Credit where it's due. Qwen 3.8 27B is only the second local model after Gemma 4 that managed to correctly reason through one of my private benchmarks. It took 5x as many tokens to do it and 12m30s with MTP enabled, but it did do it.
Gemma 4 reasoned through it more implicitly, while Qwen 3.8 reasoned more explicitly. Laguna and Muse Glimmer failed hard on it, though they're useful for other tasks.
The VRAM usage seems way less efficient than Gemma 4 or Glimmer though, with 32K of context taking 2.5GB of VRAM. With those, even with MTP or a DFlash model loaded, you could still fit 256k-768k of context. With Qwen 3.8 27B I can't even fit 128k if I quantize V to Q4_0. Maybe with some trial and error I can find some settings that perform well enough with a larger context window that it's still useful for longer tasks.
Lots more testing to do, though I was getting some decent results out of Muse Glimmer which was more than twice as fast and supported huge context windows, managing to solve some bugs that Gemma 4 struggled with. I can't even begin to throw that task at Qwen, because just the prompt alone would use the entire context window and then it would reason for probably that same amount.
If you've got a 32GB card, it should be a decent model even if it really is memory hungry.
EDIT: Tried a few kv cache quantization settings, but it failed with those. I designed this benchmark to be pretty brutal in the face of KLD and any reasoning quality loss, so it's not too surprising. Gemma 4's QAT held up pretty well, at least and could consistently complete it.
> The VRAM usage seems way less efficient than Gemma 4 or Glimmer though
Maybe it's implicit that you're using llama.cpp (although you don't mention GGUF), but it's hard to reach concrete conclusions about the model architecture based on one implementation in one runtime.
I was quite impressed by Muse Glimmer, and while I am sure people will observe that it is less good on benchmarks, my first experiences with this new 27B have been somewhat exasperating, whereas testing Muse Glimmer was rather fun. I have not tested either in an agentic context, mind you.
Glimmer works really well as an "explore" agent model (like in Opencode.) It seems to be extremely efficient at searching and collating that info, and executing commands.
From my testing so far, Qwen 3.8 is better at code but it tends to meander and take forever if it has to look in a lot of places. Glimmer will use like ~1k tokens to formulate a plan and Qwen 3.8 will routinely go over 10k
Bicycle is the right shape. Pelican beak is excellent. Nice background. Most importantly, the pelican has one leg on each side of the bicycle - that's very rare.
(No chain on this bicycle though - in the reasoning trace it says "already chainstay... skip chain detail; maybe a small chainring.")
It took 21 minutes(!) and used 22,276 reasoning tokens to produce 3,223 tokens of output.
(For the "they're training on your benchmark now" crowd, all of that cheating didn't prevent it from spending 20 minutes thinking about the task first! You can see the reasoning trace in the link I shared.)
For anyone who followed yesterday's Gemini 3.7 Flash pelican which rendered in Safari but not in Firefox or Chrome... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49289112#49290012. - that turned out to be my fault, not the model.
Perhaps this isn’t a new observation but the problem with LLMs is very clear with these. It’s a nice microcosm. The LLM will draw a fish companion (unprompted!) with a nice gradient but won’t get the pelican’s feet right.
It’s obviously a problem of fundamental understanding and demonstrates that reasoning is more “directionless rigour”.
Or a matter of having limited time but spending it thinking about the wrong thing. Which, not to anthropomorphize it, but it's not like humans don't do that, or at least I do.
It is interesting that it went with something like:
"pelican = ocean bird = nautical theme = this means I should put a captain's hat on the cartoon Pelican"
I think in some sense it understood the absurdity of a pelican riding a bicycle as intentionally nonsensical, so it went with a cartoon theme for the design and the shading. Worked out really well.
It's definitely trained on generating SVGs. Not that they trained on the pelican prompt itself, but probably a more general RL step that has it generate SVG and a stronger vision model judges it.
What's the result if you ask it for a "pelican equipment case" ? I've been trying the anti-bicycle pelican on some LLMs and the results are much more varied than the bicycle prompt. Some have very different ideas of pelicans (you'll get a small case with one DSLR camera in it, or a long rifle case, etc). You'll also get cases that are isometric view, or flat plane view from the front, or open or closed.
That is pretty good! It's interesting it chose orange, because that's actually a somewhat rare color for pelican cases. I would say 95% of the ones going around the world right now are either black or FDE (flat dark earth) tan colored. There are some orange ones, for sure, if you google image search "orange pelican case", people use them for emergency/first aid supplies or electronics. But only the smallest ones are available in orange.
It is also worth noting that it shaded the pelican case like it was a product photo taken in a studio, there's a virtual light source above and to the top left corner of it, then shading deeper color of orange as the body area progresses towards the lower right corner.
Doubtful? Without knowing anything about how it was trained, if you google image search "pelican bird" they are predominantly white in color. Though the bill is certainly orange, different shades depending on camera and lighting conditions. The SVG attempt looks more like an attempt at the product photos if you search "pelican case orange".
Or to make it even more tricky, since Pelican cases will float when closed, something like "generate an SVG file of a Pelican bird floating in the ocean next to a Pelican case".
I've been getting ads in my Instagram for http://colorcase.com. They add colors and wheels to cases and I'm sharing them because you're right, most of them aren't orange. But they could be!
Wow, those are expensive. I've been buying pelican 1510 and similar from eBay and b&h used/refurb. The harbor freight pelican knock off that is their 3800 and 4800 product numbers are also not bad. It's like 85% as good as a real pelican for 40% of the price.
Not too bad, on my 5090 I got ~160tokens/sec and it took 3m20s to generate a pelican using Ninfer which someone else mentioned. I don't know why I didn't get any sweet sweet seagulls in my background, even on xhigh reasoning effort.
I've done a few variations, I've been impressed with all of them. My favourite so far has been "Generate an SVG of a turtle flying a kite", result: https://imgur.com/a/bdKJPV4.
Some will say conflating flying and flying a kite is bad, but I like it.
I was just updating a Proxmox cluster from v8 to v9 and had time on my hands and 15-30 mins after the models appeared for general download I had an initial pelican effort in .svg format.
I switch off reasoning by default and for starters I ran 3.8 the same way as 3.6 on vllm on a DGX Spark box. Open web UI prompted.
My word! It looks rather decent. Much better than previous efforts.
this sort of test surely only works when it's a brand new concept/prompt. like the exact same models trained newer data will surely get better at putting this together over time
There's a real change (compared to 3.6) in the way it writes in thinking — it drops words like "to" and "we" in "We need to", talks generally in note form, drops the/and all over the place, avoids "for".
"Need be helpful concise", "Need maybe not overdo", "Need ask!" Almost caveman.
I have an (unsourced, vague) suspicion that this rather unique thinking trace pattern is actually hobbling the MTP predictions, which seem to perform poorly.
Other notes: it uses the trick of repeating the prompt in the thinking trace.
It also worries about hidden chain of thought appearing in the final answer. It talks about "desired oververbosity 9", which is new. A bit GPT-ish.
It is being extraordinarily thorough in thinking through one of my code requests, but I don't know if the net result will be any better than the 35B MoE.
I asked it to ask me clarifying questions — it did, and it offered me a list of defaults I could simply agree to.
I don't think it is necessarily overthinking in the looping sense, but it is in the being exhaustive sense. I need to explore how it does with a tighter reasoning budget.
I am impressed but I am definitely in Camp Please-35B-A3B-When? here, because on an M1 Max this isn't really practical. I hope they do one, though I think they may not.
I also noticed that if you ask it to write text content to a certain word length (like "please write 250 words about the potato"), it now takes its sweet time "manually" counting each word in its draft output. It puts a number next to each word and iterates through all of its draft paragraphs and tries to stick to a strict word count. This is with temperature 1.0 as recommended.
Annnnd the code of my WP code test is not better. It is bushy, overcomplicated, and has gone around the houses to do stuff it would not need to do if it hadn't overthought.
Oh dear. I need to try to understand what is going on here.
If anyone else is running this on an RTX 5090, https://github.com/Neroued/ninfer as inference engine gets me ~138 tokens/second, roughly double what I get with a naive llama.cpp setup.
Wow. This model is so good, and we have GLM 5.3 (seems great voor security related work) and Deepseek. In a few months we'll have Fable/Sol-like capabilities that are not coming from the big US companies. I feel as a programmer that that is more than enough. How wil OpenAI and Anthropic survive when frontier model intelligence becomes commoditized?
I stopped using Fable and Opus 5 because I literally can't understand the output. The waffle is so intense it no longer makes sense. I don't understand who is using those to get real work done.
I'm using kimi-k3 on a real high level dev & analysis task at the moment (with Gemini flash for fast implementation) and it is fantastic.
I think we have passed the point where frontier intelligence is commoditized.
just curious; which fable/opus versions are you using?
Fable-1m-max-thinking output, despite being incredibly slow and expensive, feels like it bucked a trend towards superficial loquaciousness in their models that had been building since 4.6.
I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to upgrading models, fable was the first one to make me give up Opus 4.6-1M-max.
I'd love to understand this more. Are you saying the Qwen team spends their very impressive human and compute resources on publishing these amazing models and then botches the chat template with mundane bugs?
Like maybe I just misunderstand what's the hard part but wouldn't you assume that people who can put together an impressive model can also write a proper jinja chat template for it?
One really would think these companies (including Google) who spend many millions of dollars on compute could write a few hundred lines of Jinja correctly, so their investment works optimally or at all.
But they don't.
Then a couple of individuals on HuggingFace fix it, either a 2-person startup like Unsloth or a volunteer like froggeric.
I also don't understand how this repeatedly happens.
Yes for the first question. Google of all companies didn't even get it right with Gemma for a while until recently. For some reason it doesn't seem like people can actually get these templates right.
It’s unlikely they are benchmarking that downstream. They probably have private benchmark scripts with purpose-specific run telemetry and logging, etc.
I’m sure there is some basic testing but it might be agentic (LLM likes its own output) and maybe just some human smoke tests.
they likely use their internal infra to run benchmarks; aligning external releases with internal environments is always painful and somewhat underincentivized
The chat templates are usually the first thing that every major release bork on, and all new model architectures end up having a ~2 week initial window of small fixes before they’re not DoA
Temperature, top-up, top-k, min-p all control which token the model predicts next and how likely it is to select one token over the other.
You might understand this as "The capital of France is..." and the model isn't always going to select "Paris". Sometimes it will start a descriptive sentence or even get the answer wrong.
That selection of the next token is what these settings control, and lots of sub-optimal selections compound over time to produce a junk response.
If the benchmarks don't lie, this is getting very close to Opus 4.6 capability - which was the turning point for me for when AI was "good enough" that it became very hard to justify not using it.
I'm sure there's some benchmaxxing going on, and some things you get only with a a larger model.
But I'm feeling pretty confident if not by Gemma 5 than by mid 2028 we'll have local models that are almost always as good as Opus 4.6 was and in many cases far better.
Asking it factual information[1]. You just can't compress the entire human knowledge into a 30GB file.
[1] Without searching the internet. And even if you allow it, you'll get much worse results because search means browsing and parsing the top results, and search results are horrible, whereas internal knowledge from training encompasses the entire internet plus all books including very niche stuff.
Amusingly enough, someone from a frontier lab could probably answer this empirically. Years ago Microsoft demonstrated training LLMs on synthetic text-- books rewritten by LLMs to be more concise and more accurate. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 It is well known that Anthropic extensively uses these synthetic text in training Claude. You could probably get good 50tile, 90tile, 99 etc numbers just from the size of the training materials on Anthropic servers.
On a more serious note, it depends on your cutoff for "entire human knowledge". It's easy to prove for a generous interpretations of "entire human knowledge" that it can't be done, but hard for something like "all useful human knowledge".
IDK, 30GB is a lot of data when we're talking about text!
Moby Dick, uncompressed, is ~1MB. Compressed, it's around 500KB.
I feel fairly certain that one could fit all of the textual knowledge required to cultivate a world-class <insert name of preferred professional knowledge worker> in <60,000 Moby Dicks. (Arguably in <5,000 Moby Dicks with intense effort/pruning).
IME using 5.6 Luna and DS V4 Flash, I notice that although they are excellent at programming, even Opus-like in the way they try to debug, the thing they are worst at is inferring user intent and making good decisions with little information. They are absolutely terrible at that, will misinterpret small wording ambiguities. I suspect that's an ability you can't add with RL training, that it requires the depth of understanding from vast pre-training.
Similar to the way they asked Sol to solve Erdos problems, that's what I want my model to do for programming.
I don't want to try to take my best educated guess at what the best design is BEFORE implementation - especially if you're designing a feature for a codebase you're not an expert in, you don't know like the back of your hand (i.e. one that is mostly or entirely LLM generated).
What sounds good on paper - often times becomes unideal in practice when you get to the reality of implementation.
It may not be worth re-architecting your entire system to get to a "pure" design that would be the best - all things considered.
Instead, I'd like the model to independently design many plausible and coherent good solutions, then implement each of them, then intelligently pick the few winners (after its fixed any bugs that could be causing promising solutions to look artificially bad) - unless there's an obvious one - and then give me the data I need to make an informed decision on which one to go with, all before I even look at the design or implementation.
You're not getting this from a one shot prompt from a 30B model today. You can't even really get it from Sol or Fable - IME. But you can get somewhat close.
Even Fable is bad at this, I would constantly have to fix it going down architectural dead ends or just making obvious mistakes.
Which sucks for people that want LLMs to do everything like a genie, but does mean senior engineers have a few more years before they become redundant.
I think someone ought to encode this into a harness. It is really insightful into how we should be spending time if it is going to be spent reviewing AI code.
This is a harness problem not a model problem, try prime agent it can do that and it will do it well even :P but you need to prompt it in according to its tools and processes.
One thing a lot of people don't seem to factor when hyping Qwen is how much models like this tend to 'overthink' with seemingly endless 'second guessing'. 3.8 seems no different from what I've tried thus far.
As capable as it is, it's hard to justify using it when a competing model (e.g. Gemma4:26b-a3b) can consistently achieve the same or similar response with only 1/10th as many 'thinking' tokens, achieve much higher tokens/second, and take a small fraction of the time. I suppose 'YMMV' depending on your use case.
Also, I haven't used it enough yet to see if it's prone to infinite looping, but its predecessors sure were.
Given that it apparently defaults to 'xhigh', this is probably the answer.
Granted, it's still much lower tokens/s than you'll get out of many MoE models.
Edit: Even set to medium or low there's still a lot of second guessing, less consistency, lower 'acceptable response' rate, and slower/more token churn vs gemma4:26b-a3b. I think gemma4 is just a better 'general purpose' model.
I haven't tried lowering thinking, however, I actually asked a solid question earlier regarding a real world scenario I encountered and all that excessive thinking made it give me an amazing answer. The thinking actually all made sense, and honestly I found it thought of similar stuff to what I thought when I drew my own conclusion.
I don't usually rely on AI for much (I'm actually kind of anti-AI, although I follow stuff like this enthusiastically because of the rapid advancements, "average joe" access, and openness), however for what I asked? It was spot on.
The subject was a bit personal, so I won't share. I was just curious what AI would say about the situation and it definitely surprised me, especially since Qwen, while usually great on development/coding stuff, has shown weaknesses in other areas.
Definitely a solid release, and this one runs on my 4090 with minimal loss of quality!
In my experience with Qwen3.6 35B-A3B, disabling thinking made the model generate inaccurate replies. Ask it for the recipe of egg salad and it gives you the recipe of an omelette.
Did I miss something, is it possible to have that model be reliable without thinking?
“Thinking” is just a guiding methodology to help iterations (between the initial prompt, results, and a mixture of harness back and forth to the LLM) converge on something sane in a massive parameter space.
I like to think of it much like (as a common example most people can relate to) the Newton-Rhapson method for finding roots of a (mathematic) function. Your initial prompt runs, then the ‘harness’ kicks in using whatever methodologies are behind them to iterate on that prompt (back and forth with the model, occasionally with the user to get better guidance) and refine the outputs to hopefully converge back to some sensible output or actions the user was initially looking for.
So you’re hoping for an LLM that sort of ‘zero shots’ or needs minimal iterations from a prompt to give usable results. I find from my anecdata it varies across models and what I’m trying to get it to converge on. I tend to prefer models to not zero shot attempt because they tend to not do great, I want them to get feedback often to let me push them down the route of convergence in spaces I already understand well, meanwhile I like them to explore and give me new paths in spaces I’m not too familiar with.
That’s really what all that “second guessing” is, it’s making sure you’re following a sane path in a massive parameter space of an ambiguously defined problem. Imagine if in Newton’s method you checked the slope and it didn’t decrease from the last iteration and you just say “screw it let’s keep trying that direction.” LLMs and their harnesses tend not to have that base assumption like iteration on decreasing slopes to guide them closer to convergence, it’s a lot messier.
Use 3.6 27b as a daily driver for months with charmbracelet crush. Gemma 26b-A3b is not even remotely comparable in terms of coding for me. YMMV depending on how you work, what harness you use, etc I suppose.
Yeah. I use it to do extensive work on full source bootstrapping, deterministic operating systems, compiler debugging, kernel debugging... all with one tiny go binary without endless NPM deps like pi (which /I/ regard as trash)
Works better than opencode (pi based) or anything else I have tried for my needs, and by far the prettiest and easiest to reason about what is going on.
But I will bite. What does pi do today better than crush for your use cases?
Overall I'm very impressed with how well this did. It's a big improvement over 3.6, and it feels on-par with some much, much larger models. I think this one is on-par with Gemini 3.7 Flash.
One thing to note - the build for this on my RTX 6000 pro blackwell took a long time. Easily one of the longest builds I've done. It took around 2 hours to build the site. Obviously we'll have some quants for this soon that will accelerate things, but I was still surprised with how long it took.
People will claim it's not comparable to Opus despite it beating the score. I'm not sure I disagree, but I'm also unsure whether I care. Most new models nowadays are "good enough". I cannot complain because I'd rather spend that time improving my prompts and docs. Opus might be a _slight bit better_ at picking up vague hints, but it's also extremely expensive, and I hit the 5 hour limit way too quick.
I care a lot about speed and efficiency right now. For my setup I would like to have 2-3 different model families. I've settled on GLM-5.3 (formerly Deepseek v4 pro 0813) for architecting, Deepseek V4 Pro 0813 for developing, and Gemini flash lite (any recent cheap model) for repo scouting. I'll add another one in the mix for reviewing (in this case Gemini 3.7) and that's all I need.
I've tried most models except Grok.
Qwen is too expensive IMO (Alibaba Cloud subscriptions are hard to come by and I'm not spending 50 euros a month for a tool, so 18 euros it is). If it ever becomes efficient enough to run locally I will definitely look back.
Claude is slow and expensive (the cache hit prices are absurd).
OAI is pretty good, I might add it to my arsenal seeing how cheap it is.
These opinions change every day. Last week I would've never picked Deepseek until I read about the pricing. even post aug 16 it's worth it (although it's getting close to gemini pricing).
Right now my costs are 12 euros a month (z.ai) + whatever deepseek consumes. This typically isn't more than 8 euros a week. 44 euros a month and I have a setup that is doing pretty well.
no they aren't. they discontinued their always-sold-out coding plan and launched QwenCloud (basically a friendly frontend with Alibaba Cloud as the hidden backend) and launched typical subscription plans for Qwen & co alongside it.
I'm convinced a lot of the anti-open-weight model comments at this point are inorganic traffic - there's trillions in investor money riding on a world where these models aren't cheap commodities. Having actually used things like the recent GLM, Kimi, and Qwen I think any edge the labs have is marginal at most and actually prefer the open weight models in most day to day usage.
Anthropic's recent releases are wordy to the point of exhaustion. Every time I use opus recently I find myself wanting to yell "GET TO THE POINT" at a terminal, which is exacerbated by it being slow.
