Unsloth - Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct MXFP4 Hybrid GGUF

Dense model utilizing MXFP4_MOE with hybrid weights on a dense model. Achieving interesting results that show smaller file size, more TPS, and near lossless precision.

Use one of the 3 found magic models!

Stats compared against the standard Q8_0 (precision loss still compared to F16)

MXFP4_MOE-Q6_K

5.2% smaller than Q8 • 264.49 TPS • 0.0992% precision loss

MXFP4_MOE-output_q6_K-router_gate_emb_q6_K

10.1% smaller than Q8 • 247.84 TPS • 0.1078% precision loss

(TLDR: The perfect balance)

This repository contains a set of hybrid MXFP4 quantized GGUF models designed to explore a surprising discovery:

A carefully targeted combination of MXFP4 + high-precision embeddings/output weights can deliver near-Q8 accuracy with Q4–Q6 level throughput and smaller file sizes than Q8.

Unlike pure MXFP4, which heavily degrades dense models. This hybrid method selectively protects tensors that matter most for semantic stability, while allowing MXFP4 to accelerate everything else.

This is experimental. And should be treated as such. I am more than encouraging people to use these models and leave feedback! Though precision loss seemed near lossless, did the hybrid models act strange in certain situations? Worse or better on some topics compared to the original model? Did it do better/worse overall on everything? I'd love to hear back from others!

The Magic Models - Use One Of These 3 Models!

Each of these models achieved:

File size reduction compared to the Q8_0

Better precision loss scores than the pure Q6_K

Achieving noticeably better TPS than a Q4_K_M

I have personally deemed these in the category of "Q7.5" quantization.

The following are the special models to note from what was created. Each of the 3 models shown below are being compared to the Q8 model.

MXFP4_MOE-Q8

(5.2% smaller than Q8 • 264.49 TPS • 0.0992% precision loss )

Honestly, this one is hands down the best. Best TPS, lowest precision loss, this is the one you want.

The following was the conversion script:

llama-quantize \
  --tensor-type token_embd.weight=Q8_0 \
  --tensor-type output.weight=Q8_0 \
  "Path_To_F16_GGUF.gguf" \
  "Path_To_GGUF.gguf" \
  mxfp4_moe

MXFP4_MOE-output_q6_K-router_gate_emb_q6_K

(10.1% smaller than Q8 • 247.84 TPS • 0.1078% precision loss)

Still a great version, but you really only want this if you truly can't spare the extra 400 MB to use the MXFP4_MOE-Q8 instead.

The following was the conversion script:

llama-quantize \
  --tensor-type token_embd.weight=Q6_K \
  --tensor-type output.weight=Q6_K \
  --tensor-type 'router.*'=Q6_K \
  --tensor-type 'gate.*'=Q6_K \
  "Path_To_F16_GGUF.gguf" \
  "Path_To_GGUF.gguf" \
  mxfp4_moe

MXFP4_MOE Hybrid Naming Scheme & Synopsis

Multiple different combinations of converted models were created. The results were interesting to say the least. The following table will explain my naming scheme to what was done to the model to create it.

Suffix Example	Meaning
`MXFP4_MOE`	Pure MXFP4 pipeline
`MXFP4_MOE-Q8`	Embedding/output in Q8_0
`MXFP4_MOE-F16`	Embedding/output in F16
`output_mxfp4-embd_q8`	Output → MXFP4, Embedding → Q8
`output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q5_K`	Output → MXFP4, Emb/Router/Gate → Q5_K
`MXFP4_MOE-Q6_K`	Both embedding + output in Q6_K
`Q8_0`, `Q6_K`, `Q4_K_M`	Pure model-wide quantizations

The results achieved were interesting to say the least. It was a brute force game of mass creating models with hybrid methods to find combinations that didn't cause too much noise and paired well with MXFP4.

This repo showcases the converted models, whether good or bad that was created. But, I have been testing other models in different combinations as well. The winning hybrid combinations shown in this repo DOES NOT always equate to the same results on different models.

Some models do better or worse with different kinds of combinations. It depends if it's dense, MOE, and much more. Many times the results surprise me. Many models no matter the combination will not play nice with MXFP4. At least with the methods shown here.

Benchmark Methodology

All models were tested with a unified automated harness using llama.cpp tools.

Included tests:

Throughput:
llama-bench with descending GPU offload (-ngl 35 → 0) and automatic OOM retry.
Highest successful TPS is recorded.
Perplexity:
Three domains: general, code, math.
Each uses an auto-generated corpus of ~32k tokens.
Perplexity is computed with llama-perplexity at 2048-token context.
Same GPU retry logic as above.
Precision loss:
Each model is compared to its family F16 baseline.
Precision-loss % is computed for all PPL domains, plus an averaged score.
Models are ranked by this metric.

Table - Overview of Results

Comparing to F16.

model_name	size_reduction	tps_change
MXFP4_MOE-F16	36.24%	11.15%
MXFP4_MOE-Q6_K	49.61%	68.13%
MXFP4_MOE-output_q6_K-router_gate_emb_q6_K	52.23%	57.55%
Q8_0	46.85%	53.86%
MXFP4_MOE-Q8	46.85%	42.92%
MXFP4_MOE-output_q8-embd_mxfp4	48.89%	50.88%
Q6_K	58.98%	63.61%
MXFP4_MOE-Q5_K	51.05%	70.71%
Q5_K_M	64.29%	60.3%
MXFP4_MOE-Q4_K	52.49%	75.39%
Q4_K_M	69.33%	63.58%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q5_K	52.23%	82.18%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q6_K	54.39%	90.76%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q8	50.85%	80.95%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q8	50.85%	82.88%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q4_K	52.75%	74.42%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q6_K	51.77%	83.91%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q5_K	56.42%	79.35%
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q4_K	58.26%	82.96%
MXFP4_MOE	73.39%	108.18%

All percentages compared against the selected family F16 baseline.

