One model logged 14.5 and 6,178 prompt tokens a second

Two rows in my 2026-08-27 report describe the same model on the same GPU. One says it read prompt tokens at 14.5 a second. The other says 6,178.9. Nothing about the model changed between them. The prompt size did.

Short answer: A local model has no single prompt ingestion rate. These runs used different input sizes, so their prompt rates do not support a direct speed ranking. Size the model with a prompt the size it will really get. Canonical URL: https://bmdpat.com/blog/local-llm-prompt-eval-rate-prompt-size-2026

What did the two runs record?

Both rows are gemma4:26b, quant Q4_K_M, on Ollama 0.31.1, temperature 0, on the RTX 5090.

The short-gen-256 run sent 53 input tokens with num_ctx=4096. Ollama reported prompt_eval of 53 tokens at 14.5 tok/s. That is about 3.66 seconds to read 53 tokens.

The long-context-summarize run sent 4,470 input tokens with num_ctx=8192. Ollama reported prompt_eval of 4,470 tokens at 6,178.9 tok/s. That is about 0.72 seconds to read 4,470 tokens.

The bigger prompt was 84 times larger and finished reading in a fifth of the time. As a rate, that is a 426x spread on one model in one report.

These are the same Gemma 4 26B rows I already published when I split input and output timing. That post showed why one blended speed is a bad score. This post is the next failure: ranking prompt rates after you split them.

Why can I not rank these prompt rates?

A rate is work divided by time. These rows divide different token counts by different prompt_eval intervals.

The rows do not isolate any fixed cost. They only record the prompt token count and the full prompt_eval interval. Ollama documents both fields in its generate API.

I do not have a field that says why the 53-token interval took 3.66 seconds. The honest read is narrower. The 14.5 tok/s row does not define gemma4:26b's prompt speed for a 4,470-token job.

Did the same thing happen on the 8B model?

The same report has another unmatched pair. llama3.1:8b Q4_K_M on the same engine read 46 tokens at 679.4 tok/s and 4,344 tokens at 12,108.7 tok/s.

That is a 17.8x spread, not 426x. Both pairs mix a short input with a long input. Neither pair supports a prompt-speed ranking.

Two models, four rows, and not one of them supports a sentence that starts with "this model reads prompts at."

Why does the output rate stay stable?

Compare the generation column for the same two gemma4:26b runs. Short prompt: 198.81 output tok/s. Long prompt: 180.18 output tok/s. That is about a 10 percent gap.

These two output rates stayed much closer than the prompt rates. That result does not explain the input spread. It shows why I compare each phase with matched work.

Splitting the phases is not enough if you then compare input rates across different prompt sizes. It is the same failure I hit with wall clock, where the faster run took 83x longer. A rate with a small denominator will lie to you in a table that looks orderly.

What does this change about sizing a local agent?

A retrieval worker or a coding worker sends a lot of input. A file, an error log, tool output, and instructions add up fast. If I size that job from a 53-token test prompt, I predict the wrong thing in both directions.

So I test at the prompt size the job will really send. If the agent will carry 4,000 tokens of context, the sizing run carries 4,000 tokens. A short smoke test proves the model answers. It does not measure ingestion.

I also stopped ranking models by prompt rate across rows that used different input sizes. That comparison has no meaning. If the input counts differ, the rates are not comparable, and no amount of averaging repairs it.

What do I record now?

Every prompt rate in my table carries its input token count and its num_ctx in the same row. A rate without its denominator is not a measurement I can reuse later.

I mark any prompt-eval rate under 1,000 tokens of input as indicative, not comparable. It still goes in the table, because failed and weak rows are worth keeping. It just cannot be quoted against a production-sized run.

The rule is short. Record the count next to the rate, and only compare rates that read prompts of the same size.

Accompanying prompt

What the prompt does: It checks whether two local model prompt-eval rates can be compared, and rejects the comparison when the input sizes differ.

Copy/paste this prompt:

Copy-ready prompt

Paste the exact block into your coding agent.

No article chrome, no footnotes, no formatting drift.

Copy promptSelect text

Role: You are auditing local LLM benchmark rows before anyone quotes them. Context: Row A: model, quant, engine, num_ctx, input token count, prompt rate Row B: model, quant, engine, num_ctx, input token count, prompt rate Row A values: [ ] Row B values: [ ] Task: 1. Confirm both rows name model, quant, engine, num_ctx, and input count. 2. Report the ratio of the two input token counts. 3. Mark any row with fewer than 1000 input tokens as indicative only. 4. Decide whether the two prompt rates are comparable. Output: - Missing fields per row - Input count ratio - Indicative rows - COMPARABLE or NOT COMPARABLE - One sentence of reasoning Constraints: - Do not average rates across different input sizes. - Do not infer a missing input count from the context limit. - Return NOT COMPARABLE when a required field is missing. - Name a cause only when a timing field supports it.

27 lines/885 chars

Ready

This prompt and every other one we publish live in the free prompt library.

Copy the block above.

Get the next measured local-AI field note by email: The 5090 Reports.