MLA + CSA2 (compressed KV cache, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash) vs Classical MHA KV cache (per layer)
Copyable arithmetic: at a 1M-token context, 890 B/token ≈ 0.89 GB persistent KV cache, only +25% decode FLOPs versus 4K, and roughly half the prefill load. Classical MHA scales linearly: the same KV reads grow with the context. For long contexts and cache-heavy agent workloads the compressed layout clearly wins (cache hit at $0.003 per 1M tokens). Below a few thousand tokens and when full-index precision matters, classical MHA is the simple, exact choice.
Detailed Comparison
A side-by-side analysis of key factors to help you make the right choice.
| Factor | MLA + CSA2 (compressed KV cache, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash)Recommended | Classical MHA KV cache (per layer) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Score | 0/ 0 | 0/ 0 | 0 ties |
When to Choose Each Option
Clear guidance based on your specific situation and needs.
Choose MLA + CSA2 (compressed KV cache, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash) when...
Choose Classical MHA KV cache (per layer) when...
Our Recommendation
Copyable arithmetic: at a 1M-token context, 890 B/token ≈ 0.89 GB persistent KV cache, only +25% decode FLOPs versus 4K, and roughly half the prefill load. Classical MHA scales linearly: the same KV reads grow with the context. For long contexts and cache-heavy agent workloads the compressed layout clearly wins (cache hit at $0.003 per 1M tokens). Below a few thousand tokens and when full-index precision matters, classical MHA is the simple, exact choice.
Need help deciding?
Book a free 30-minute consultation and we'll help you determine the best approach for your specific project.