Table - File Size + TPS + Avg Precision Loss

model_name	file_size_gb	bench_tps	avg_prec_loss
F16	15.26	157.31	0
MXFP4_MOE-F16	9.73	174.85	0.0876
MXFP4_MOE-Q6_K	7.69	264.49	0.0992
MXFP4_MOE-output_q6_K-router_gate_emb_q6_K	7.29	247.84	0.1078
Q8_0	8.11	242.04	0.1286
MXFP4_MOE-Q8	8.11	224.83	0.1299
MXFP4_MOE-output_q8-embd_mxfp4	7.8	237.35	0.1764
Q6_K	6.26	257.37	0.2061
MXFP4_MOE-Q5_K	7.47	268.54	0.4262
Q5_K_M	5.45	252.17	0.966
MXFP4_MOE-Q4_K	7.25	275.9	1.2426
Q4_K_M	4.68	257.33	1.2518
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q5_K	7.29	286.59	6.1681
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q6_K	6.96	300.09	6.189
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q8	7.5	284.65	6.1893
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q8	7.5	287.69	6.1893
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q4_K	7.21	274.38	6.2107
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q6_K	7.36	289.31	6.2136
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q5_K	6.65	282.13	6.4579
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q4_K	6.37	287.82	6.5541
MXFP4_MOE	4.06	327.49	12.3801

Bench NGL was 35
Utilized CUDA

Table - PPL Columns

model_name	gen	gen_er	code	code_er	math	math_er
F16	7.4343	0.1566	1.4053	0.0087	5.8563	0.1081
MXFP4_MOE-F16	7.4452	0.1569	1.4053	0.0087	5.8631	0.1083
MXFP4_MOE-Q6_K	7.4477	0.1567	1.4057	0.0087	5.8615	0.1082
MXFP4_MOE-output_q6_K-router_gate_emb_q6_K	7.446	0.1567	1.406	0.0087	5.8631	0.1082
Q8_0	7.4515	0.157	1.4056	0.0087	5.8641	0.1083
MXFP4_MOE-Q8	7.4515	0.157	1.4057	0.0087	5.8639	0.1082
MXFP4_MOE-output_q8-embd_mxfp4	7.456	0.1571	1.4059	0.0087	5.8677	0.1083
Q6_K	7.452	0.1569	1.4087	0.0088	5.8644	0.1084
MXFP4_MOE-Q5_K	7.4899	0.1578	1.4058	0.0087	5.8853	0.1087
Q5_K_M	7.5473	0.1597	1.4125	0.0089	5.907	0.1099
MXFP4_MOE-Q4_K	7.5898	0.1606	1.4119	0.0089	5.9246	0.1096
Q4_K_M	7.5635	0.1584	1.4211	0.0089	5.9086	0.1086
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q5_K	7.9882	0.1678	1.4246	0.0089	6.4232	0.1197
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q6_K	7.9946	0.1681	1.4248	0.0089	6.421	0.1197
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q8	7.9925	0.168	1.4243	0.0089	6.4248	0.1198
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q8	7.9925	0.168	1.4243	0.0089	6.4248	0.1198
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q4_K	7.9963	0.1681	1.4241	0.0089	6.4264	0.1198
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q6_K	7.9964	0.168	1.4243	0.0089	6.426	0.1198
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q5_K	8.0245	0.1689	1.426	0.0089	6.4397	0.1203
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q4_K	8.0288	0.1689	1.429	0.0089	6.4407	0.1202
MXFP4_MOE	8.5631	0.1809	1.4779	0.0096	6.8396	0.1299

gen = ppl_general
gen_er = ppl_general_error
code = ppl_code
code_er = ppl_code_error
math = ppl_math
math_er = ppl_math_error

Table - Precision Loss Columns

model_name	loss_general	loss_code	loss_math
F16	0	0	0
MXFP4_MOE-F16	0.1466	0	0.1161
MXFP4_MOE-Q6_K	0.1802	0.0285	0.0888
MXFP4_MOE-output_q6_K-router_gate_emb_q6_K	0.1574	0.0498	0.1161
Q8_0	0.2314	0.0213	0.1332
MXFP4_MOE-Q8	0.2314	0.0285	0.1298
MXFP4_MOE-output_q8-embd_mxfp4	0.2919	0.0427	0.1947
Q6_K	0.2381	0.2419	0.1383
MXFP4_MOE-Q5_K	0.7479	0.0356	0.4952
Q5_K_M	1.52	0.5123	0.8657
MXFP4_MOE-Q4_K	2.0917	0.4697	1.1663
Q4_K_M	1.7379	1.1243	0.8931
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q5_K	7.4506	1.3734	9.6802
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q6_K	7.5367	1.3876	9.6426
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q8	7.5084	1.352	9.7075
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q8	7.5084	1.352	9.7075
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q4_K	7.5596	1.3378	9.7348
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-embd_q6_K	7.5609	1.352	9.728
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q5_K	7.9389	1.473	9.9619
MXFP4_MOE-output_mxfp4-router_gate_emb_q4_K	7.9967	1.6865	9.979
MXFP4_MOE	15.1837	5.1662	16.7905