Why are you convinced of that? Pretty much every time I see statements like that online, I can find plenty of organic traffic supporting it, not everything is a bot.
I just wouldn't bias myself that way, most people haven't really used local models. This stuff is pretty much all subjective evaluation, there's plenty of reasons for people to favor certain models or disfavor others.
Grok 4.6 is a game-changer. I have yet to go back to other models after starting to use it. You just can't beat the price + output quality (even K3 is more expensive)
I'm generally extremely skeptical about a lot of the model hype that show up in comments. Except when there is an extreme mismatch the performance, quirks and quality of these things are difficult to nail down. You wouldn't know that from the comment section of every single release.
I think some of these are excited, eager users always ready to hype up the new thing. The same crowd that previously would constantly push for a rewrite from angular->react->svelt->god knows what. Instead now it is on a 6 week cycle and about models/harnesses.
I think most of it is bot driven spam by the various labs. It's hard not to notice 3 month old accounts with very strong opinions about various frontier labs and little else.
Ultimately, I think some of it is legitimate shifts in who's in lead and what is the best. You gotta dig through a lot of crap to get to that, and I don't really know how to to.
Ultimately I'm saying is that I always applied a fair amount of skepticism about what I see in comment sections but these day it is extreme amounts.
> I think most of it is bot driven spam by the various labs. It's hard not to notice 3 month old accounts with very strong opinions about various frontier labs and little else.
I've assumed the same as well.
I also assume that many of the companies developing these models engage in benchmaxxing.
At my company we've developed our own internal benchmarks for evaluating LLM models as they become available. The benchmarks are tailored to our particular use cases but the utility and knowledge our benchmarks assess is still fairly universally applicable. I see wide differences between what our internal benchmarks report and what the major benchmarks do.
There was a whole lot of fanfare about how amazing GLM 5.2 was when it was released, but it was pure rubbish on our internal benchmark -- far behind OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, DeepSeek, etc. I don't know how to reconcile the fact that GLM 5.2 performed very well on some of the major public benchmarks, but consistently performs so poorly on ours. OpenAI models tend to dominate our internal benchmarks.
> OpenAI models tend to dominate our internal benchmarks.
That's odd, since Fable seems to be the leader for the industry. Not cost-effective, but if Anthropic models get dominated by OpenAI in your internal benchmarks, this calls their validity into question. Separately, see the jagged frontier effect. [1]
I've been using GLM 5.2 at my day job (mostly Rust backend work ATM). Nothing that blows away the models from OpenAI and Anthropic, but solidly good enough to get it done. A lot of people have experienced this and the fact that an open weights model can do so is where most of the excitement comes from. Optimizing for benchmarks can only get you so far, and people are quick to criticize models that fall into it (like DeepSeek Pro V4 recently).
It actually is showing in public benchmark if you know how to look for it. For example, in Terminal-Bench 2.1, GLM 5.2 received 78%, while GPT 5.6 Sol received 88%.
Then Terminal-Bench 3.0 came out (where the questions are new), and GPT 5.6 Sol received 34.6%, while GLM 5.2 dropped to a whopping 4.6%.
I think most of it is bot driven spam by the various labs. It's hard not to notice 3 month old accounts with very strong opinions about various frontier labs and little else.
Really no different than when there was suddenly online personas everywhere hyping up TSLA out of the blue. You can see the same thing going on with the BoringCompany subreddit. Crazy that the botnet master isn't able to convince us that Grok is also the best model. I don't think buying twitter was an accident it was probably just literally covering up the evidence.
IMO this is getting hyped because the 27b version runs on a decent gaming GPU. This is NOT a thread for their largest model, this model will run on a mid-high end gaming PC, which you probably have in your household. Mine is 6 years old and it runs quite well.
I strongly suspect that many of these accounts you think might be bots from the labs are just people who only have one interest.
One thing I have noted a lot more of is that there is comparative fanboying going on. Like "this model has done badly, my favoured competition has a model out soon that will beat this in every way" — comparing a released product to unverifiable hopey claims about an unreleased product.
It's tempting to assume that is bot stuff, but if you've been around any other "hot" technical hobby online (cameras, phones, 3d printers, whatever) you will know it's not. It's just fans aligning into teams, some of them laconic and amusing, some of them overkeen and toxic.
Which itself released yesterday? You're writing, reading, and evaluating enough software in a ~36 hour period to form, reject, and form another opinion about which model makes better _architectural_ choices?
Honest question, how do you assess models this quickly? What metrics are you using? Would love to get my suite from multiple days and hundreds of prompts down to minutes. Got a few first pass tasks I run upon release for an initial experience, but those only work because even Fable and Sol fail despite objectively correct solutions existing, so it works because most models fail, but then, those are consciously not enough for coding, tool use, adherence or task specific inference and assessment…
Anything from ML pipelines for language specific pruning over a Rust/JS/CSS mix codebase to assistance in motorcycle maintenance and different canvas coatings. Most of my evals build on those requirements and especially past failures, whether in pure information, task execution and coding or tool calling beyond the overfitted mainstream. All stuff derived from actual failures encountered, some still only few models come even close to passing. With such a mix, it just takes a while to get any serious opinion on a model. Doubt anyone can do that in such short time, unless their tasks are so simple that most modern models not only succeed but could themselves accurately rate output. If even Fable still confuses PU or wax coated cotton canvas with a nylon shell, or tells me with a straight face to adjust the valves on a bike that has hydraulic lifters that needs experience for human assessment and the time that comes with it. Anyone with less knowledge either wouldn’t see the mistakes staring them in the face and just go by vibes, any model rating these equally can not tell what is accurate and will just go by the output sounding accurate over being. Gives sometimes very interesting results far different to public benchmarks. Inkling, e.g. is more accurate in not telling you to adjust valves that are simply not adjustable then Fable or Sol, which just tell you to adjust every 5000km. Sometimes even when their reasoning and search includes sections about the fact this is not necessary or possible. The beauty of overfitting and unbalanced training data…
Most of us aren’t deploying these in general purpose use-cases. E.g. I use Qwen mostly for vision in my personal assistant. I have an eval set for that. Pretty much each of my use cases has a pre-computed problem set.
Likewise I have a tool-use eval set and a browser-use eval set. I use frontier models for most interactive tasks that are not home assistant or background agents.
I can imagine someone could build evals for that but I have never done so.
With max reasoning, Luna is actually less than half the actual cost to run compared to DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 with updated prices (based on Artificial Analysis Cost per Task)
They were significantly more expensive for coding compared to DeepSeek's offering because of much higher cost of cache reads and lower cache hit rate. Now, after the price jump, the effective cost of deepseek.com API vs 3-rd party providers is about the same.
I think it's very clear that someone who has checked out all the models but the one that called itself mechahitler and is explicitly being fine tuned to support far-right politics is making the choice for reasons other than performance and cost. It's not like all the other models even had plausible claims to those metrics.
As I said to a dead reply, for coding all of that is immaterial, as long as it codes well then that's all that matters to most people, except it seems those who have an idelogical issue in which case the other model companies also have issues.
No, coding does not make ethical issues immaterial. Nor does it justify your behavior of harassing someone to do something that they've clearly decided not to do for ethical reasons on the basis of criteria that they have clearly rejected.
I don't care how good Grok is, it will be a cold day in hell when I give a guy who goes to AfD rallies, instrumentally supported the current Ebola outbreak, and gives the Hitler salute on stage (don't try to tell me he did not, I saw the video) any money I'm not absolutely forced to.
And yes, OpenAI and Anthropic are highly questionable, too, and so I've ended my OpenAI subscription and I'm moving from Claude to other providers. But even people who do not do that are absolutely justified in drawing a line at supporting Musk, because there's a difference between mere normal shittiess and Musk.
The funny thing is it doesn’t even code well. It’s still worse than OpenAI, Anthropic, and the leading open source models.
So you get worse outcomes while also financially supporting one of the most prolific pushers of race wars, the destruction of labor rights, environmental protections, and general misinformation.
Truly a win-win?
Contrary to your framing it seems to only reason to use Grok at this point would be ideological.
I'm not seeing that with that exact quantization from Unsloth, so far. I'm seeing a _lot_ of thinking before it starts doing, but it all seems pretty reasonable and not loopy (at least no more loopy than big models, with the expected "But, wait! I need to..." types of back-tracking). So, it's taking a long time, but I don't think it's doing anything pathological.
I would characterise it as obsessive, not loopy. It's definitely burning through a lot of tokens to ruminate about aspects of tasks that earlier models get done better seemingly on memory.
I still need to understand that.
Setting a reasoning limit does not seem to have good results, because it really seems to go down rabbit holes and that means that cutting reasoning off too early is going to punish the quality on anything it has not got round to pondering yet. But maybe I have to give it a bit more room.
I have not tested in an agentic sense yet, just with my sort of pet queries in LM Studio, but it rather looks like it expects an agentic flow, because telling it that it's a helpful coding agent and changing the order of things in my prompts (telling it up front to ask any clarifying questions before detailing the rest of the prompt) has definitely kept its thinking a bit more on track.
I hope really badly that we'll get a new 35B A3B or similar MoE model!
I also miss the Qwen 3 Coder Next, which was 80B A3B, there are quite a few use cases where a non-dense model <100B would be the sweet spot (when you have the VRAM but not the TDP or compute power). Heck, I'd gladly take A5B or A8B or even A10B as a sort of middle ground.
I'm hoping too that they'll put out some MoE variants.
Qwen3.5:122b:a10b can run about twice as fast as this 27b dense model.
Edit: Like its predecessors, 3.8 seems really inclined to overthinking, and on a 27b dense model that's kind of painful.
I think I'm going to stick with gemma4:26b-a3b as my go-to because it runs about 4x as fast and tends to only need a fraction of the tokens in its 'thinking' stage to get the same or similar answer.
Probably helps it score a little bit better in benchmarks :) `medium` seems like a nice balance so far; along with some light steering to vary think effort as needed for task and being pragmatic.
Interestingly 'medium' is the closest thing the _model itself_ has to a default thinking level. The chat template injects directions [1] at the very start of the system message when the reasoning effort is 'xhigh' or 'low' but 'medium' implicitly just means no added reasoning-level instructions.
[1] The specific directions are "Reasoning effort is set to xhigh. Please think carefully through the task, validate key assumptions, consider plausible alternatives, and prioritize correctness, consistency, and clarity in the final answer." and "Reasoning effort is set to low. Keep your thinking brief and focused, moving directly to the conclusion without unnecessary elaboration."
"inclined to overthinking," holy cats you're not kidding! On a Mac mini M4 Pro 64GB I prompted it with "svg owl" and it thought for 17m12s, outputting 36.3KiB of thinking chatter. It did end up producing a 20.2KiB HTML+JS+SVG file with a very nice owl, including cursor-tracking animation, but it ran for more than a half hour!
I think that's called test-time scaling i.e using more tokens at infer time to squeeze out higher model performance. That's must be part of the explanation for good benchmark results.
that seems to be how most Chinese models achieve increased benchmark scores. GLM and Kimi models are "thinkslop" models that reason over their own thinking, which increases cost and decreases speed significantly. That's why GPT is in a different tier altogether - faster, smarter, and sometimes cheaper.
Yep.. it's pretty obnoxious for real-world use with the default 'xhigh' thinking. Ridiculous amount of "Wait, actually.." which might help for complex coding tasks but makes it unbearable for general purpose use.
Did you try the claude reasoning traces finetune for qwen3.6? I find that it works muuch better. I assume the same 3.8 finetune will be released at some pointas well.
AgentWorld is a pretty recent MoE release from the Qwen folks with quite a bit better performance than 3.6, released around the same time as 3.7 Plus/Max, I guess. Not sure why it didn't get more attention, as it is definitely better than 3.6 35B A3B on all dimensions, but especially for agentic use. Still nowhere near the dense models (even 3.6 27B), but clearly an upgrade in the small Qwen MoE line.
KAT Coder is another Qwen 3.6 MoE fine-tune that also improves on 3.6 by a measurable amount.
But, I do hope for a bigger MoE, in the 70B to 120B range, something in the Coder Next lineage. I've got a Strix Halo that isn't getting used to its best ability because the best models all run fine on my faster desktop dual 32GB GPU setup, and they run too slow for comfort on the Strix Halo.
Same here! Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the only local model I've found that runs reasonably on my iGPU. Looks like me and and my noisily-wheezing laptop will be sitting out this upgrade.
[self-reply because comment edit window ended]: I now have a head-to-head benchmark. On my wheezy laptop (specs in sibling comment), this new dense model, Qwen 3.8 27B, gets ~4 tokens/second on generation. The older mixture-of-experts model, Qwen 3.6-35B-A3B, gets ~20 tokens/s.
MoE is literally 5x times faster (on CPU) than comparable dense Qwen!
So you happen to know how to demonstrate this higher capacity, what do we mean by that? Can understand bigger codebases? And how do we explain it, what part of the model does it?
Don't mind! It's 64 GiB dual-channel DDR5-6400, i.e. roughly 100 GiB/s of bandwidth. (AMD 7840U (Zen 4))
I'm using a Q4 quantization from unsloth (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q4_K_XL). It gets up to ~20 tokens/second in generation. I don't know precisely how much KV cache I can safely use, but it's in between 140k–256k. (I.e., 140k reliably works, 256k kernel-crashes from OOM. Don't feel like bisecting).
Inference is llama.cpp with the Vulkan GPU backend on Linux. (I.e., -DGGML_VULKAN=1 on the llama.cpp build, and --gpu-layers all on llama-cli or llama-server. (And for my specific setup, two kernel parameters specific to amdgpu: ttm.pages_limit and ttm.page_pool_size. A driver VRAM limiter. Look it up if you're on amdgpu!)).
Thanks! I don't have any knowledge of running models locally.
I assume it would not be able to handle an unquantized Qwen3.6-35B or is it irrelevant as you almost always would want to run a quantized version of the model on consumer hardware?
not parent, but 4-bit quantization is generally consider a good trade off for speed/performance, so you might use it even when you aren't on consumer hardware, but definitely when you are on consumer hardware.
Me too. 35B A3B runs really fast on my MacBook Pro (M4 Max) and is suitable for real-time tasks like dictation post-processing. The dense model is not.
Total param count decides how much vram you need to run it. Active param count decides how fast it runs. My 10 year old GPU can load quantized 35B or 27B, but it can’t process 27B parameters per token faster than 2-4tok/s, while it can do A3B at >40tok/s
I'm still confused about Qwen 3.6 35B A3B. Everything I read said that the 27B model performs better at coding tasks, so what's the purpose of the 35B model?
Also radically better on an M1 Max. I get well up into the 60s t/s with the A3B, stuck at 9.5 or so with this new 27B, though perhaps an MLX build will help.
The "a3b" refers to its active parameters -- unlike 27b it is a mixture of experts model, so it runs much faster, about as fast as a 3b model, but needs as much memory as a 35b model! So good for unified memory systems like macs :)
anecdotes: 35B-A3B does want more memory, bigger model. But if you get it running it will be faster and more enjoyable to use -- text will fly by -- due to only 3B params being active, in my experience at least.
MoE models have less active parameters in play at any particular moment, so they perform much faster on lower bandwidth memories (like Strix Halo or DGX Spark) and also use less memory generally.
Dedicated GPU memory tends to be much faster (either DDR6 or HBM). So if you can fit a whole dense model in it, you're probably better off with that.
I hope the bonsai team makes another 1bit quant of this model (or releases code/instructions on how to do it), using the Qwen3.6 27B on my 16GB mac mini has been wild . The 1bit quant feels like opus level… for the first couple turns. Then it has trouble eg switching from plan mode to act mode. This is mostly mitigated by starting a new session. (tbf this limitation is called out on the hf page)
I saw unsloth has 1bit quants too so I might check that out, anybody have experience with those?
nope just my normal m2 mac mini. I bought it just as a normal computer to do my taxes and whatever, so it’s mind blowing that I can run this kind of AI workload on it. Well, “run” might be generous, it gets like 3-5tok/s
I’m working on a setup that’s more geared towards running tasks overnight so the slow tok/s doesn’t matter as much
100k is all the context I have ram for, this is with any auto-compact turned off. This is using Cline in vs code. I’m sure I could tune the system prompt and mode switching more to work better with this specific model, but I haven’t gone down the custom harness rabbit hole yet.
And this is also specifically for the 1bit quant version. I don’t think the fp8 or even fp4 versions have this issue, but I haven’t tried those much
WOW, my first try running on my 2 3090's, it was a bit slow... but it FEELS like opus 4.5, i gave it an image and a broad overview of what I wanted it to build, and it built the whole thing from beginning to end.
Since it might be helpful to some, here's my current commandline for llama.cpp running on an RTX 4090 with my monitor moved to the iGPU to free up all of its VRAM.
Identical to the qwen3.6 config. With a prompt like "svg owl" (which can reuse quite a lot compared with creative writing or similar, so ngram-mod shines), I get about 70-80t/s like this, with a memory overclock of about 1.5GHz
In my tests, even Q8 quantization for the KV cache comes with notable drops in performance for longer tasks. It does provide more context length in limited RAM budgets, but the longer context tasks are where KV quantization starts to show problems. It’s basically unnoticeable for simple and short tasks.
> --spec-draft-n-max 5
5 is a lot of tokens to draft. Are you really seeing acceptance rates to support that? When I tested it, 2-3 was the peak. Anything more started reducing performance except on highly predictable short outputs.
The thing is that I can either use the q8 context, or have not enough context window, so I just live with whatever degradation there is. The same can be said about the IQ4_NL. I would not go any lower though.
As for the draft count, indeed that depends on what you do with it, but for coding, reverse engineering and that kind of stuff it does pay off in my testing, though 5 is really pushing it, but the 4090 has so much compute.
Last logline I saw scroll by right now had 47% acceptance rate for 4th and 28% for 5th, but not sure how representative that is.
I think when tuning 3.6, I saw more like 33%? But not 100% sure.
I wonder if we could take a page out of the Solar power book and do MPPT but for draft count.
Constantly sweep through possible values to find the best result for the current conditions.
Though it might turn out that that doesn't offer any benefits. Has it been tried yet?
___
EDIT:
LLM pointed me towards this thing I'm not going to read
Don't you just need to occasionally try n+1 for your current setting? Then record acceptance rates. The nature of the thing is that if you try n, you already have a good sampling of how well m works for all m<n, right?
This is all a pretty active area of research, both adaptive drafting, different draft approaches (DFlash etc), I expect to see really big improvements land in the popular runtimes this year.
Okay, so, I did some actual coding with qwen3.8 in the last 2 hours, and if I (let the agent) take the average of all those "mean len" loglines, and let them get weighted by how much happened leading up to that logline, it's an average of 3.33
The unweighted average is 4.1
So with qwen3.8 as well, I think I would not go below 3 in this setup with this workload. Meaning 4, and, to push it a bit further, 5.
Also, cool that it carries over from qwen3.6 like that.
I have found that q8 kv quantisation is really bad in anything requiring some kind of literal retrieval even at relatively shorter contexts (5-10k). Eg it would mess up names, titles of papers etc that were deeper in the context.
I absolutely love this comment. I wished there was a website where people would post their working command lines as well as what hardware they are using to run that stuff on + tokens / sec prefill + gen.
Problem with that is I think that it quickly devolves into cargo culting, nonsense and noise.
Arguably, what I am doing is also very very close to that, with the only difference being that I am somewhat less of an idiot than the average internet dweller you'd get on such a site. Or rather a different flavor of idiot.
Ideally, the people building the tools build them in a way that just does the right thing - which I am confident that llama.cpp does or will do in the future.
So you encode that knowledge not in language and online comments but in code and with a filter for actual expertise.
And, frankly, there's really not all that much to it. It's like maybe 3 parameters to play around with.
