<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[How many CPU threads should Caterpillar use?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Short answer: <strong>leave it alone</strong> — the default is now your physical core count, which measured fastest.</p>
<p dir="auto">Longer answer, because it surprises people: using <em>every</em> logical thread is usually <strong>slower</strong>, not faster. On a 4-core/8-thread laptop, 4 threads measured about 9% faster than 8, with steadier timings.</p>
<p dir="auto">The reason is that generating text is limited by how fast the machine can read the model from memory, not by how much arithmetic it can do. Extra threads add contention without adding memory bandwidth.</p>
<p dir="auto">If you want to experiment, <code>CATERPILLAR_CPU_THREADS</code> overrides it. If you try it, please post <strong>both</strong> numbers and your CPU — one result on its own is hard to learn from, since thermal state moves these numbers around a lot.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.lizard-llm.qendryx.com/topic/9/how-many-cpu-threads-should-caterpillar-use</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 01:37:05 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.lizard-llm.qendryx.com/topic/9.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:08:00 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>