Takeaways
- TL;DR Benchmarked llama.cpp, Ollama, and vLLM across 5 models (1B to 116.8B params) on one RTX 3090 (24GB) + 128GB RAM home-lab box, priced through HomeLab Monitor .
- Inside 24GB, vLLM's continuous batching scales aggregate throughput 3.9x-5.4x from concurrency 1 to 8 (llama.cpp only manages 1.2x-1.9x , even with -np 8 explicitly set to match).
- Past 24GB — two models deliberately chosen to force RAM-spill — llama.cpp and Ollama both degrade to single-digit tok/s and keep generating.
2AIWedia Score
8.1/10
High relevance — worth your attention today
Based on source trust, recency, category impact, and story depth.
3Why it matters
Coding AI shifts how fast software ships and how much human review each change needs. DEV — AI reports that tL;DR Benchmarked llama.cpp, Ollama, and vLLM across 5 models (1B to 116.8B params) on one RTX 3090 (24GB) + 128GB RAM home-lab box, priced through HomeLab Monitor .
Explore related
Browse toolsCoding AI news
Explore curated coding ai tools on AIWedia — compare, rank, and launch from our directory.
Full story on DEV — AI
Read full articleHeadlines aggregated via RSS for discovery on AIWedia. Original content © DEV — AI. We link to the source and do not republish full articles.