The valid solution space is pretty small, but people will want to make it "theirs" regardless, so you get non-solutions just so that everyone could also be a part of it. The usual social dynamics foo.
I've found that once you factor in multiple GPUs things can get complex quite quickly because the default packing routine in the LLM runners tends to be very coarse resulting in substantial amounts of VRAM wasted. More so if you start running drafters and multiple models at the same time.
Let me return the favor:
Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 Q8
This is on a 4x3090 box with 256G RAM and a 5955WX TR; the CUDA drivers are patched to allow the 3090's to talk to each other. MB is a WRX80E-SAGE (which has 7 slots at x16), BAR > 4G on and PCIe BAR resize set to AUTO in the bios. OS is Ubuntu 25.04.
I'm still working on an optimal packing for the draft variation on this theme but that gives all kinds of issues. The 1,000,000 context is very nice to have.
still could! there's the network site https://ai.stackexchange.com/ just need people to ask questions and to downrank accepted answers older than a year (that might not be possible though).
Thanks for posting! Have you had any success with running without kv cache quantization? Is there a noticeable difference in quality without any? I would assume that would eat into context but 170k is pretty generous!
According to this shitty vibecoded thing "I" built https://hypfer.github.io/will-it-fit-llama-cpp/ (and I guess according to math too), FP16 K/V would give me something like 90k context at the same model quant, which doesn't really fit my usage.
But maybe someone else has experience to share there
just to clarify. yes YOU built it. just because you used some tool doesn't mean the idea, prompting, reprompting, babysitting was not your creative input and effort.
put differently, if you put a random person infront of whatever model you used (say, a 50yo receptionist at a pharmacy in india), they would not have been able to create that, because they would have lacked the motivation, idea, background knowledge, taste, etc to create such a thing.
I've worked with a good few types of managers of the years, none would take ownership of my work. The end result? Sure, for shareholders/this managers that is fine.
But that's not the same as me being needed to be on a call with integration teams and having to run the call. It's just a layer of abstraction for management. I own the creation side of the product.
this topic always goes into this level of ridiculousness. Your question can't even be answered. We should focus more on encouraging discussion, not asking unanswerable questions. It wont bring anything other than points of both sides with no objective correct answer.
I generally agree and expect this to be the case from a legal perspective.
Legal questions of authorship are going to have to be established in terms of doctrines like SSO [0] and AFC [1]. Currently the incredibly sparse caselaw around this has yet to involve such non-literal notions of copyright.
So if I hire an artist and am a motivated individual, have an idea for a painting, have background knowledge about paintings and have taste in paintings and can offer a critique of the painting as the artist paints it, then somehow I created the painting?
Nothing absurd about that. What do you think an "Executive producer" is? A "Director" ? Does Peter Jackson get credit for creating the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films? Christopher Nolan for his films? But did he make them ? No, it was the collective effort of thousands of individuals all working under their direction.
Just like if somebody creates software today, and the end result is generated by the collective effort of thousands of agents, the "Director" still gets credit.
That’s an interesting way to look at it, and still generous to the llm.
By which I mean it puts the llm in the role of actor and such… people practicing an art. It seems harder to make a case that the llm is actually making creative decisions rather than aping a synthesis of past human decisions and expressions of taste, strictly, at every turn.
Though I guess it’s all “shades of grey”. I never felt like I was contributing a ton when I was essentially wrapping a large, capable library that some smarter person or people made, either.
Tangentially… remember back when we used to see headlines like “12 year old made a web browser!” and we all thought, “No. No they didn’t.”
What does it matter who receives more credit? The producer produces the film and the director directs it. If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it.
If there were multiple people involved in the creation of a film I helped to create, I cannot factually say I created it. Just like if someone builds something using code generated by AI, they can't factually say they created it.
I think in that case it's fair to say you created the painting with the artist, even if the artist should get majority credit. I don't like the analogy though, to me it feels more like you're a project manager directing a team of genius but single minded interns.
I've never encountered a project manager who has said: I built this thing, after a project has wrapped up. I have encountered ones who've said I managed this project.
I've heard some variant of "we built this thing", which I think is valid. I'm not sure how I feel about anthropomorphizing a coding agent at this point though, which is what you're implying.
I just read through a couple of your posts that weren't dead or buried, and it seems like you're pretty anti-AI. You should really start to have an open mind towards it. It's going to be the future (if it isn't already), and as you continue to get older, you're going to really wish you spent your time right now learning and embracing the technology instead of being so against it. A lot of the skills and things that you're holding on to right now might not be relevant by then, but you'll be at a disadvantage from not keeping up with the industry and need to play catch-up.
> I'm not sure that typing messages to a chat bot requires much catching up
Lol, yeah I'd wager AI tooling skills are less relevant than knowing your way around a shell. It doesn't help that all of the AI tooling has event more churn than js libraries and package management systems!
I think there's probably some value in understanding how LLMs work, but beyond that it's the same boring skills that matter the most... Critical thinking, design chops, attention to detail, perseverance, etc.
He still didn't create the paintings, he offered instructions / feedback to the artists that created them. Whether or not he is credited with authoring them is an entirely separate issue.
There have been plenty of workshops where artists hire assistant painters while maintaining authorship over the works themselves, from Rembrandt to Warhol to Hirst.
Sure - and a factual statement would be, these artists hired assistant artists to help them create their paintings. Just like it would be factual to say that the person directed a LLM to build an app for them.
The person above is running the OS from a separate GPU, so the command can use all of the VRAM of the 4090.
If you're trying to use the 4090 for your desktop at the same time, you will need smaller context size. You could remove the '-c 170000' and try turning fit on to see what fits.
>But nvidia-smi only showed Xorg using 200M out of the 24G, so why would a 911M alloc fail?
That was just the last buffer allocation request that failed, it didn't tell you by how much it failed by. It could have failed it by a few kilobytes, it could have failed it by 910MB. One would guess it probably failed it by a couple hundred megabytes in the end judging by your results.
Does anyone know how to get this working with Claude Code via llama-server? I'm getting a jinja template error about the system prompt not being the first message.
You could run the 2-bit quantization at about 10GB for the weights. You'd probably also need to quantize context to get a decent-sized context. The Unsloth model card shows the 1-bit quantization doing seemingly shockingly well on a task (but there is notable loss in model quality for each bit you give up below about 6 bits). An MoE model can partially reside in system RAM without catastrophic performance loss, but a dense model like this one cannot. You have to run it entirely out of VRAM, or it'll slow to a crawl.
Yes. It won't be as fast as fitting the whole model into VRAM but llama.cpp defaults are pretty smart about GPU/CPU splits these days. Just YOLO it with `llama serve -hf unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:UD-Q4_K_XL` and it'll definitely at least run.
You may be able to run a quantized version. One strategy I've found effective is to set Claude or Codex loose on the problem and they'll do a decent job setting up the best possible model revision.
I can get 128k context on a 5070ti with 16 GB of VRAM (using the Unsloth 2-bit quant[0]). This is via a .bat file on Windows 11. I'm getting about 50-60 tokens/second and the quality is much higher than Qwen 3.6 27B. I'm using llama.cpp[1]:
1. download two files llama-b10434-bin-win-cuda-13.3-x64.zip and cudart-llama-bin-win-cuda-13.3-x64.zip from that llama.cpp Github releases page, and extract both into the same folder.
2. Download the Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q2_K_XL.gguf file from huggingface and put it into the same folder beside the `llama-server.exe`.
3. Create a file named "RUN_QWEN_3.8.bat" next to `llama-server.exe` and put the text above into that bat file. Double-click the bat file, then open http://localhost:8033 in your browser to see a chat window.
You can use it with any agents by pointing them at http://localhost:8033/v1 which is a working OpenAI compatible endpoint (it doesn't use a token, if you give one it's ignored).
Congratulations, you're now running Qwen 3.8 27B.
Note: I built the computer in question for playing games, yes it needed to be Windows 11 for anticheat reasons to play games with family, I didn't want to dual boot so here I am. I figure I should share instructions for folks who may also have a Windows PC around for such purposes. Specs for this are AMD 9800X3D, 32GB of system RAM, RTX 5070Ti 16GB
For the things it does, what tool is better than ffmpeg? Really struggling to see the cargo cult angle. Similar for llama.cpp, as it is literally the only framework I can get to run on my multi-Radeon rig. It is the most portable runtime out there.
It depends on what model you’re running, and for what workload. For personal use (one or two convos at a time) with models that fit in gpu memory, pcie bandwidth doesn't really matter. Just try and be on gen 3 x8 or higher.
Llama is decent at auto optimizing it if you let it use both gpus. It’ll split the workload so the contiguous layers are all on one gpu. Once the model is loaded, you only transfer weights between gpus once (per token?), at the layer boundary.
I run on an 8gb 3070 and 12 gb 3060, and the only weird thing is that the weaker card gets more layers (and therefore work) because it has more ram.
Oh, if you’re barely fitting the models into your vram, you may need to explicitly adjust the layer balance between cards — sometimes it fails to realize it should have put certain things (like draft models) on the other card so you can fit one more layer in.
A hetero-GPU setup is definitely cost-effective if you don't strictly require the raw speed of a top-tier card like 5090. Just keep in mind that the total throughput will also be bottlenecked by the slower card.
To provide some anecdotal data, here is how my 5090 + 3060 setup performs with Qwen 3.8 27B (Unsloth's UD-Q4 with MTP):
As opposed to loading it up in RAM + VRAM? Pretty much always better to split it up to multiple GPUs. My priorities are load up all available VRAM, then offload MoE experts to RAM (if possible), then offload other layers.
I use an RTX 3090 (24GB) and a GTX 1080ti (11GB). Just the 3090 for 3.8 I get maybe 60tg/s (UD-Q4 quant), for both I get around 40tg/s (UD-Q6). Not apples to apples though considering it's different quants.
Yes. I can split a model like this across 3 GPUs (a 1080 with 8GB and two Titan Vs with 12GB), and it's much faster than running it on 36 CPU cores. As long as it fits in aggregate VRAM, it seems very advantageous to do so.
Depends on your pcie connection. If they're both x16 then it's pretty low overhead, x8 is ok, but x4 is too slow. Also it's a bit tricky getting an optimal setups with mismatched vram, I think you could probably still make use of the full vram if you're clever but it's trickier.
for layer parallelism (e.g. to get more vram) the bandwidth between layers is essentially nothing (like 16kb per token I think), so I don't think x4 would even be a problem!
I haven't tried this either but I'm guessing if you could pool the GPU memory over whatever the kids are using these days, I think it was SLI back in my day. The GPU memory should still be faster than the RAM?
That's a very deep rabbit hole involving PCIe topology on both the hardware and software (NCCL) side, among other things. It's too system-specific to answer directly, but the entrance to said hole can be found at https://github.com/local-inference-lab/rtx6kpro/blob/master/... .
Disregard references to RTX 6000 cards, most of it is generally applicable to all multiple-GPU boxes.
Lol at that command. Why is this stuff so hard to run locally? I've spent a few days trying to figure it all out and haven't been able to. LM Studio doesn't work behind proxies. Ollama is confusing and doesn't seem to support Qwen3? And Llama.cpp is your command.
I just want to run `<some-command> <model-name>` with some default parameters set and for it to run locally.
What makes you say that it would be hard to do that?
It's long, I guess, but not cryptic.
You tell llama server where the model is, which context size to use, what to use for the K/V cache quant, that it should do MTP, tune some MTP parameters, and that's kinda it.
Perfectly logical blocks with all the model-specific weirdness (that does exist!) abstracted away.
You could also just run -m <modelfile> and let llama-server do the right-ish thing. The defaults are probably fine, but not how you squeeze out these exact numbers.
I think at least. I've never tried. My hubris stopped me from trying auto configs.
> llama server where the model is, which context size to use, what to use for the K/V cache quant, that it should do MTP, tune some MTP parameters, and that's kinda it.
isn't that the hard part? You know the ballpark ideal values for these many parameters since you're a knowledgeable expert but the vast majority of people are just like "I want AI" and have no idea what all the jargon even means.
Why would they wish to handcraft this ? That is what agents are for ?
They could ask your current agent to a) search for this type of content online for the optimal setup for their hardware b) have the current agent/harness spin it up have it verify the config run few experiments.
Sure AI may make mistakes, or won't get the best possible config probably, but it certainly do a good enough setup, this is a task with feedback on whether the server crashed or poor performance easily measured so the agent can do a pretty good job.
Because this is kinda the one new thing that arrived in the technology scene, so getting at least some amount of understanding of its "inner" workings might prove useful in the future.
Beside that, it is also just.. interesting? It's fun tuning the machine to see it improve. For some, anyway.
The pain point they raised is this is too complicated for people who just want to get started, that is not true anymore.
It is certainly fun to fine-tune and setup if you like do something like that, however the need to do it hardly is a barrier for those who don't want complexity as OP imagines.
Lower level API/interfaces should not be a barrier for people if they are apply framing that way. More and more people are thinking agent native so this is not really a issue.
The alternative is to label it AI. That is distasteful for some of us, Intelligence is much stronger than automation in our minds so we avoid the term and try to describe it differently .
This is exactly it. I already have broad access to Claude, Gemini, GitHub Copilot. I want to use open models on automated tasks that chew up tokens but where I don't necessarily need the best-in class models and UX.
For Claude, I setting a single config file and then download and run Claude Code CLI. Even easier for the GitHub Copilot CLI.
I'll actually defend you on this one, but not only the command, that's more of a fine tuning option. On the hugging face link for example, there's no flat 'download' area. It's completely unintuitive for people to know how to use it. Reminds me of my first time trying to make sense of torrents when they first arrived.
There are some clients that will index the models and allow you to do that but I'm no expert, I've used OLama studio but it always seems to go weird for me.
Even this command above, it's not clear where op got the model from. So I'm with yah.
For example, op uses : Qwen3.8-27B-IQ4_NL.gguf.. But I cant see where to download it. It's not tagged on hugging face at least..
Official llama.cpp releases ship with huggingface support. If you don't want to download it yourself, you can just use the `repo/model:quant` convention and it will handle downloading locally for you.
But you're assuming I'm using the Olama studio. This model as far as I see doesn't have a gguf download.. Unless I'm missing something on the page.
If I want to download the model myself, it's not clear. I thought it was supposed to behave like a package manager. But even in nuGet I can download a zip of the package.
What on earth are you talking about? llama.cpp != Ollama. You can (and should) just use llama.cpp directly. Upstream llama.cpp can take the shorthand huggingface path and automagically download it into a cache folder as part of the launch. Have you read any of the docs?
Excuse me, but thats a direct link you've just sent. I asked where I can find the links. I like to believe in the source of truth.
They shared a lot of links, I'm struggling to find yours. Where did yours come from ?
Who is Unsloth AI? Have they modified the model ? Is this really the source of truth ?
Do you see how steep the barrier for entry is to do anything right ?
unslothai is not a name qwen has ever used. So you're sharing a link to a model that isn't from the owner, while saying it's the owner's. I'm not comfortable with that, and I want AI to be a better tool.
> Excuse me, but thats a direct link you've just sent. I asked where I can find the links. I like to believe in the source of truth.
You asked where to find the GGUF files of this model for direct download and I provided it. Almost all useful model files that can be downloaded are hosted on Huggingface.
> They shared a lot of links, I'm struggling to find yours. Where did yours come from ?
I went to Huggingface, went to the Unsloth org, as they tend to be the best, went to the Model page, and went to the "Files and versions" tab.
> Who is Unsloth AI? Have they modified the model ? Is this really the source of truth ?
Unsloth AI is a very popular, highly reputable organization that takes upstream model files, performs some optimization, and provides models in various formats. Apart from speed tweaks, they do not modify the models. They also provide useful benchmarks, copious documentation for local execution, and a Studio application for easy execution and post-training of models.
> Do you see how steep the barrier for entry is to do anything right ?
No. Searching for this information is not difficult. The llama.cpp documentation and guides that Unsloth provide are all you need. Search engines can take you further if you want.
> unslothai is not a name qwen has ever used. So you're sharing a link to a model that isn't from the owner, while saying it's the owner's. I'm not comfortable with that
Qwen also provides models in GGUF format on Huggingface, but they will not be as performant. Even when first-party GGUFs are available, most people will prefer quants from Unsloth or a few other popular optimizer accounts.
> I want AI to be a better tool.
Best of luck. Your attitude and unwillingness to even try and learn on your own when people have tried helping have burned my good will, and this is as far as I'm willing to carry you.
Start by copying the command line from the Unsloth guides.
You don’t need to fine tune all of those parameters to get started.
It’s really easy to ask an LLM to adjust the command line if you can’t be bothered to read the help out. Copy the help output into the LLM and tell it your goal.
> Ollama is confusing and doesn't seem to support Qwen3?
Typing “Ollama qwen3” into Google takes you right to this page:
If even Googling for basic Ollama support is too hard, there might come a point where you have to acknowledge that local LLMs are not for you. None of this is really that hard with some basic Google bootstrap skills or by asking an LLM to help with the command.
on Qwen's official docs: https://qwen.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_locally/ollama.htm.... It's not like I just made it up. Of course I searched "ollama qwen3" and saw what you linked, but that doesn't mean it "works". I have other things to do besides to try a bunch of poorly documented and executed tools just to see if it works or not.
I guess the TLDR is that I'm stupid or lazy. Also, everyone is responding about how easy it is, and yet, it's apparently so easy that it's hard to document well.
There are easier ways to run it. OP seemed to enjoy tinkering and customizing the command to run it exactly the way they want. When I don’t want to tinker Unsloth Studio is probably closest to pick a model and voila.
Well there's a lot of knobs to turn if you want to improve performance. You can always point an LLM at the model card, give it your info, and have it write up the command.
Sure, but shouldn’t the programs to run the LLMs go “the user has this much vram and the model is this size, so I’ll start with sensible defaults based on that”?
> Every big company in the world uses a network proxy.
It's becoming more rare, now.
A lot of the universal truths about corporate networks from the early 2000s are no longer true today. Some companies are stuck in their ways though.
The overlap between companies that require someone to use a network proxy and companies that have GPU-equipped machines with enough RAM for LLMs and and that allow people to download and run executables of their choosing has to be small.
I would love to see more data on that because I've seen it constantly. There is more isolation maybe where you can do whatever on 'open' network, but always some kind of proxy/vpn connection for hitting anything sensitive.
The operlap is there.. But I would be worried if it was just flat out taken away from secure managed connections just because of AI.. Again, would love to see the numbers of your assumptions.
Woa TIL. I thought that was somehow long solved at the OS level or with VPNs or something like that (no idea exactly how, I'm sure just I'm misunderstanding something basic).
Makes it rather weird that LM Studio doesn't support it given how their target market, or well at least for their paid products, is very enterprisey.
I never install this stuff manually anymore. Just tell your LLM of choice to download model X from URL Y, build the latest inference engine of choice E, and then create batch files or shell scripts to run instruct and/or reasoning models in accordance with instructions at URL Z.
While you probably have the audacity to check the commands and code that your favorite LLM generates to complete this task, i'm pretty much certain that at some point in time, due to this pervasive mindset of "just let an AI agent do it," we'll have a front page news story of someone who had their family photos on their NAS uploaded to some public space, their security cameras connected to a "live porn for lolz" webring, and perhaps even their crypto wallets and bank accounts pilfered, all because their favorite LLM got exploited by some prompt injection attack while trying to be helpful doing system administration tasks.
I remember there was a short story in BYTE Magazine about a similar kind of scenario way back when, I think at least 30 years ago, long before LLMs and AI agents became a reality.
Hmm I'm still struggling with the downloading of all the models I want to try locally, so I might be out of the loop, but all of this, including tuning (to your local HW), feels like it could be automated. I'm old though.
I'm a huge open model fan, and have used them since forever, even have daily drivers for on-prem dev, but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage.
Qwen models are impressively good for what they are, are "good enough" for plenty tasks, can be ran locally on decently priced hardware, and so on. They certainly have their uses, and the field in general has advanced faster than my early expectations. But to compare a 27B model to SotA behemoths from a few months ago is doing everyone a disservice, especially people who pick it up, try to use them just like API models, and leave disappointed and confused. Number goes up on a benchmark isn't it.
We have an internal eval that measures performance on tasks for a handful of embedded systems repos for our mmWave radios (mostly Rust, some C for microcontroller stuff). Qwen3.6-27B scores only 4% lower for pass@1, n=250 compared to Opus-4.8.
For the labeled dataset, the average PR size they're being measured against is around 1.5k SLOC.
This is very much "real-world usage" for us. The sort of change sets that come in daily/weekly and are solving non-trivial issues in the respective codebases.
As is usually the case, the most broad claims from both the labs and from the consequent pushback are talking past each other.
4% is within the margin of error anyways for pass@1, so I think pass@k > 1 is gonna be the better indicator of any movement (still need to calibrate the optimal k to re-test). 10 seems too tolerant even though that tends to be the next tranche I reach for.
Right I take your point, but that's not the comparison in this case though. These are paired results on the same 250 tasks, so whether a 4 point gap is meaningful depends on the task-level deltas, not just plugging p=0.04 into the binomial SE.
How much does it score though? 0% would be 4% less if Opus was at 4%. Unless you mean relative fraction not percentage points - but people usually mean percentage points in such situations.
> ...but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage.
I agree, but then we just need meaningful benchmarks that clearly show that! Otherwise it's hand waving about something that should be put on paper in quantifiable terms.
If you are working in a company and using language models, it is a very good idea to hold a bunch of evals you can trust and use to validate new models. Calibrate every once in a while with prod data. We have our own and the only numbers on quality and cost I trust come from this setup.
That’s well and good, but how are we supposed to evaluate the accuracy of random HN comments without anything resembling somewhat objective metrics? People say all manner of things, and usually it’s contradictory. What heuristic do you propose?
> but then we just need meaningful benchmarks that clearly show that!
That's the rub. AI benchmarks are IMO, by and large totally unreliable. We think of them as similar to traditional benchmarks of deterministic processes where the number of variables is low. But they're anything but that. Non-deterministic processes with an astounding number of variables and fuzzy acceptance criteria.
It leads to results like these, where if you take it at face value, the only conclusion you can draw is "wow Anthropic must be stupid if Opus takes 1T parameters to do what Qwen can do in 27B."
The only useful benchmarks are those you've created for your specific workflow. Only then can you assess whether a given model is better or worse for what you are using it for.
Yep. These small models are actually worse than GPT 3.5 at some tasks (like recalling facts). You can definitely make models smarter at specific tasks (like tool calling, coding) but you can't compress the entire human knowledge into a 30GB file. It's just not enough bits.
Ideal local model would not know stuff like who Britney Spears is, best to leave precious weights for something useful.
Of course the line is very blurry but I'd be perfectly happy with local model that doesn't know anything about history, geopolitics, art or even biology etc. just coding, operating systems etc.
At one point there were specific -Coder release of Qwen e.g. 2.5 but they dropped that, still wondering how much better 3.6-Coder or 3.8-Coder would be when they ignore everything else
Models cant make any decisions if they have 0 idea that the feature exist in this language or in some general fact.
For example you would tell a model hey, become an expert in this language for me, search it online, it would still need to learn it and download the data to it's context and then increasing the memory usage, there's no way around it.
In my experience, the facts that are compressed away in small models are ones you don’t need them to memorize. They need familiarity with the essential concepts in a field, so that they will have better comprehension of material put into the context (and make better retrieval decisions). They don’t need to know very particular details which are a hallucination risk and should be derived from the context instead.
"Benchmark is stupid" and "model beats model on benchmark" are two different things, though. The second one is objectively true regardless of your views on the first one, right? To expect everyone to share your opinion that benchmarks are stupid is pretty weird, and just saying "no" to an objective truth is the definition of delusion.
But that's the problem with that logic. The author subjectively claims benchmarks are stupid (a debatable opinion) and treats that as inherently true while making the second claim (hence, you shouldn't say model A beat model B).
I can say I find the law stupid, so no one should say person A beat person B in court. But I did not prove the law is stupid; I merely thought it subjectively and demanded others to follow the second part because I believe the first part is true.
Saying that "if the law is useless, court cases are useless" is objectively true and cannot be argued with. But you still need to prove why the law is useless, not why you think it is and even then if people disagree and use the law as a reference, then it's not objectively useless and court cases are not useless as well.
For high concurrency, using the blackwell's native native W4A4 MLP compute path, nvfp4 is something like a 1.2-1.5x performance increase over FP8. We're doing data enrichment (so, tasks completed successfully + tokens/second) so the performance bump shows up in the tasks/month number.
I am just now getting the benchmarks running against 3.8 27b but I expect similar results from benching 3.6 27b at the same quant.
Unsloth usually also fixes the models when they bork something, which always happens. For Gemma for example the tool calling wasn't working for the longest time.
The talk around KL divergence is oversold. People talk about it as if it’s not a benchmark, but at its core it is in the same neighborhood! You get a different KL divergence number on different “calibration datasets”, so in other words it’s data-dependent. It is NOT a universal guarantee about the fundamental divergence of a model.
KL divergence is nothing close to a replacement for benchmarks. As flawed as benchmarks are, KL divergence is a barely useful signal. The fact that Unsloth only just started publishing KL divergences shows how unserious the quantization space is.
You're very right about KL divergence. I spent a couple days playing with the Gemma 4 models. That's 10 separate models (varying weights, MoE, QAT or not, etc...) with identical tokenizers. I treated 31B at BF16 as the gold standard, feeding Wikipedia snippets, and anthropomorphizing a bit:
Gemma 4 31B: "Um, if I really said all of that, I guess I'd say this next"
Gemma 4 26B: "Dude, I would've said completely different stuff" (large divergence)
Gemma 4 12B: "Umm, there's zero chance I would've said some of this" (INFINITE divergence)
Gemma 4 E4B and E2B: "Derp derp, I'm happy to say almost anything" (lowest divergence)
For models which are chat trained, they simply would not recite Wikipedia, so the divergence is almost meaningless. I thought about capturing a realistic coding session and trying to use that as the corpus, but you need to preserve the turn-based tokens and such, so I moved on to other things.
> The fact that Unsloth only just started publishing KL divergences shows how unserious the quantization space is.
Just wanted to say that this is a very important point that I totally agree with. People are obsessed with KL divergence, but it is yet to be demonstrated to be a descent proxy for agentic coding benchmarks.
When I tested various eval benchmarks on Qwen3.5/3.6 27B with Unsloth's quants, the scores usually dropped 0-5% between UD-Q6 and UD-Q3 depending on the eval.
Oh, goody goody goody! Can't wait for a Q4M with *MTP* support. Does anyone know if there are plans for it?
I am currently using Qwen 3.6 on RTX 3090 and I have to admit that without MTP it would be too slow to be acceptable for me (30-35 tok/sec without MTP, 60-70 with MTP). Without MTP I would just use OpenRouter and rather pay for speed despite having a capable local setup.
That kind of result makes me suspicious of benchmaxxing. Qwen 27B is 100x smaller than Opus 4.7. Is it really 100x more parameter-efficient? Two orders of magnitude is hard to believe. I don't have the hardware to run a 27B, but I'm curious what real world use is like. Maybe I'll have to buy some usage on a cloud provider to run my own tests, but this seems fishy to me.
Qwen small models are heavily coding focused, whereas Opus is everything to everybody (even if code is their bread and butter). The downside is they'll frequently hallucinate world knowledge so they need to be RL'd to double check their knowledge against sources and verify facts/library names/etc.
It's very agentic coding focused; and I'd say a good executor but certainly not Opus in scale; overall knowledge; long-horizon work and recovery; etc.
e.g. If you try to chat to it about something philosophical for example, or maybe a debate / creative writing, then you'll very quickly see how it is still a much smaller model at the end of the day.
Still, it's such a relatively accessible model to run, and I find a big part of leveraging smaller models is to give it well-scoped tasks; not too high level or ambitious ones. Very impressive for its size and the ability to run locally :)
In the local LLM communities there is a lot of respect for the Qwen models, but everyone comes to acknowledge that they do a lot of benchmaxxing after using them. Even at full precision they're never as good as models with similar benchmarks.
Any tips on the best approach at running this at an M4 Max 128GB? Token throughput was a bit slow with the last 27B one (MLX), ended up using the A3B variant but if I could get this one to reasonable speed I'd much prefer it.
I have an M4 Max (unfortunately 64GB). I have been running the Qwen 35B A3B one for a while now, after testing and benchmarking a number of models. That one was consistently the best in class for tasks like despamming, E-mail classification, OCR and dictation post-processing. It was also really fast (90 tokens/s).
I'm benchmarking the 3.8 model now, it seems it is better (near-perfect score on my E-mail spam filtering benchmark, best of any model I tested, ever). But it is slow.
One thing I would recommend is keeping an eye on MTP parameters. I tested and benchmarked extensively, and I use `--spec-draft-n-max 2` with llama.cpp. Longer sequences actually decrease overall performance.
As for running, I ended up using llama.cpp and its llama-server, with a bunch of scripts written by AI, because I got tired of LM Studio not implementing the image-related parameters which made gemma4 useless for OCR.
Go for a slightly more quantised version, and experiment with different MTP settings. I find that MLX versions are marginally faster on my 64GB M1 Max, but I usually use Unsloth's GGUFs via llama.cpp as there's a much greater range of quants available and I prefer llama.cpp. MTP sometimes also helps a little, but I suspect it's less helpful on my system than others.
This is the way if you need speed. It costs a little bit in smarts, but compare the MTPLX option listed above with the oQ4e-mtp quant using oMLX. The good cacheing layer in oMLX will help things feel faster for some classes of tasks in my experience.
Wait for the MTP variants that will likely be out within days. I'm on a 128GB Strix Halo box and for 3.6-27B 8bits I was getting about 9tok/sec (not great). With MTP that gets closer to 18 tok/sec (kind'a usable).
The MTP is available, but I'm definitely not seeing 18 t/s on the Strix Halo from the 8-bit quantization, even with MTP (more like ~10 with full context on long tasks). This is a slow model (but so was 3.6). What's your exact llama-server command that gets 18 t/s?
27B is a dense model so it will be slower with an MoE (A3B), but should have better quality? I still haven’t found very good uses cases on my M3 Max for dense models. Even if you can find a MTP version, it doesn’t help much, especially if you compare against an MoE with MTP as well.
Unfortunately, that chip just doesn't really have the memory bandwidth to run this (or nearly any) model at acceptable speeds. I have the exact same chip (M4 Max 128GB) and I've been trying to optimize a completely purpose-built implementation with Fable and this is just not possible. Even if you could reach the full 576GB/s, it's just physically impossible to exceed these numbers with the model's architecture:
2 bpw - ~85.7t/s
3 bpw - ~58.0t/s
4 bpw - ~43.9t/s
6 bpw - ~29.5t/s
8 bpw - ~22.2t/s
16 bpw - ~11.2t/s
without cheating. You'd have to exclude layers, skip operations, etc. basically do stuff the model wasn't trained for. And speed collapses so fast with context that even 2 bpw would be looking at ~37.6t/s after just 128K tokens.
MTP only improves the situation by up to 2x in the ideal case, while drastically reducing the performance floor. While optimizing a 9B model on this hardware, I've found that the GPU just doesn't have enough FLOPS to handle speculating more than one or two tokens ahead on a single stream, regardless of quant level, simply because of the arithmetic cost of the forward pass. The 27B model would be even more expensive than that, potentially such that it's already bottlenecked by the GPU itself rather than memory.
I wouldn't get my hopes up for the 35B-A3B either. Not only is it reportedly much less intelligent, but I hit a similar ~85t/s wall in practice (again with highly specialized inference).
Without speculation I can reach around 120t/s on Qwen3.5-9B and with n-gram speculation (not even MTP; this derivative didn't come with one) around about 150t/s on average. This is on the very very edge of what I'd consider acceptable for me to even consider using such a compact model. YMMV due to the silicon lottery but the situation isn't good.
I wonder how this practically compares with Muse Glimmer, especially quantized.
I've got an RX 7900 XT (20GB of VRAM) and I can run glimmer with a full 128k context window with the draft model at 65-80 tok/s.
This model, on the other hand, I get about 30 tok/s with a 30k context. Raising the context or loading the draft layers for MTP drops performance to 9-15 tok/s.
So I wonder how big the "real world" delta between Glimmer and Qwen is here. I can already run 3-bit DSv4-flash at 9-15 tok/s with 100k~ context, and I suspect it would outperform 4-bit Qwen 3.8 27B here.
I'll have to experiment and see if I just made a stupid mistake somewhere, but it looks like Glimmer might make more sense for the comically specific niche of "20GB VRAM".
I'm in the exact same boat with a 7900 XT and a good Glimmer 30B experience. I was really hoping qwen 3.8 would bring some memory/space efficiency savings along the lines of whatever is going on with Glimmer 30B. I have been surprised that a 30 billion model fits and runs better (at higher unsloth quantization! UD-Q4_K_XL fits!) than a 27 billion model.
The $1500 Intel B70 with 32GB of VRAM can run this model at max context with good performance, btw. If you don't want to drop $5-10k for running DeepSeek this is your best budget option for local refactor/small scale dev help
I understand the B70 is a bargain vs AMD and especially nVidia offerings, but to me it feels like I would be buying something that would feel too limited in less than a year. 48G would be much more confortable.
And I know the 96G nVidia cards are selling for over 10k$.
You can buy two b60s for $1300 right now (650 each) if you want a total of 48gb. Intel recently raised the price on all of their gpu's except the b60 series, so they are currently the best deal per gb I think.
32GB is perfect for models around 30B parameters. Since qwen has really hit the spot with their 27B dense models, I think it's a good bet. Also, 32GB is enough for other tasks such as image/video generation and loading multiple smaller specialized models
Sorry, I wrote autocompletion by force of habit. I simply meant it can complete code you have already created a structure for, which personally is very nice
I thought so, but thanks for the clarification. I am a little bit disappointed that local autocompletion models have been left by the wayside in favor of models post-trained for agentic coding. Both Codestral and Qwen-2.5-coder are more than a year old at this point, but local auto-complete seems to me to be such a great usecase.
The latest Qwen models (including 3.8 27B) do still support FIM-style in-editor code auto-completion if that's what you're looking for. I wouldn't want to use a large dense model like 27B for such a task (since FIM-style auto-completion really works best with low-latency responses), but it works.
The file "Just loads" on llama.cpp, the Unsloth https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF is an MTP file, I see mostly the same speed on pp and generation.
There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks, I find extremely hard to believe a 27B model can work similar or exceed opus 4.6.
Worth distinguishing knowledge/task benchmarks from IF / agentic. It doesn't seem out of the question that you can have a small model thats generally good at instruction following and long-horizon agentic, as usually in those cases any requisite knowledge is in the context.
Most of the benchmark improvements afaict are in agentic and instruction following benchmarks.
I think you've been drinking the "LLMs only improve by adding parameter counts" that SOTA labs are selling VCs to build data centers so they can keep eating through cash to their own benefits.
To the countrary, the reason Chinese models are excelling in the smaller area is because there's tons of fat in closed source models because of the crazy cash being thrown around.
There absolutely is space to improve intelligence and capabilities without lathering on more and more parameters.
Qwen3.6-27B has been the main LLM powering my little agentic stack. I have adopted the test and verify approach to any models allowed to run on my machine. When the "heretic" version drops, I will fire up the harness and test. Super excited to see how it stacks up against Qwen3.6!!!
Beating or comparable to Opus 4.6 in benchmarks. Opus 4.6 was released in February, 2026. So if we still want to talk about a "6 month difference" between Chinese and American AI, the sentence should now be:
Chinese (small model) AI is 6 months behind American (largest model) AI.
If the benchmarks are a real indication, we now have a local model that is runnable on a high-end personal PC that trades blows with the leading model Claude Opus 4.6 Max from half a year ago.
Yeah this is the first model I have been able to run locally that actually feels useful, this is unreal I am considering cancelling my claude sub and going to just api (maybe GLM?) for really hard tasks.
Yeah I was thinking open router but I will look around at options, I genuinely think this model is good enough for like 90+% of my use cases, and the top frontier models are still not that good at architecture so I have to do that myself still so I won't be losing out.
can you tell me ideas of usecases of 9 or 10B language models ? I cant find any usecases other than training a lora on them to give good bash commands for example
I use Gemma 4 12B in the 4-bit quantization for all sorts of vision tasks (image sorting, classification, description). It's also good for the same sorts of things for text (but there are probably better/faster models for text, 12B just happens to excel at vision tasks). The Qwen 9B is also very good for those tasks. If you need to do any kind of "search the web, grab some data, do some kind of action" tasks, these small models are perfect for that. Scraping data in a fuzzy format into a database or report or spreadsheet, producing a dashboard of news, etc.
Small local models can also be used for sub-agent tasks in most agent harnesses. But I'd probably run a larger MoE for that; they're faster and have broader knowledge. The dense models, even very small ones, are not blazing fast.
I don't code with any models small enough to run locally, at least not so far. Qwen 3.8 27B might be the tipping point, though. It's looking really promising, though it's probably slow enough that I won't ever actually use it. I'd rather pay $100/month for a faster model, even if Qwen 3.8 turns out to be smart enough for most of my work. Running it locally with the 8-bit quantization is going at 12-30 t/s, depending on how much context it's chewing on. So, if all you do with AI is coding, then you're better off doing it in the cloud.
But, there's lots of things a small model can do that aren't coding.
For those commenting on the long reasoning, it may be interesting to know that the reasoning effort is set to xhigh by default [0]. Other possible values are medium, low and none. Flag for changing it in llama.cpp below, but note that the long reasoning seems to contribute a great deal to the quality.
Is there any way to turn off thinking if I'm using Ollama? In my particular case, the Ollama API (the software I want no-think for is tied to Ollama's bespoke API). If not, I'll stick to 3.6 for the time being...
I wonder if Anthropic and OpenAI possibly missed the window to go public. A 27B open-weight model trading blows with the SOTA from just half a year ago is not great news for trillion-dollar investments...
Trading blows in some benchmarks is a bit exaggerated. If you try the model, `xhigh` is basically feels like the `max` mode (i.e. massive thinker and extremely presistent), and the amount of world knowledge and intent understanding is nowhere close to an Opus class model even from 6mo ago.
It's still very useful, and it'll probably displace a good bit of API spend; but it's not really "trading blows with SOTA from just a half year ago". A bit overblown on the Anthropic/OpenAI has missed the window I reckon.
Also, on the open weight frontier side, Kimi K3 is pretty expensive, and Deepseek V4 Pro/Flash is getting a little less juicy with price increases.
Lacking world knowledge is fine for me, I rarely want to rely on the model’s training anyway when there are plenty of great search options to integrate with.
Another way of rephrasing that though is that the public (including large pension funds, retirees, etc.) just dodged a bullet and aren't left holding the bag.
Nevertheless, I doubt anyone's going to emerge unscathed when the valuations start falling though. Vast sections of the American stock market will be wiped out yet and with it the global economy.
Why do you assume 2-3 American companies failing will have a more negative impact on the economy than positive impact of the widespread availability of self-hostable, open-sourced, and efficient models?
There will surely be tons of new companies that make a business off of hosting these models and even tuning them for specific purposes. Not to mention the massive pricing difference will benefit people who actually utilize them
Firstly, I don't think it will be just 2-3 companies that fail. Due the circular investing between companies in the AI ecosystem, the fallout is going to be much bigger.
Secondly, even with that being true, I think open models are a great net benefit for all mankind in the long run.
I think both of those things are true at the same time.
IMO AI companies are selling the infrastructure and easier access to the models, beyond competing to get the smarter model. We can run Qwen locally, but at what cost? A good enough GPU for running 27B is more than 4,000 USD where I live (Brazil). Even if I were to spend 100s of hours in credits I would never reach a point where the 4000 USD investment pays off. Unless I'm doing it for the sport, building my own LLM rig is not financially viable.
This is without saying that company clients of Anthropic or OpenAI will not have the upfront money to get a RTX 3090 for each and every employee. Much better to sign a deal with the LLM providers and get cheaper token price with a sales person.
That’s quite inefficient. Get 2x RTX 6000 Pro and run DeepSeek v4 Flash for the whole company. This may or may not be cost effective compared to cheap third party providers, but it lets you own your own data, is not actually that expensive, and reports suggest that you can get 2k tok/s or so from a setup like this (at respectable batch size, but that’s exactly what you want in this situation).
I’m not sure I believe that the unquantized performance is as good as people are claiming, but even light quantization would make it fit easily.
Even Zuckerberg isn't as deluded to think that there's money in constantly releasing closed models and hypserscaling their deployment, which is why we got muse-glimmer 30b last week. I have been playing with it on a 32gb MBP w/ M2 Pro. If prosumer-grade hardware from almost three years ago can now offer a novice a way to host a possibly serviceable software development agent, then there's little incentive to pay out for LLMs like Anthropic's or OpenAI's over the long run.
Architecture thread! Afaict they continue to use gated attention + delta net, which was also adopted+adapted by K3, but im surprised theres no improvements to the residual stream (deepseek are using manifold hyper-connections, kimi have attention residuals) ?
Try manually asking both more discrete esoteric knowledge questions. Or use benchmarks which are less coding focused. The 3.6-35B-A3B with post-training may do well in coding type benchmarks and math but the density of its knowledge falls off in my experience (vs 3.6 27B dense Q8-K-XL unsloth GGUF) when you need to use it for less commonly used domains of knowledge.
My use cases try to avoid accessing world knowledge in the model (I give it access to web search for some adhoc RAG), and ya, I'm just focused on coding so that's the only place I'm looking at right now.
I think you may find that the dense 27B also does better if challenged with more rare coding tasks, less common or weird languages or things that aren't well represented in the active 3B parameters of the MoE model (eg: NOT css, javascript, python, c++, etc).
True. Benchmarks have led me astray before, I'll have to actually benchmark it directly in Goose with my real use cases right now (which are mostly writing python code, so it probably still doesn't apply?). Still, I've never noticed a benefit to using a dense model rather than an MoE for coding with an agent tasks.
Apart from model performance, what harness are people using to come close to Claude Code or Codex workflow styles with tool use, conversations, loops, remote control, etc.?
Better than Opus 4.6 at computer use? Comparable with it for SWE? Am I reading this right?
I’ve heard rumours about AI shops optimizing for benchmarks. I also don’t think Qwen/Alibaba would be crazy enough to claim something unless there is some truth in it. Would love to see a side-by-side with Opus 4.6 on categories where Qwen 3.8 27B aces it.
Model benchmarks are useful, to a point, but it is the long tail of things you do with the model that determines if it's good at a wide range of activities. Ant/OAI, to their credit, build their models -- even the small ones -- so they follow instructions and do tool calling well, without the system prompts confusing them. This is especially important for long-horizon tool calling.
So one open weight model might "meet" Opus or whatever on benchmarks, but then fail to follow a simple answer format and also tool call correctly. The models are whipped to within an inch of their lives to strictly adhere to their post training quality gates.
The default reasoning is set to 'xhigh', if you want to compare with the past or reduce the time (if you can take the hit in output quality) then you can pick 'high' or 'medium' as well.
I think I am going to buy a second rtx 3060, as 27B has been just outside of my range for to long, and this looks like the parameter count tipping point
whats the tok/s you get on that. I have heard a few claims of around 30-50 with mtp, but for how cheap the setup is I am surprised I don't hear more about 3060 stacks so I assume there has to be some catch.
I used GPT-5.6 Sol high to optimize it, and it claimed it was getting 50. I'm seeing ~40 on my goto smoketest: "Make me a vector add in CUDA".
Funny side note. It successfully one shot the program, but it wasn't able to run it because there literally wasn't enough VRAM left to allocate CUDA memory. Watching it try to debug that was fascinating. I'm pretty sure it would have killed the llama-server (and thus itself) if it hadn't been running in a separate container.
The Hugging Face page (https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B) shows that Featherless supports the model (and includes the inference widget to try it out directly on the page)
I've been experimenting with a few settings in my 4090 , and if 3.6 run at 90-110 tps, 3.8 staya below 80 tps and it's most often at 60 tps.
I'm using flash attention, mtp speculative decoding (n=2). I've looked at the club-3090 repo, but haven't found anything meaningful but get back to 3.6 performance
Yeah, I would appreciate if someone could make sense of the pricing differences between these models. How can a provider run DSv4F at lower cost than a 27B dense or 35B A3B model?
Does it come down to utilization and/or specific model tricks and efficiencies (attention, kv cache, etc.)?
> and more memory/computationally expensive to run any way I look at it.
Just speculating, but look at attention. 35B-A3B context is heavier -- about 20GB per 1M tokens vs ~7GB. So if you have ≥10M tokens of context per inference node, then DS4 Flash uses less memory than Qwen 35B.
Qwen attention is probably more computationaly expensive as well.
Also I guess not much interest/competition in serving Qwen edge model.
Yeah, it should be basically free. No idea why it is not. I guess KV cache taking up RAM and possibly bad business sense or amortized engineering costs, I honestly do not know.
I wish this can run directly on my RTX 4090, seems like 30B is the sweet spot for dense model to run locally, sadly RTX 5090 is very expensive and I need a new PC and new power supply(and UPS) to run that, adding a second RTX 4090 is another option, but not sure if my PC can do that yet.
even a 3090 will give you the VRAM headroom. i run Q8 on an 3090/A6500 combo. well, Q8 of 3.6-27B. I'm building the Q8 GGUF for 3.8 now, assuming mine will finish before someone else's.
I use the Qwens as a vision model for my DeepSeek V4 Flashes to handle. But the Qwens run on old RTX A6000 Ampere. Does anyone know if there's any news about INT4/AWQ quants for the RTX A6000?
Same, with a multimodal DSv4 Flash I would just stop paying attention to things. Very smart, and at 260 tok/s it's too fast to care about anything else. If you ever graft something like that I would love to hear about it.
Yes, I have a very dumb flow. The harness has a describe_image tool that takes an image and a prompt and so DSv4 Flash uses it to get an idea of what it's looking at.
Yeah, I might just replicate what you're doing. Main issue right now is just finding spare vram to actually run another model in parallel... And yeah, if I train up a vision adapter somehow, I'll try to put it up/post about it, seems like we're getting the killer apps for local LLMs right now, where it's just feasible enough if you're enthusiastic enough to be a bit economically irrational, and just useful enough to sort of rationalize.
Can anyone who has that specific personal test he tries on different models , and tries this model , to tell us here if possible , how good or bad is this new model ? compared to others ?
There is a down to earth guy on YT that performs a series of tests against LLMs running on non-god-tier commodity hardware. He will likely be testing this soon enough.
So much potential for that channel. He's got a nice range of tests and a no nonsense presentation style.
However, watching tests of heavily quantized models that weren't designed for it (non-QAT) is frustrating. There's no way to tell if the actual model fails because it's dumb or if the lobotomy made it that way.
strong visual reasoning apparently, which is nice. still lacking native audio however. hoping for more companies to embrace the spirit of something like `gemma-4-12b-qat` for actual multi-modality (text, image, video, audio).
Why don't qwen/alibaba host the model themselves? I was looking forward to trying it on their coding plan. Google are the same way with their Gemma models.
I thought the same. But why claim something so shocking when it can easily be discredited and puts your reputation at risk? If they’re claiming Opus 4.6 level, I expect it to at least match Sonnet 4.6.
Is it just me or is 3.6 27B Q8 K XL (Unsloth) holding up better in sustained token/s rate as the context fill increases over time? The token/s rate seems to be much higher for a time period deeper into context than previously seen.
At least as compared to 3.6 27B in the same quantization.
Since Qwen 3.6 27b outperforms Gemma 4 26b in most benchmarks I'm not sure the value - also Gemma 26b is a MOE model whereas this is a dense model, so not typically direct competitors at their sizes - Gemma 4 31b comparison would be interesting though.
I don't know much about the production of these models. How hard would it be to 'fork' something like this and have it not be full of CCP indoctrination?
What a weird mechanism. If someone is judging a thread/topic/event impact by the number of points it got, then doing this unfairly degrades that thread.
It should have deduped by user and combined the 168(at the time of writing this comment) + 289 points. Just add the twitter link from the previous thread as an additional link in the description, like you normally do, move all the points over, and remove the old thread.
I'm hoping to see folks distill this with current generation Opus / Fable reasoning traces. I have had my best results locally so far from Qwopus (Qwen 3.6-27B w/ Opus 4.6 reasoning distilled). This looks GREAT and I am definitely setting this up later today.
I found this kind of amusing while running it (using Pi as the harness). Don't know if this is evidence of intense fine tuning from Claude but it smells like it...
" The user wants me to explore the repository at XXXX and report back. Let me start by understanding the project structure, reading the
CLAUDE.md file, and getting a general overview of what this repository is.
Let me start by reading the main project documentation and exploring the directory structure.
I'll take a look around this repo. Let me start by getting a lay of the land.
read resource CLAUDE.md (ctrl+o to expand)
ENOENT: no such file or directory, access 'XXXX/CLAUDE.md'"
Why is anyone even using video cards these days? You may as well be burning cash.
This is the perfect candidate for just splattering it on your nvme and then reading it off there and into memory. All of these run perfectly fine on simple m4 silicone:
Nvidia and AMD both have their own unified memory laptop SOCs, now. Apple Silicon's GPU is relatively weak, it's one of the less-efficient ways to use 100w for compute.
Even the fastest Apple Silicon chips like the M5 Max and the M3 Ultra still put up worse GPU compute performance than last-gen laptop RTX 4080 chips. And they don't scale, the largest M3 Ultra cluster you can configure is still ~2,000x smaller than a DGX SuperPOD. There's a reason Apple discontinued their rackmount hardware, there's very little demand for Apple Silicon in the datacenter.
Credit where it's due. Qwen 3.8 27B is only the second local model after Gemma 4 that managed to correctly reason through one of my private benchmarks. It took 5x as many tokens to do it and 12m30s with MTP enabled, but it did do it.
Gemma 4 reasoned through it more implicitly, while Qwen 3.8 reasoned more explicitly. Laguna and Muse Glimmer failed hard on it, though they're useful for other tasks.
The VRAM usage seems way less efficient than Gemma 4 or Glimmer though, with 32K of context taking 2.5GB of VRAM. With those, even with MTP or a DFlash model loaded, you could still fit 256k-768k of context. With Qwen 3.8 27B I can't even fit 128k if I quantize V to Q4_0. Maybe with some trial and error I can find some settings that perform well enough with a larger context window that it's still useful for longer tasks.
Lots more testing to do, though I was getting some decent results out of Muse Glimmer which was more than twice as fast and supported huge context windows, managing to solve some bugs that Gemma 4 struggled with. I can't even begin to throw that task at Qwen, because just the prompt alone would use the entire context window and then it would reason for probably that same amount.
If you've got a 32GB card, it should be a decent model even if it really is memory hungry.
EDIT: Tried a few kv cache quantization settings, but it failed with those. I designed this benchmark to be pretty brutal in the face of KLD and any reasoning quality loss, so it's not too surprising. Gemma 4's QAT held up pretty well, at least and could consistently complete it.
> Qwen 3.8 27B is only the second local model after Gemma 4 that managed to correctly reason through one of my private benchmarks.
I don't expect you to blab publicly about your private benchmark, but what sorts of reasoning does it require?
> The VRAM usage seems way less efficient than Gemma 4 or Glimmer though
Maybe it's implicit that you're using llama.cpp (although you don't mention GGUF), but it's hard to reach concrete conclusions about the model architecture based on one implementation in one runtime.
I was quite impressed by Muse Glimmer, and while I am sure people will observe that it is less good on benchmarks, my first experiences with this new 27B have been somewhat exasperating, whereas testing Muse Glimmer was rather fun. I have not tested either in an agentic context, mind you.
Glimmer works really well as an "explore" agent model (like in Opencode.) It seems to be extremely efficient at searching and collating that info, and executing commands.
From my testing so far, Qwen 3.8 is better at code but it tends to meander and take forever if it has to look in a lot of places. Glimmer will use like ~1k tokens to formulate a plan and Qwen 3.8 will routinely go over 10k
Glimmer is fun because it's fast, tight, and doesn't wander or waffle. My favourite local model so far.
Absolutely the best pelican I've seen from a model that runs on my laptop: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...
Bicycle is the right shape. Pelican beak is excellent. Nice background. Most importantly, the pelican has one leg on each side of the bicycle - that's very rare.
(No chain on this bicycle though - in the reasoning trace it says "already chainstay... skip chain detail; maybe a small chainring.")
I ran that on an M5 Max MacBook Pro using LM Studio and their 17GB GGUF: https://lmstudio.ai/models/qwen3.8
It took 21 minutes(!) and used 22,276 reasoning tokens to produce 3,223 tokens of output.
(For the "they're training on your benchmark now" crowd, all of that cheating didn't prevent it from spending 20 minutes thinking about the task first! You can see the reasoning trace in the link I shared.)
For comparison, here's one I got from qwen3.8-2.4t-a95b on OpenRouter, which is pleasingly animated: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...
For anyone who followed yesterday's Gemini 3.7 Flash pelican which rendered in Safari but not in Firefox or Chrome... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49289112#49290012. - that turned out to be my fault, not the model.
My SVG rendering software was stripping some attributes. Here's the Gemini 3.7 Flash pelicans in the fixed renderer: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer.html#u...
Perhaps this isn’t a new observation but the problem with LLMs is very clear with these. It’s a nice microcosm. The LLM will draw a fish companion (unprompted!) with a nice gradient but won’t get the pelican’s feet right.
It’s obviously a problem of fundamental understanding and demonstrates that reasoning is more “directionless rigour”.
Or a matter of having limited time but spending it thinking about the wrong thing. Which, not to anthropomorphize it, but it's not like humans don't do that, or at least I do.
It is interesting that it went with something like:
"pelican = ocean bird = nautical theme = this means I should put a captain's hat on the cartoon Pelican"
I think in some sense it understood the absurdity of a pelican riding a bicycle as intentionally nonsensical, so it went with a cartoon theme for the design and the shading. Worked out really well.
Damn That's very good
Gemini is worse
Holy crap that is above and beyond
But, not animated like the Qwen 2.4T one you showed, so minus points for that
It's definitely trained on generating SVGs. Not that they trained on the pelican prompt itself, but probably a more general RL step that has it generate SVG and a stronger vision model judges it.
It's up to you if that counts as benchmaxxed.
Totally agree. I actually didn't know you already got to it and I ran it on mine. It even added a scarf lol
https://imgur.com/a/IgYKnmk
Took almost 90 minutes on my Threadripper Pro, and feels well worth it.
28k tokens from the Q8 model
And yours got the chain!
What's the result if you ask it for a "pelican equipment case" ? I've been trying the anti-bicycle pelican on some LLMs and the results are much more varied than the bicycle prompt. Some have very different ideas of pelicans (you'll get a small case with one DSLR camera in it, or a long rifle case, etc). You'll also get cases that are isometric view, or flat plane view from the front, or open or closed.
It did a pretty outstanding job on that: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer.html#u...
This took 56 minutes! - but it didn't have exclusive use of LM Studio, I ran a few other test prompts while it was working.
That is pretty good! It's interesting it chose orange, because that's actually a somewhat rare color for pelican cases. I would say 95% of the ones going around the world right now are either black or FDE (flat dark earth) tan colored. There are some orange ones, for sure, if you google image search "orange pelican case", people use them for emergency/first aid supplies or electronics. But only the smallest ones are available in orange.
It is also worth noting that it shaded the pelican case like it was a product photo taken in a studio, there's a virtual light source above and to the top left corner of it, then shading deeper color of orange as the body area progresses towards the lower right corner.
What are the chances that the colouring of actual pelicans is bleeding in to the prompt. Seems it could be that?
Doubtful? Without knowing anything about how it was trained, if you google image search "pelican bird" they are predominantly white in color. Though the bill is certainly orange, different shades depending on camera and lighting conditions. The SVG attempt looks more like an attempt at the product photos if you search "pelican case orange".
Need more tests of 'pelican bird standing in pelican equipment case' ;)
Or to make it even more tricky, since Pelican cases will float when closed, something like "generate an SVG file of a Pelican bird floating in the ocean next to a Pelican case".
I've been getting ads in my Instagram for http://colorcase.com. They add colors and wheels to cases and I'm sharing them because you're right, most of them aren't orange. But they could be!
Wow, those are expensive. I've been buying pelican 1510 and similar from eBay and b&h used/refurb. The harbor freight pelican knock off that is their 3800 and 4800 product numbers are also not bad. It's like 85% as good as a real pelican for 40% of the price.
Not too bad, on my 5090 I got ~160tokens/sec and it took 3m20s to generate a pelican using Ninfer which someone else mentioned. I don't know why I didn't get any sweet sweet seagulls in my background, even on xhigh reasoning effort.
https://gist.github.com/hansale/ed9e73fe35165a58ea2af6b1632a...
I've done a few variations, I've been impressed with all of them. My favourite so far has been "Generate an SVG of a turtle flying a kite", result: https://imgur.com/a/bdKJPV4.
Some will say conflating flying and flying a kite is bad, but I like it.
I was just updating a Proxmox cluster from v8 to v9 and had time on my hands and 15-30 mins after the models appeared for general download I had an initial pelican effort in .svg format.
I switch off reasoning by default and for starters I ran 3.8 the same way as 3.6 on vllm on a DGX Spark box. Open web UI prompted.
My word! It looks rather decent. Much better than previous efforts.
this sort of test surely only works when it's a brand new concept/prompt. like the exact same models trained newer data will surely get better at putting this together over time
Try it out with your own prompt, I suspect you'll be surprised.
what type of laptop runs something like that? using mac or egpu?
See, like my comment before. We don’t need the biggest/highest/frotiest model.
I think the model got trained only on pelican to get there
We should start asking it for an Albatross instead.
There's a real change (compared to 3.6) in the way it writes in thinking — it drops words like "to" and "we" in "We need to", talks generally in note form, drops the/and all over the place, avoids "for".
"Need be helpful concise", "Need maybe not overdo", "Need ask!" Almost caveman.
I have an (unsourced, vague) suspicion that this rather unique thinking trace pattern is actually hobbling the MTP predictions, which seem to perform poorly.
Other notes: it uses the trick of repeating the prompt in the thinking trace.
It also worries about hidden chain of thought appearing in the final answer. It talks about "desired oververbosity 9", which is new. A bit GPT-ish.
It is being extraordinarily thorough in thinking through one of my code requests, but I don't know if the net result will be any better than the 35B MoE.
I asked it to ask me clarifying questions — it did, and it offered me a list of defaults I could simply agree to.
I don't think it is necessarily overthinking in the looping sense, but it is in the being exhaustive sense. I need to explore how it does with a tighter reasoning budget.
I am impressed but I am definitely in Camp Please-35B-A3B-When? here, because on an M1 Max this isn't really practical. I hope they do one, though I think they may not.
I also noticed that if you ask it to write text content to a certain word length (like "please write 250 words about the potato"), it now takes its sweet time "manually" counting each word in its draft output. It puts a number next to each word and iterates through all of its draft paragraphs and tries to stick to a strict word count. This is with temperature 1.0 as recommended.
This has been common in Kimi K3, and now DS Flash/Pro as well. Evidence of cross-training?
It looks like the caveman speak is a facet of the 'xhigh' reasoning effort. Set (bodged!) to medium it is not caveman.
Annnnd the code of my WP code test is not better. It is bushy, overcomplicated, and has gone around the houses to do stuff it would not need to do if it hadn't overthought.
Oh dear. I need to try to understand what is going on here.
thinking is set to max by default. I bet that turning it down would solve this.
I think so too — it is something to test, for sure.
ETA: a bit of testing before I climb the wooden hill to Bedfordshire.
LM Studio doesn't seem to display the little dropdown to set reasoning effort, so I bodged the chat template on load to get it to choose 'medium'.
As soon as you switch away from xhigh, it goes back to thinking in normal sentences like Qwen 3.6, rather than in sort of quasi caveman.
And you get all the Wait, Actually, No wait… stuff back.
And it is behaving a lot more like it used to. So that is pretty interesting.
If anyone else is running this on an RTX 5090, https://github.com/Neroued/ninfer as inference engine gets me ~138 tokens/second, roughly double what I get with a naive llama.cpp setup.
Amazingly enough, Hacker News decided to show this to me as the top comment, I'm also running an rtx 5090 and trying it out now, thanks for the tip!
Edit: Absolutely blazing fast! Getting 163 tokens/sec on WSL and it generated a pretty sweet Pelican.
https://gist.github.com/hansale/ed9e73fe35165a58ea2af6b1632a...
Just enable MTP on llama.cpp and you will get the same decode speeds.
Wow. This model is so good, and we have GLM 5.3 (seems great voor security related work) and Deepseek. In a few months we'll have Fable/Sol-like capabilities that are not coming from the big US companies. I feel as a programmer that that is more than enough. How wil OpenAI and Anthropic survive when frontier model intelligence becomes commoditized?
I stopped using Fable and Opus 5 because I literally can't understand the output. The waffle is so intense it no longer makes sense. I don't understand who is using those to get real work done.
I'm using kimi-k3 on a real high level dev & analysis task at the moment (with Gemini flash for fast implementation) and it is fantastic.
I think we have passed the point where frontier intelligence is commoditized.
Curious what level of thinking you have been using as well. Found that lowering it actually gets me better results.
I'm just using the defaults.
just curious; which fable/opus versions are you using?
Fable-1m-max-thinking output, despite being incredibly slow and expensive, feels like it bucked a trend towards superficial loquaciousness in their models that had been building since 4.6.
I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to upgrading models, fable was the first one to make me give up Opus 4.6-1M-max.
I'm just using the defaults, through Claude.ai on the web.
The demand curve for speed and intelligence seems pretty steep to me.
If you look at the hiring marketplace, being just marginally better than your peers can be very lucrative.
If you’re competing on speed or capability as a company (or as an employee), you’re probably going to be willing to pay for the frontier.
They’ll certainly try to stymie people by colluding with manufacturers until we get nvidia level hardware or LLM ASICs from the East.
As usual, the Jinja templates are messed up so use this [0] to reduce or turn off thinking, fix tool calling, keep a 100% KV cache hit rate, etc.
[0] https://huggingface.co/froggeric/Qwen-Fixed-Chat-Templates
I'd love to understand this more. Are you saying the Qwen team spends their very impressive human and compute resources on publishing these amazing models and then botches the chat template with mundane bugs?
Like maybe I just misunderstand what's the hard part but wouldn't you assume that people who can put together an impressive model can also write a proper jinja chat template for it?
You have understood correctly.
One really would think these companies (including Google) who spend many millions of dollars on compute could write a few hundred lines of Jinja correctly, so their investment works optimally or at all.
But they don't.
Then a couple of individuals on HuggingFace fix it, either a 2-person startup like Unsloth or a volunteer like froggeric.
I also don't understand how this repeatedly happens.
Yes for the first question. Google of all companies didn't even get it right with Gemma for a while until recently. For some reason it doesn't seem like people can actually get these templates right.
Is the chat template used at all when they benchmark the model?
It’s unlikely they are benchmarking that downstream. They probably have private benchmark scripts with purpose-specific run telemetry and logging, etc.
I’m sure there is some basic testing but it might be agentic (LLM likes its own output) and maybe just some human smoke tests.
they likely use their internal infra to run benchmarks; aligning external releases with internal environments is always painful and somewhat underincentivized
Yes, I was fixing issues piecemeal until I found the froggeric template, I've had to fix I think one issues with that one but it's better.
The chat templates are usually the first thing that every major release bork on, and all new model architectures end up having a ~2 week initial window of small fixes before they’re not DoA
Yes yes, oh god yes. They also spread FUD in the form of terrible recommended sampler settings.
If you're using llamacpp, turn on top-n-sigma with sigma of 1, turn off top-p/top-k. You'll thank me later.
For those us us who don't know, what do those parameters do and why are they better?
Temperature, top-up, top-k, min-p all control which token the model predicts next and how likely it is to select one token over the other.
You might understand this as "The capital of France is..." and the model isn't always going to select "Paris". Sometimes it will start a descriptive sentence or even get the answer wrong.
That selection of the next token is what these settings control, and lots of sub-optimal selections compound over time to produce a junk response.
I broadly knew that about temperature, but lack the background in machine learning/statistics to differentiate top-n-sigma from top-k/top-p.
So do I, but we live in the future: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a7fc3d2-39f4-83e8-a7c6-825ddfb5e7...
How is terrible settings a case of FUD?
Interesting. Why don't the unsloth guides (https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3.8) mention this? Do they already include the fixes in their GGUFs?
They usually do include fixes yes.
@danielhanchen may be able to answer this
If the benchmarks don't lie, this is getting very close to Opus 4.6 capability - which was the turning point for me for when AI was "good enough" that it became very hard to justify not using it.
I'm sure there's some benchmaxxing going on, and some things you get only with a a larger model.
But I'm feeling pretty confident if not by Gemma 5 than by mid 2028 we'll have local models that are almost always as good as Opus 4.6 was and in many cases far better.
What kind of things you only get with a larger model?
Asking it factual information[1]. You just can't compress the entire human knowledge into a 30GB file.
[1] Without searching the internet. And even if you allow it, you'll get much worse results because search means browsing and parsing the top results, and search results are horrible, whereas internal knowledge from training encompasses the entire internet plus all books including very niche stuff.
> You just can't compress the entire human knowledge into a 30GB file.
...I'm just asking questions here... how sure are we of this?
If you'd asked me six years ago whether we could compress all of human knowledge into a 1 TB file, I would have said no, and yet here we are.
If you can do 1 TB, why not 30 GB? It's, like, within one order of magnitude.
Amusingly enough, someone from a frontier lab could probably answer this empirically. Years ago Microsoft demonstrated training LLMs on synthetic text-- books rewritten by LLMs to be more concise and more accurate. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 It is well known that Anthropic extensively uses these synthetic text in training Claude. You could probably get good 50tile, 90tile, 99 etc numbers just from the size of the training materials on Anthropic servers.
(mumbles) Shannon entropy... Kolmogorov complexity... something, something...
On a more serious note, it depends on your cutoff for "entire human knowledge". It's easy to prove for a generous interpretations of "entire human knowledge" that it can't be done, but hard for something like "all useful human knowledge".
IDK, 30GB is a lot of data when we're talking about text!
Moby Dick, uncompressed, is ~1MB. Compressed, it's around 500KB.
I feel fairly certain that one could fit all of the textual knowledge required to cultivate a world-class <insert name of preferred professional knowledge worker> in <60,000 Moby Dicks. (Arguably in <5,000 Moby Dicks with intense effort/pruning).
Wikipedia (text) is about 25gigs compressed. I think that's a reasonable starting point.
IME using 5.6 Luna and DS V4 Flash, I notice that although they are excellent at programming, even Opus-like in the way they try to debug, the thing they are worst at is inferring user intent and making good decisions with little information. They are absolutely terrible at that, will misinterpret small wording ambiguities. I suspect that's an ability you can't add with RL training, that it requires the depth of understanding from vast pre-training.
So add a pre-ingestion agent to your Pi Coding Agent subagent repertoire, problem solved.
Please, could you point me to any documentation about this pre-ingestion?
I’ve looked here: https://github.com/earendil-works/pi/blob/main/packages/codi...
Woah woah woah buddy... suggesting that people use anything other than ClaudeCode or Codex is simply not allowed around these parts.
Your negative impression is surprising. Could you point to any threads to support your message?
Similar to the way they asked Sol to solve Erdos problems, that's what I want my model to do for programming.
I don't want to try to take my best educated guess at what the best design is BEFORE implementation - especially if you're designing a feature for a codebase you're not an expert in, you don't know like the back of your hand (i.e. one that is mostly or entirely LLM generated).
What sounds good on paper - often times becomes unideal in practice when you get to the reality of implementation.
It may not be worth re-architecting your entire system to get to a "pure" design that would be the best - all things considered.
Instead, I'd like the model to independently design many plausible and coherent good solutions, then implement each of them, then intelligently pick the few winners (after its fixed any bugs that could be causing promising solutions to look artificially bad) - unless there's an obvious one - and then give me the data I need to make an informed decision on which one to go with, all before I even look at the design or implementation.
You're not getting this from a one shot prompt from a 30B model today. You can't even really get it from Sol or Fable - IME. But you can get somewhat close.
You're going to be waiting for a while.
Even Fable is bad at this, I would constantly have to fix it going down architectural dead ends or just making obvious mistakes.
Which sucks for people that want LLMs to do everything like a genie, but does mean senior engineers have a few more years before they become redundant.
I honestly think we've got about a year tops.
I'd consider a year a while, but then, time is relative.
I've heard that some people even have a plan on how they'd like their life to look like in 5 years that they're aiming towards.
I think someone ought to encode this into a harness. It is really insightful into how we should be spending time if it is going to be spent reviewing AI code.
This is a harness problem not a model problem, try prime agent it can do that and it will do it well even :P but you need to prompt it in according to its tools and processes.
One thing a lot of people don't seem to factor when hyping Qwen is how much models like this tend to 'overthink' with seemingly endless 'second guessing'. 3.8 seems no different from what I've tried thus far.
As capable as it is, it's hard to justify using it when a competing model (e.g. Gemma4:26b-a3b) can consistently achieve the same or similar response with only 1/10th as many 'thinking' tokens, achieve much higher tokens/second, and take a small fraction of the time. I suppose 'YMMV' depending on your use case.
Also, I haven't used it enough yet to see if it's prone to infinite looping, but its predecessors sure were.
Reduce or turn off thinking:
https://huggingface.co/froggeric/Qwen-Fixed-Chat-Templates
Given that it apparently defaults to 'xhigh', this is probably the answer.
Granted, it's still much lower tokens/s than you'll get out of many MoE models.
Edit: Even set to medium or low there's still a lot of second guessing, less consistency, lower 'acceptable response' rate, and slower/more token churn vs gemma4:26b-a3b. I think gemma4 is just a better 'general purpose' model.
I haven't tried lowering thinking, however, I actually asked a solid question earlier regarding a real world scenario I encountered and all that excessive thinking made it give me an amazing answer. The thinking actually all made sense, and honestly I found it thought of similar stuff to what I thought when I drew my own conclusion.
I don't usually rely on AI for much (I'm actually kind of anti-AI, although I follow stuff like this enthusiastically because of the rapid advancements, "average joe" access, and openness), however for what I asked? It was spot on.
The subject was a bit personal, so I won't share. I was just curious what AI would say about the situation and it definitely surprised me, especially since Qwen, while usually great on development/coding stuff, has shown weaknesses in other areas.
Definitely a solid release, and this one runs on my 4090 with minimal loss of quality!
In my experience with Qwen3.6 35B-A3B, disabling thinking made the model generate inaccurate replies. Ask it for the recipe of egg salad and it gives you the recipe of an omelette.
Did I miss something, is it possible to have that model be reliable without thinking?
The official docs recommend different sampler options for thinking off. Have you tried adjusting those?
Thank you, this is exactly what I needed.
“Thinking” is just a guiding methodology to help iterations (between the initial prompt, results, and a mixture of harness back and forth to the LLM) converge on something sane in a massive parameter space.
I like to think of it much like (as a common example most people can relate to) the Newton-Rhapson method for finding roots of a (mathematic) function. Your initial prompt runs, then the ‘harness’ kicks in using whatever methodologies are behind them to iterate on that prompt (back and forth with the model, occasionally with the user to get better guidance) and refine the outputs to hopefully converge back to some sensible output or actions the user was initially looking for.
So you’re hoping for an LLM that sort of ‘zero shots’ or needs minimal iterations from a prompt to give usable results. I find from my anecdata it varies across models and what I’m trying to get it to converge on. I tend to prefer models to not zero shot attempt because they tend to not do great, I want them to get feedback often to let me push them down the route of convergence in spaces I already understand well, meanwhile I like them to explore and give me new paths in spaces I’m not too familiar with.
That’s really what all that “second guessing” is, it’s making sure you’re following a sane path in a massive parameter space of an ambiguously defined problem. Imagine if in Newton’s method you checked the slope and it didn’t decrease from the last iteration and you just say “screw it let’s keep trying that direction.” LLMs and their harnesses tend not to have that base assumption like iteration on decreasing slopes to guide them closer to convergence, it’s a lot messier.
This is why the "reduce thinking" approach of BottleCapAI is both quite interesting and very useful in practice:
https://huggingface.co/bottlecapai/ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B
Use 3.6 27b as a daily driver for months with charmbracelet crush. Gemma 26b-A3b is not even remotely comparable in terms of coding for me. YMMV depending on how you work, what harness you use, etc I suppose.
really? crush.... it's trash harness compared to pi.
I didn't realise there are people out there unironically using crush
Yeah. I use it to do extensive work on full source bootstrapping, deterministic operating systems, compiler debugging, kernel debugging... all with one tiny go binary without endless NPM deps like pi (which /I/ regard as trash)
Works better than opencode (pi based) or anything else I have tried for my needs, and by far the prettiest and easiest to reason about what is going on.
But I will bite. What does pi do today better than crush for your use cases?
gemma4 can't hold a candle to 3.6
You can add a thinking budget thats not much effort in llamacpp. You can align the cut off message with your agent instructions.
What you describe is a engineering harness problem.
If you, and i mean the royal you, actually read tge thinking traces you can see and figure out where its stuck
This means an effective harness would observe when the model is overthinking and step in with reasonable redirection, like increasing logging.
Llamacpp can set reasoning budget and message per reauest, so it can be dynamic.
Your complaint is "skill issue" based and will be resolved by people who do something ither than vibe code react demos.
https://xcancel.com/Alibaba_Qwen/status/2088280182356611304
I could kiss you right now
Image->html test for this.
Original images: https://image.non.io/neonRamenDesigns.webp
Qwen 3.8 build: https://html.non.io/neonRamenQwen3.8-27b
Overall I'm very impressed with how well this did. It's a big improvement over 3.6, and it feels on-par with some much, much larger models. I think this one is on-par with Gemini 3.7 Flash.
One thing to note - the build for this on my RTX 6000 pro blackwell took a long time. Easily one of the longest builds I've done. It took around 2 hours to build the site. Obviously we'll have some quants for this soon that will accelerate things, but I was still surprised with how long it took.
Comparison builds from this week:
https://html.non.io/neonRamenGemini3.7
https://html.non.io/neonRamenGLM5.3 (note: non-multimodal)
what token/s?
27 t/s. I suspect there will be significant speed ups in the coming weeks.
People will claim it's not comparable to Opus despite it beating the score. I'm not sure I disagree, but I'm also unsure whether I care. Most new models nowadays are "good enough". I cannot complain because I'd rather spend that time improving my prompts and docs. Opus might be a _slight bit better_ at picking up vague hints, but it's also extremely expensive, and I hit the 5 hour limit way too quick.
I care a lot about speed and efficiency right now. For my setup I would like to have 2-3 different model families. I've settled on GLM-5.3 (formerly Deepseek v4 pro 0813) for architecting, Deepseek V4 Pro 0813 for developing, and Gemini flash lite (any recent cheap model) for repo scouting. I'll add another one in the mix for reviewing (in this case Gemini 3.7) and that's all I need.
I've tried most models except Grok.
Qwen is too expensive IMO (Alibaba Cloud subscriptions are hard to come by and I'm not spending 50 euros a month for a tool, so 18 euros it is). If it ever becomes efficient enough to run locally I will definitely look back.
Claude is slow and expensive (the cache hit prices are absurd).
OAI is pretty good, I might add it to my arsenal seeing how cheap it is.
These opinions change every day. Last week I would've never picked Deepseek until I read about the pricing. even post aug 16 it's worth it (although it's getting close to gemini pricing).
Right now my costs are 12 euros a month (z.ai) + whatever deepseek consumes. This typically isn't more than 8 euros a week. 44 euros a month and I have a setup that is doing pretty well.
> Alibaba Cloud subscriptions are hard to come by
no they aren't. they discontinued their always-sold-out coding plan and launched QwenCloud (basically a friendly frontend with Alibaba Cloud as the hidden backend) and launched typical subscription plans for Qwen & co alongside it.
I'm convinced a lot of the anti-open-weight model comments at this point are inorganic traffic - there's trillions in investor money riding on a world where these models aren't cheap commodities. Having actually used things like the recent GLM, Kimi, and Qwen I think any edge the labs have is marginal at most and actually prefer the open weight models in most day to day usage.
Anthropic's recent releases are wordy to the point of exhaustion. Every time I use opus recently I find myself wanting to yell "GET TO THE POINT" at a terminal, which is exacerbated by it being slow.
Why are you convinced of that? Pretty much every time I see statements like that online, I can find plenty of organic traffic supporting it, not everything is a bot.
I just wouldn't bias myself that way, most people haven't really used local models. This stuff is pretty much all subjective evaluation, there's plenty of reasons for people to favor certain models or disfavor others.
When stuff like this: https://doublespeed.ai/ exists I don't find that hard to believe at all, although it cuts both ways
Amazing, looking forward to stuff like this killing social media. Or at least forcing the use of robust ID/KYC checks to verify human accounts.
Backed by a16z... yep, that tracks
Opus is pretty dumb and lazy nowadays, cancelled my subscription.
Grok 4.6 is a game-changer. I have yet to go back to other models after starting to use it. You just can't beat the price + output quality (even K3 is more expensive)
Supporting a far-right megalomaniac, whilst helping them to train their ML, and giving them all your data ... what could go wrong.
I try to do everything with open-weight models, to support the companies who support me.
> I've settled on GLM-5.3 (formerly Deepseek v4 pro 0813) for architecting
Dude, GLM-5.3 released _today_.
The phrasing "I've settled on" is incorrect for this context.
I'm generally extremely skeptical about a lot of the model hype that show up in comments. Except when there is an extreme mismatch the performance, quirks and quality of these things are difficult to nail down. You wouldn't know that from the comment section of every single release.
I think some of these are excited, eager users always ready to hype up the new thing. The same crowd that previously would constantly push for a rewrite from angular->react->svelt->god knows what. Instead now it is on a 6 week cycle and about models/harnesses.
I think most of it is bot driven spam by the various labs. It's hard not to notice 3 month old accounts with very strong opinions about various frontier labs and little else.
Ultimately, I think some of it is legitimate shifts in who's in lead and what is the best. You gotta dig through a lot of crap to get to that, and I don't really know how to to.
Ultimately I'm saying is that I always applied a fair amount of skepticism about what I see in comment sections but these day it is extreme amounts.
> I think most of it is bot driven spam by the various labs. It's hard not to notice 3 month old accounts with very strong opinions about various frontier labs and little else.
I've assumed the same as well.
I also assume that many of the companies developing these models engage in benchmaxxing.
At my company we've developed our own internal benchmarks for evaluating LLM models as they become available. The benchmarks are tailored to our particular use cases but the utility and knowledge our benchmarks assess is still fairly universally applicable. I see wide differences between what our internal benchmarks report and what the major benchmarks do.
There was a whole lot of fanfare about how amazing GLM 5.2 was when it was released, but it was pure rubbish on our internal benchmark -- far behind OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, DeepSeek, etc. I don't know how to reconcile the fact that GLM 5.2 performed very well on some of the major public benchmarks, but consistently performs so poorly on ours. OpenAI models tend to dominate our internal benchmarks.
> OpenAI models tend to dominate our internal benchmarks.
That's odd, since Fable seems to be the leader for the industry. Not cost-effective, but if Anthropic models get dominated by OpenAI in your internal benchmarks, this calls their validity into question. Separately, see the jagged frontier effect. [1]
I've been using GLM 5.2 at my day job (mostly Rust backend work ATM). Nothing that blows away the models from OpenAI and Anthropic, but solidly good enough to get it done. A lot of people have experienced this and the fact that an open weights model can do so is where most of the excitement comes from. Optimizing for benchmarks can only get you so far, and people are quick to criticize models that fall into it (like DeepSeek Pro V4 recently).
[1] https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/working-defini...
It actually is showing in public benchmark if you know how to look for it. For example, in Terminal-Bench 2.1, GLM 5.2 received 78%, while GPT 5.6 Sol received 88%.
Then Terminal-Bench 3.0 came out (where the questions are new), and GPT 5.6 Sol received 34.6%, while GLM 5.2 dropped to a whopping 4.6%.
This resonates. You need to tailor evaluation to your own use cases in order to know if you should adopt the next thing or not.
I think most of it is bot driven spam by the various labs. It's hard not to notice 3 month old accounts with very strong opinions about various frontier labs and little else.
Really no different than when there was suddenly online personas everywhere hyping up TSLA out of the blue. You can see the same thing going on with the BoringCompany subreddit. Crazy that the botnet master isn't able to convince us that Grok is also the best model. I don't think buying twitter was an accident it was probably just literally covering up the evidence.
https://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/research/twitter-bots-boost-tesl...
IMO this is getting hyped because the 27b version runs on a decent gaming GPU. This is NOT a thread for their largest model, this model will run on a mid-high end gaming PC, which you probably have in your household. Mine is 6 years old and it runs quite well.
I strongly suspect that many of these accounts you think might be bots from the labs are just people who only have one interest.
One thing I have noted a lot more of is that there is comparative fanboying going on. Like "this model has done badly, my favoured competition has a model out soon that will beat this in every way" — comparing a released product to unverifiable hopey claims about an unreleased product.
It's tempting to assume that is bot stuff, but if you've been around any other "hot" technical hobby online (cameras, phones, 3d printers, whatever) you will know it's not. It's just fans aligning into teams, some of them laconic and amusing, some of them overkeen and toxic.
hence the "former deepseek v4 pro". I tried it out this morning and have had no complaints. I already liked glm 5.2
> Deepseek v4 pro 0813
Which itself released yesterday? You're writing, reading, and evaluating enough software in a ~36 hour period to form, reject, and form another opinion about which model makes better _architectural_ choices?
It's the singularity, baby.
He's 100x, bro. 36 hours is basically like a whole 2 week sprint for you.
The sentence still doesn't make sense, because "settled on" implies a long testing phase with a verdict eventually emerging out of that.
What you're currently doing is "testing out"
Honest question, how do you assess models this quickly? What metrics are you using? Would love to get my suite from multiple days and hundreds of prompts down to minutes. Got a few first pass tasks I run upon release for an initial experience, but those only work because even Fable and Sol fail despite objectively correct solutions existing, so it works because most models fail, but then, those are consciously not enough for coding, tool use, adherence or task specific inference and assessment…
What are you working on? That can dictate which models are best.
Anything from ML pipelines for language specific pruning over a Rust/JS/CSS mix codebase to assistance in motorcycle maintenance and different canvas coatings. Most of my evals build on those requirements and especially past failures, whether in pure information, task execution and coding or tool calling beyond the overfitted mainstream. All stuff derived from actual failures encountered, some still only few models come even close to passing. With such a mix, it just takes a while to get any serious opinion on a model. Doubt anyone can do that in such short time, unless their tasks are so simple that most modern models not only succeed but could themselves accurately rate output. If even Fable still confuses PU or wax coated cotton canvas with a nylon shell, or tells me with a straight face to adjust the valves on a bike that has hydraulic lifters that needs experience for human assessment and the time that comes with it. Anyone with less knowledge either wouldn’t see the mistakes staring them in the face and just go by vibes, any model rating these equally can not tell what is accurate and will just go by the output sounding accurate over being. Gives sometimes very interesting results far different to public benchmarks. Inkling, e.g. is more accurate in not telling you to adjust valves that are simply not adjustable then Fable or Sol, which just tell you to adjust every 5000km. Sometimes even when their reasoning and search includes sections about the fact this is not necessary or possible. The beauty of overfitting and unbalanced training data…
Most of us aren’t deploying these in general purpose use-cases. E.g. I use Qwen mostly for vision in my personal assistant. I have an eval set for that. Pretty much each of my use cases has a pre-computed problem set.
Likewise I have a tool-use eval set and a browser-use eval set. I use frontier models for most interactive tasks that are not home assistant or background agents.
I can imagine someone could build evals for that but I have never done so.
i think you will like luna if you haven't tried it yet
Luna is twice the price of Deepseek V4 Flash 0731, and less capable :/
With max reasoning, Luna is actually less than half the actual cost to run compared to DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 with updated prices (based on Artificial Analysis Cost per Task)
How is it less capable? I get being cheaper, but I’m pretty sure Luna is the stronger model?
Benchmarks are basically tied https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons/deepseek-v4...
Didn't DeepSeek go up 2x?
The price on DeepInfra and most providers on OpenRouter has not changed... if anything, it's gotten cheaper.
All of this DeepSeek price increase stuff is related to their specific API, not the entire market.
They were significantly more expensive for coding compared to DeepSeek's offering because of much higher cost of cache reads and lower cache hit rate. Now, after the price jump, the effective cost of deepseek.com API vs 3-rd party providers is about the same.
DeepSeek's API was never "cheap".
They were stealing your code for that extremely cheap cached token price.
That was never the real price. Every Chinese LLM API provider is the same to the best of my knowledge.
"CHEAP API" (but pssst we train on every single input aka your code and ideas are ours forever)
There is no more, no less, guarantee that U.S providers don't do exactly that. In fact openAi is going to court.
If some models are cheaper it's simply because they cost far less to develop. And/or run.
Looks like it's changed now, OpenRouter shows providers having the updated DS4 pricing.
Up to 4x but in 2 days.
No way is it less capable. When deepseek can't get its shit together, I give Luna a go, then Terra, then Sol.
Most of the time Luna figures it out where Deepseek was failing. I rarely have to go to Sol levels.
You should check out Grok, it's quite a good deal from the Cursor subscription side but it's cheap even by API prices.
I think it's very clear that someone who has checked out all the models but the one that called itself mechahitler and is explicitly being fine tuned to support far-right politics is making the choice for reasons other than performance and cost. It's not like all the other models even had plausible claims to those metrics.
As I said to a dead reply, for coding all of that is immaterial, as long as it codes well then that's all that matters to most people, except it seems those who have an idelogical issue in which case the other model companies also have issues.
No, coding does not make ethical issues immaterial. Nor does it justify your behavior of harassing someone to do something that they've clearly decided not to do for ethical reasons on the basis of criteria that they have clearly rejected.
I don't care how good Grok is, it will be a cold day in hell when I give a guy who goes to AfD rallies, instrumentally supported the current Ebola outbreak, and gives the Hitler salute on stage (don't try to tell me he did not, I saw the video) any money I'm not absolutely forced to.
And yes, OpenAI and Anthropic are highly questionable, too, and so I've ended my OpenAI subscription and I'm moving from Claude to other providers. But even people who do not do that are absolutely justified in drawing a line at supporting Musk, because there's a difference between mere normal shittiess and Musk.
The funny thing is it doesn’t even code well. It’s still worse than OpenAI, Anthropic, and the leading open source models.
So you get worse outcomes while also financially supporting one of the most prolific pushers of race wars, the destruction of labor rights, environmental protections, and general misinformation.
Truly a win-win?
Contrary to your framing it seems to only reason to use Grok at this point would be ideological.
The unsloth Q8kxl https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF for some reason is looping and going crazy on the think part (I tried to search for an email to let the guys know but didn't find one)... I used the bartowski one and that one doesn't have that issue https://huggingface.co/bartowski/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF?show_file_...
that's using llama.cpp
llama-server \ -m ~/somePath/Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q8_K_XL.gguf \ -np 1 --kv-unified \ -fa on --no-cache-idle-slots --reasoning-preserve \ --temp 0.2 \ --spec-type draft-mtp,ngram-mod --spec-draft-n-max 3 --spec-draft-n-min 1 \ --cache-type-k f16 --cache-type-v f16 \ --chat-template-kwargs '{"preserve_thinking": true}' \
I tried playing with all the recommended parameters from the unsloth page with no luck...
in one of the high fever ramblings it ended with amen... lol
I'm not seeing that with that exact quantization from Unsloth, so far. I'm seeing a _lot_ of thinking before it starts doing, but it all seems pretty reasonable and not loopy (at least no more loopy than big models, with the expected "But, wait! I need to..." types of back-tracking). So, it's taking a long time, but I don't think it's doing anything pathological.
I would characterise it as obsessive, not loopy. It's definitely burning through a lot of tokens to ruminate about aspects of tasks that earlier models get done better seemingly on memory.
I still need to understand that.
Setting a reasoning limit does not seem to have good results, because it really seems to go down rabbit holes and that means that cutting reasoning off too early is going to punish the quality on anything it has not got round to pondering yet. But maybe I have to give it a bit more room.
I have not tested in an agentic sense yet, just with my sort of pet queries in LM Studio, but it rather looks like it expects an agentic flow, because telling it that it's a helpful coding agent and changing the order of things in my prompts (telling it up front to ask any clarifying questions before detailing the rest of the prompt) has definitely kept its thinking a bit more on track.
Thinking is turned up to max by default. You can turn it down. Unsure why they did this.
Played with this on my Mac a bit today. Not bad!
I hope really badly that we'll get a new 35B A3B or similar MoE model!
I also miss the Qwen 3 Coder Next, which was 80B A3B, there are quite a few use cases where a non-dense model <100B would be the sweet spot (when you have the VRAM but not the TDP or compute power). Heck, I'd gladly take A5B or A8B or even A10B as a sort of middle ground.
Also alternate link for viewing the images without signing in: https://xcancel.com/Alibaba_Qwen/status/2088280182356611304
I'm hoping too that they'll put out some MoE variants.
Qwen3.5:122b:a10b can run about twice as fast as this 27b dense model.
Edit: Like its predecessors, 3.8 seems really inclined to overthinking, and on a 27b dense model that's kind of painful. I think I'm going to stick with gemma4:26b-a3b as my go-to because it runs about 4x as fast and tends to only need a fraction of the tokens in its 'thinking' stage to get the same or similar answer.
Reduce or turn down thinking:
https://huggingface.co/froggeric/Qwen-Fixed-Chat-Templates
Yeah, that's probably the answer given that it apparently defaults to 'xhigh'.
Probably helps it score a little bit better in benchmarks :) `medium` seems like a nice balance so far; along with some light steering to vary think effort as needed for task and being pragmatic.
Interestingly 'medium' is the closest thing the _model itself_ has to a default thinking level. The chat template injects directions [1] at the very start of the system message when the reasoning effort is 'xhigh' or 'low' but 'medium' implicitly just means no added reasoning-level instructions.
[1] The specific directions are "Reasoning effort is set to xhigh. Please think carefully through the task, validate key assumptions, consider plausible alternatives, and prioritize correctness, consistency, and clarity in the final answer." and "Reasoning effort is set to low. Keep your thinking brief and focused, moving directly to the conclusion without unnecessary elaboration."
"inclined to overthinking," holy cats you're not kidding! On a Mac mini M4 Pro 64GB I prompted it with "svg owl" and it thought for 17m12s, outputting 36.3KiB of thinking chatter. It did end up producing a 20.2KiB HTML+JS+SVG file with a very nice owl, including cursor-tracking animation, but it ran for more than a half hour!
The MoE models are stupendously faster.
I think that's called test-time scaling i.e using more tokens at infer time to squeeze out higher model performance. That's must be part of the explanation for good benchmark results.
that seems to be how most Chinese models achieve increased benchmark scores. GLM and Kimi models are "thinkslop" models that reason over their own thinking, which increases cost and decreases speed significantly. That's why GPT is in a different tier altogether - faster, smarter, and sometimes cheaper.
Yep.. it's pretty obnoxious for real-world use with the default 'xhigh' thinking. Ridiculous amount of "Wait, actually.." which might help for complex coding tasks but makes it unbearable for general purpose use.
what harness did you use?
Did you try the claude reasoning traces finetune for qwen3.6? I find that it works muuch better. I assume the same 3.8 finetune will be released at some pointas well.
Edit: link - https://huggingface.co/rico03/Qwen3.6-27B-Claude-Opus-Reason...
AgentWorld is a pretty recent MoE release from the Qwen folks with quite a bit better performance than 3.6, released around the same time as 3.7 Plus/Max, I guess. Not sure why it didn't get more attention, as it is definitely better than 3.6 35B A3B on all dimensions, but especially for agentic use. Still nowhere near the dense models (even 3.6 27B), but clearly an upgrade in the small Qwen MoE line.
https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
KAT Coder is another Qwen 3.6 MoE fine-tune that also improves on 3.6 by a measurable amount.
But, I do hope for a bigger MoE, in the 70B to 120B range, something in the Coder Next lineage. I've got a Strix Halo that isn't getting used to its best ability because the best models all run fine on my faster desktop dual 32GB GPU setup, and they run too slow for comfort on the Strix Halo.
Same here! Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the only local model I've found that runs reasonably on my iGPU. Looks like me and and my noisily-wheezing laptop will be sitting out this upgrade.
Got Qwen3.8 to run on my Framework 12 Intel Core 13 Gen Raptor Lake i5-1334U small laptop with 48G RAM stick:
llama serve -hf unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:UD-Q4_K_XL
but it failed my basic prompt to compose a vim regex to match CamelCaseWords
downgraded a bit with Q4_K_M from ollama run qwen3.8:27b
and /set nothink and at least 1 regex matched FooBar
prompt eval at 2.8 t/s eval at 0.94t/s
I particularly enjoyed this usage of the regex: /%\1\%/ ... onward for 700+ characters of \%\/ :-)
[self-reply because comment edit window ended]: I now have a head-to-head benchmark. On my wheezy laptop (specs in sibling comment), this new dense model, Qwen 3.8 27B, gets ~4 tokens/second on generation. The older mixture-of-experts model, Qwen 3.6-35B-A3B, gets ~20 tokens/s.
MoE is literally 5x times faster (on CPU) than comparable dense Qwen!
Tested:
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q4_K_XL
Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q4_K_XL
35A3 might be more comparable to 10 dense.
27 dense is far more capable than 35A3.
So you happen to know how to demonstrate this higher capacity, what do we mean by that? Can understand bigger codebases? And how do we explain it, what part of the model does it?
If you are not already using MTP, you should be able to get ~2x decode tokens/s with Qwen 3.8 27B.
Mind sharing your laptops specs? Just interested to see what is needed to locally run Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Don't mind! It's 64 GiB dual-channel DDR5-6400, i.e. roughly 100 GiB/s of bandwidth. (AMD 7840U (Zen 4))
I'm using a Q4 quantization from unsloth (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q4_K_XL). It gets up to ~20 tokens/second in generation. I don't know precisely how much KV cache I can safely use, but it's in between 140k–256k. (I.e., 140k reliably works, 256k kernel-crashes from OOM. Don't feel like bisecting).
Inference is llama.cpp with the Vulkan GPU backend on Linux. (I.e., -DGGML_VULKAN=1 on the llama.cpp build, and --gpu-layers all on llama-cli or llama-server. (And for my specific setup, two kernel parameters specific to amdgpu: ttm.pages_limit and ttm.page_pool_size. A driver VRAM limiter. Look it up if you're on amdgpu!)).
Thanks! I don't have any knowledge of running models locally.
I assume it would not be able to handle an unquantized Qwen3.6-35B or is it irrelevant as you almost always would want to run a quantized version of the model on consumer hardware?
not parent, but 4-bit quantization is generally consider a good trade off for speed/performance, so you might use it even when you aren't on consumer hardware, but definitely when you are on consumer hardware.
yeah, that's the A3B part; going up to A5B would probably also feel comfortable.
on the 395+ AI MAX w/128GB, the A10B qwen 3.5 can do a lot of long running work if you don't need to baby sit it. deer-flow works well like that.
Me too. 35B A3B runs really fast on my MacBook Pro (M4 Max) and is suitable for real-time tasks like dictation post-processing. The dense model is not.
> I'd gladly take A5B or A8B or even A10B as a sort of middle ground.
Whats up with focusing on the active param count? Do yall fiddle with the weights or something?
Total param count decides how much vram you need to run it. Active param count decides how fast it runs. My 10 year old GPU can load quantized 35B or 27B, but it can’t process 27B parameters per token faster than 2-4tok/s, while it can do A3B at >40tok/s
Thank you Kenny
You can run these on CPUs at a somewhat reasonable speed.
Or (somewhat) low TDP GPUs for that matter, like workstation ones, that might have enough total VRAM but not the best bandwidth/compute.
I'm still confused about Qwen 3.6 35B A3B. Everything I read said that the 27B model performs better at coding tasks, so what's the purpose of the 35B model?
It's better for VRAM poor people. I get 4-5 t/s with 27B and 20-30 t/s with 35B A3B.
Also radically better on an M1 Max. I get well up into the 60s t/s with the A3B, stuck at 9.5 or so with this new 27B, though perhaps an MLX build will help.
The "a3b" refers to its active parameters -- unlike 27b it is a mixture of experts model, so it runs much faster, about as fast as a 3b model, but needs as much memory as a 35b model! So good for unified memory systems like macs :)
anecdotes: 35B-A3B does want more memory, bigger model. But if you get it running it will be faster and more enjoyable to use -- text will fly by -- due to only 3B params being active, in my experience at least.
MoE models have less active parameters in play at any particular moment, so they perform much faster on lower bandwidth memories (like Strix Halo or DGX Spark) and also use less memory generally.
Dedicated GPU memory tends to be much faster (either DDR6 or HBM). So if you can fit a whole dense model in it, you're probably better off with that.
Runs faster on bad hardware.
I hope the bonsai team makes another 1bit quant of this model (or releases code/instructions on how to do it), using the Qwen3.6 27B on my 16GB mac mini has been wild . The 1bit quant feels like opus level… for the first couple turns. Then it has trouble eg switching from plan mode to act mode. This is mostly mitigated by starting a new session. (tbf this limitation is called out on the hf page)
I saw unsloth has 1bit quants too so I might check that out, anybody have experience with those?
16GB mac mini - what chip? m4 pro i assume?
nope just my normal m2 mac mini. I bought it just as a normal computer to do my taxes and whatever, so it’s mind blowing that I can run this kind of AI workload on it. Well, “run” might be generous, it gets like 3-5tok/s
I’m working on a setup that’s more geared towards running tasks overnight so the slow tok/s doesn’t matter as much
Sounds like you need to check what the max context is set to ...
100k is all the context I have ram for, this is with any auto-compact turned off. This is using Cline in vs code. I’m sure I could tune the system prompt and mode switching more to work better with this specific model, but I haven’t gone down the custom harness rabbit hole yet.
And this is also specifically for the 1bit quant version. I don’t think the fp8 or even fp4 versions have this issue, but I haven’t tried those much
WOW, my first try running on my 2 3090's, it was a bit slow... but it FEELS like opus 4.5, i gave it an image and a broad overview of what I wanted it to build, and it built the whole thing from beginning to end.
For your setup, do you have both 3090's in parallel for the inference of the model?
Yes they run in parallel via LMStudio (250k context)
Why slow? I see ~50tps on a single 3090
Yeah make sure you're using MTP and potentially tensor parallelism.
Whats your setup? I have a single 3090 and am struggling to get it purring
5900x, 3090 24gb (slightly undervolted), 128gb ddr4, running via Ollama.
I am benchmarking it now locally, will put the results and speed/tps on aibenchy.com
How did you undervolt the 3090?
Msi afterburner, you go around 900mv curve editor, raise it up to normal clock frequency, and it uses like 260w instead 300w for same performance.
There's some YouTube guides for it.
I also undervolted my new 5070ti, same tdp, around 260w instead of 300w and like 8% better performance.
yeah, i consider that slow.
Oh, ok, that's like the average tps for most AI providers
Since it might be helpful to some, here's my current commandline for llama.cpp running on an RTX 4090 with my monitor moved to the iGPU to free up all of its VRAM.
llama-server -m Qwen3.8-27B-IQ4_NL.gguf --mmproj mmproj-BF16.gguf -c 170000 --parallel 1 -ngl -1 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v q8_0 -b 1024 -ub 512 --flash-attn on --no-context-shift --no-mmproj-offload --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 5 --spec-default --cache-type-k-draft q4_0 --cache-type-v-draft q4_0 --threads 24 --jinja --reasoning on -fit off
Identical to the qwen3.6 config. With a prompt like "svg owl" (which can reuse quite a lot compared with creative writing or similar, so ngram-mod shines), I get about 70-80t/s like this, with a memory overclock of about 1.5GHz
> --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v q8_0
In my tests, even Q8 quantization for the KV cache comes with notable drops in performance for longer tasks. It does provide more context length in limited RAM budgets, but the longer context tasks are where KV quantization starts to show problems. It’s basically unnoticeable for simple and short tasks.
> --spec-draft-n-max 5
5 is a lot of tokens to draft. Are you really seeing acceptance rates to support that? When I tested it, 2-3 was the peak. Anything more started reducing performance except on highly predictable short outputs.
Yes to both.
The thing is that I can either use the q8 context, or have not enough context window, so I just live with whatever degradation there is. The same can be said about the IQ4_NL. I would not go any lower though.
As for the draft count, indeed that depends on what you do with it, but for coding, reverse engineering and that kind of stuff it does pay off in my testing, though 5 is really pushing it, but the 4090 has so much compute.
Last logline I saw scroll by right now had 47% acceptance rate for 4th and 28% for 5th, but not sure how representative that is. I think when tuning 3.6, I saw more like 33%? But not 100% sure.
Same, I have one workload where on 3.6 drafting 6 tokens is the fastest setting.
I wonder if we could take a page out of the Solar power book and do MPPT but for draft count. Constantly sweep through possible values to find the best result for the current conditions.
Though it might turn out that that doesn't offer any benefits. Has it been tried yet?
___
EDIT:
LLM pointed me towards this thing I'm not going to read
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11280
"AdaSD: Adaptive Speculative Decoding for Efficient Language Model Inference"
Some higher level nerd please go have a look at that. I have important meetings and golf classes to attend.
Deepseek's DSpark does dynamically adjust speculated token count per user/completion.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05147
But they do so to maximise total throughput, I don't think there's reason to do that for batch=1.
Don't you just need to occasionally try n+1 for your current setting? Then record acceptance rates. The nature of the thing is that if you try n, you already have a good sampling of how well m works for all m<n, right?
This is all a pretty active area of research, both adaptive drafting, different draft approaches (DFlash etc), I expect to see really big improvements land in the popular runtimes this year.
Okay, so, I did some actual coding with qwen3.8 in the last 2 hours, and if I (let the agent) take the average of all those "mean len" loglines, and let them get weighted by how much happened leading up to that logline, it's an average of 3.33
The unweighted average is 4.1
So with qwen3.8 as well, I think I would not go below 3 in this setup with this workload. Meaning 4, and, to push it a bit further, 5.
Also, cool that it carries over from qwen3.6 like that.
I have found that q8 kv quantisation is really bad in anything requiring some kind of literal retrieval even at relatively shorter contexts (5-10k). Eg it would mess up names, titles of papers etc that were deeper in the context.
I absolutely love this comment. I wished there was a website where people would post their working command lines as well as what hardware they are using to run that stuff on + tokens / sec prefill + gen.
Problem with that is I think that it quickly devolves into cargo culting, nonsense and noise.
Arguably, what I am doing is also very very close to that, with the only difference being that I am somewhat less of an idiot than the average internet dweller you'd get on such a site. Or rather a different flavor of idiot.
Ideally, the people building the tools build them in a way that just does the right thing - which I am confident that llama.cpp does or will do in the future.
So you encode that knowledge not in language and online comments but in code and with a filter for actual expertise.
And, frankly, there's really not all that much to it. It's like maybe 3 parameters to play around with.
The valid solution space is pretty small, but people will want to make it "theirs" regardless, so you get non-solutions just so that everyone could also be a part of it. The usual social dynamics foo.
I've found that once you factor in multiple GPUs things can get complex quite quickly because the default packing routine in the LLM runners tends to be very coarse resulting in substantial amounts of VRAM wasted. More so if you start running drafters and multiple models at the same time.
Let me return the favor:
Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 Q8
This is on a 4x3090 box with 256G RAM and a 5955WX TR; the CUDA drivers are patched to allow the 3090's to talk to each other. MB is a WRX80E-SAGE (which has 7 slots at x16), BAR > 4G on and PCIe BAR resize set to AUTO in the bios. OS is Ubuntu 25.04.
GGML_CUDA_P2P=1 build/bin/llama-server -m ../DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-Q8_K_XL-00001-of-00005.gguf --alias DeepSeek-V4-Flash --threads 32 --threads-batch 64 --cache-type-k f16 --cache-type-v f16 --metrics --cache-ram 0 --load-mode none --fit on --fit-ctx 1000000 --host 0.0.0.0 -fa on --top-p 0.95 --temp 0.7 --repeat-penalty 1.2 --jinja --tensor-split 1,.8,.1,.15 --cont-batching -b 4096 -ub 4096 -ncmoe 36 --parallel 1 -ot 'blk\.3[67]\.ffn_(gate|up|down)_exps=CPU'
I'm still working on an optimal packing for the draft variation on this theme but that gives all kinds of issues. The 1,000,000 context is very nice to have.
As a MBP and DGX spark owner, I would love such a site... (Feel like it would be a low effort feature of hugging face).
Searching through Reddit and forums for best commands is annoying.
Looking forward to having your problems :)
What stackoverflow should have become.
still could! there's the network site https://ai.stackexchange.com/ just need people to ask questions and to downrank accepted answers older than a year (that might not be possible though).
pretty sure this exists already...
To add for me (and claude assisted but tuned myself), here is for 3060 12gb + 5950x 128 gb ram without image support: https://pastebin.com/HsAUBGSY
Here is the chat template I used (and renamed to qwen.jinja): https://huggingface.co/froggeric/Qwen-Fixed-Chat-Templates/r...
For image support, drop to NGL 24 and add:
And drop the --no-mmprojThanks for this! I got the same card, but not the same CPU nor RAM, but this is a great starting point to start tweaking
Thanks for posting! Have you had any success with running without kv cache quantization? Is there a noticeable difference in quality without any? I would assume that would eat into context but 170k is pretty generous!
According to this shitty vibecoded thing "I" built https://hypfer.github.io/will-it-fit-llama-cpp/ (and I guess according to math too), FP16 K/V would give me something like 90k context at the same model quant, which doesn't really fit my usage.
But maybe someone else has experience to share there
just to clarify. yes YOU built it. just because you used some tool doesn't mean the idea, prompting, reprompting, babysitting was not your creative input and effort.
put differently, if you put a random person infront of whatever model you used (say, a 50yo receptionist at a pharmacy in india), they would not have been able to create that, because they would have lacked the motivation, idea, background knowledge, taste, etc to create such a thing.
You sound like your trying to reassure yourself of something.
I sure hope my boss doesn't think he built my work! He'd probably get fired pretty quickly during on call!
> I sure hope my boss doesn't think he built my work! He'd probably get fired pretty quickly during on call!
Your boss is a human.
This is a computer program running on your PC.
I hope you can see the difference.
> I sure hope my boss doesn't think he built my work!
Most managers do though?
I've worked with a good few types of managers of the years, none would take ownership of my work. The end result? Sure, for shareholders/this managers that is fine.
But that's not the same as me being needed to be on a call with integration teams and having to run the call. It's just a layer of abstraction for management. I own the creation side of the product.
Who created it is still me.
Did Steve Jobs create the iPhone?
No, he did not. When it went wrong for v4 with the radio. I didn't see him take the blame.
Would it exist in it’s present form if he didn’t exist?
this topic always goes into this level of ridiculousness. Your question can't even be answered. We should focus more on encouraging discussion, not asking unanswerable questions. It wont bring anything other than points of both sides with no objective correct answer.
Some people will now argue it was the chisel—not Michelangelo—who created David.
The idea guys will really think themselves gods, now.
Well, this universe might be God's own AI slop.
"Carve me a naked guy. Make no mistakes."
I cannot fulfill this request. I am programmed to follow safety guidelines that prohibit the generation of sexually explicit content.
No, it's the difference between management and direct work.
None would claim they chiseled anything, if it was 3D printed. They may claim they designed something.
I generally agree and expect this to be the case from a legal perspective.
Legal questions of authorship are going to have to be established in terms of doctrines like SSO [0] and AFC [1]. Currently the incredibly sparse caselaw around this has yet to involve such non-literal notions of copyright.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction–filtration–compari...
So if I hire an artist and am a motivated individual, have an idea for a painting, have background knowledge about paintings and have taste in paintings and can offer a critique of the painting as the artist paints it, then somehow I created the painting?
Absurd logic. The AI built the website.
Nothing absurd about that. What do you think an "Executive producer" is? A "Director" ? Does Peter Jackson get credit for creating the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films? Christopher Nolan for his films? But did he make them ? No, it was the collective effort of thousands of individuals all working under their direction.
Just like if somebody creates software today, and the end result is generated by the collective effort of thousands of agents, the "Director" still gets credit.
That’s an interesting way to look at it, and still generous to the llm.
By which I mean it puts the llm in the role of actor and such… people practicing an art. It seems harder to make a case that the llm is actually making creative decisions rather than aping a synthesis of past human decisions and expressions of taste, strictly, at every turn.
Though I guess it’s all “shades of grey”. I never felt like I was contributing a ton when I was essentially wrapping a large, capable library that some smarter person or people made, either.
Tangentially… remember back when we used to see headlines like “12 year old made a web browser!” and we all thought, “No. No they didn’t.”
It all feels a little like that, again.
The director receives accreditation for directing the film, not creating it.
Doesn't the director generally receive more credit than the producer?
How many films do you remember the producer above the director?
What does it matter who receives more credit? The producer produces the film and the director directs it. If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it.
If there were multiple people involved in the creation of a film I helped to create, I cannot factually say I created it. Just like if someone builds something using code generated by AI, they can't factually say they created it.
I think in that case it's fair to say you created the painting with the artist, even if the artist should get majority credit. I don't like the analogy though, to me it feels more like you're a project manager directing a team of genius but single minded interns.
I've never encountered a project manager who has said: I built this thing, after a project has wrapped up. I have encountered ones who've said I managed this project.
I've heard some variant of "we built this thing", which I think is valid. I'm not sure how I feel about anthropomorphizing a coding agent at this point though, which is what you're implying.
I just read through a couple of your posts that weren't dead or buried, and it seems like you're pretty anti-AI. You should really start to have an open mind towards it. It's going to be the future (if it isn't already), and as you continue to get older, you're going to really wish you spent your time right now learning and embracing the technology instead of being so against it. A lot of the skills and things that you're holding on to right now might not be relevant by then, but you'll be at a disadvantage from not keeping up with the industry and need to play catch-up.
I'm not sure that typing messages to a chat bot requires much catching up, but since you think this is what I should do rob, I better listen!
> I'm not sure that typing messages to a chat bot requires much catching up
Lol, yeah I'd wager AI tooling skills are less relevant than knowing your way around a shell. It doesn't help that all of the AI tooling has event more churn than js libraries and package management systems!
I think there's probably some value in understanding how LLMs work, but beyond that it's the same boring skills that matter the most... Critical thinking, design chops, attention to detail, perseverance, etc.
If you don't get reliable results, but others do, then maybe you should indeed. But your choice.
You know how many pieces of art Damien Hurst creates himself Vs his studio assistants creating them under his direction?
For example, of his 1500 spot paintings, he only actually made 5 of them.
It's not uncommon at all for artists to work this way.
He still didn't create the paintings, he offered instructions / feedback to the artists that created them. Whether or not he is credited with authoring them is an entirely separate issue.
There have been plenty of workshops where artists hire assistant painters while maintaining authorship over the works themselves, from Rembrandt to Warhol to Hirst.
Sure - and a factual statement would be, these artists hired assistant artists to help them create their paintings. Just like it would be factual to say that the person directed a LLM to build an app for them.
Sure. So does this diminish the role of Rembrandt? Or is this some semantic black hole you’re drawing us into?
no, because there is another human involved.
llms are not human.
Hm, I have a 4090 as well, and:
$ build/bin/llama-server -m Qwen3.8-27B-IQ4_NL.gguf --mmproj mmproj-BF16.gguf -c 170000 --parallel 1 -ngl -1 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v q8_0 -b 1024 -ub 512 --flash-attn on --no-context-shift --no-mmproj-offload --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 5 --spec-default --cache-type-k-draft q4_0 --cache-type-v-draft q4_0 --threads 24 --jinja --reasoning on -fit off
0.02.993.689 E ggml_backend_cuda_buffer_type_alloc_buffer: allocating 911.53 MiB on device 0: cudaMalloc failed: out of memory
Update: Oh, it works after I stop Xorg. But nvidia-smi only showed Xorg using 200M out of the 24G, so why would a 911M alloc fail?
The person above is running the OS from a separate GPU, so the command can use all of the VRAM of the 4090.
If you're trying to use the 4090 for your desktop at the same time, you will need smaller context size. You could remove the '-c 170000' and try turning fit on to see what fits.
There has to be a better way of sharing config , a profile of sorts you can upload and share
Yes, llama.cpp supports presets (an ini format). Though it's not always clear which llama-server flags it does not support.
>But nvidia-smi only showed Xorg using 200M out of the 24G, so why would a 911M alloc fail?
That was just the last buffer allocation request that failed, it didn't tell you by how much it failed by. It could have failed it by a few kilobytes, it could have failed it by 910MB. One would guess it probably failed it by a couple hundred megabytes in the end judging by your results.
Have you tried to put the nvidia card into "compute-only mode" since you're not using it for display?
Does anyone know how to get this working with Claude Code via llama-server? I'm getting a jinja template error about the system prompt not being the first message.
With default config via Ollama and 65k context I get 50tps on a 3090.
Any chance I could run it on a GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, (64 gb ram)
You could run the 2-bit quantization at about 10GB for the weights. You'd probably also need to quantize context to get a decent-sized context. The Unsloth model card shows the 1-bit quantization doing seemingly shockingly well on a task (but there is notable loss in model quality for each bit you give up below about 6 bits). An MoE model can partially reside in system RAM without catastrophic performance loss, but a dense model like this one cannot. You have to run it entirely out of VRAM, or it'll slow to a crawl.
Yes. It won't be as fast as fitting the whole model into VRAM but llama.cpp defaults are pretty smart about GPU/CPU splits these days. Just YOLO it with `llama serve -hf unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:UD-Q4_K_XL` and it'll definitely at least run.
You may be able to run a quantized version. One strategy I've found effective is to set Claude or Codex loose on the problem and they'll do a decent job setting up the best possible model revision.
I can get 128k context on a 5070ti with 16 GB of VRAM (using the Unsloth 2-bit quant[0]). This is via a .bat file on Windows 11. I'm getting about 50-60 tokens/second and the quality is much higher than Qwen 3.6 27B. I'm using llama.cpp[1]:
[0] https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF (UD-Q2_K_XL)[1] https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/releases
Instructions if you want to do the same:
1. download two files llama-b10434-bin-win-cuda-13.3-x64.zip and cudart-llama-bin-win-cuda-13.3-x64.zip from that llama.cpp Github releases page, and extract both into the same folder.
2. Download the Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q2_K_XL.gguf file from huggingface and put it into the same folder beside the `llama-server.exe`.
3. Create a file named "RUN_QWEN_3.8.bat" next to `llama-server.exe` and put the text above into that bat file. Double-click the bat file, then open http://localhost:8033 in your browser to see a chat window.
You can use it with any agents by pointing them at http://localhost:8033/v1 which is a working OpenAI compatible endpoint (it doesn't use a token, if you give one it's ignored).
Congratulations, you're now running Qwen 3.8 27B.
Note: I built the computer in question for playing games, yes it needed to be Windows 11 for anticheat reasons to play games with family, I didn't want to dual boot so here I am. I figure I should share instructions for folks who may also have a Windows PC around for such purposes. Specs for this are AMD 9800X3D, 32GB of system RAM, RTX 5070Ti 16GB
Jeez, llama.c++ is becoming the ffmpeg cargo cult CLI now
For the things it does, what tool is better than ffmpeg? Really struggling to see the cargo cult angle. Similar for llama.cpp, as it is literally the only framework I can get to run on my multi-Radeon rig. It is the most portable runtime out there.
-funroll-loops
what --no-context-shift is for ?
"--context-shift, --no-context-shift ... whether to use context shift on infinite text generation (default: disabled)"
From: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/tools/serv...
That is obvious. Less obvious is what context shifting does and whether you want it or not.
Do you find it useful or worthwhile to split a large LLM across two GPUs on a desktop?
If you've tried it, what worked well and what didn't? I'm especially interested in mismatched VRAM setups, e.g. a 16 GB GPU + a 24 GB GPU.
How much overhead did you see from inter-GPU transfers, and did the extra usable VRAM outweigh the performance hit?
It depends on what model you’re running, and for what workload. For personal use (one or two convos at a time) with models that fit in gpu memory, pcie bandwidth doesn't really matter. Just try and be on gen 3 x8 or higher.
Llama is decent at auto optimizing it if you let it use both gpus. It’ll split the workload so the contiguous layers are all on one gpu. Once the model is loaded, you only transfer weights between gpus once (per token?), at the layer boundary.
I run on an 8gb 3070 and 12 gb 3060, and the only weird thing is that the weaker card gets more layers (and therefore work) because it has more ram.
Oh, if you’re barely fitting the models into your vram, you may need to explicitly adjust the layer balance between cards — sometimes it fails to realize it should have put certain things (like draft models) on the other card so you can fit one more layer in.
A hetero-GPU setup is definitely cost-effective if you don't strictly require the raw speed of a top-tier card like 5090. Just keep in mind that the total throughput will also be bottlenecked by the slower card.
To provide some anecdotal data, here is how my 5090 + 3060 setup performs with Qwen 3.8 27B (Unsloth's UD-Q4 with MTP):
For reference, here are also some numbers from my 4060ti + 3060 (16GB + 12GB) setup. [0][0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48700091
I wonder if turning on GGML_CUDA_NCCL would help reduce delay between cards
As opposed to loading it up in RAM + VRAM? Pretty much always better to split it up to multiple GPUs. My priorities are load up all available VRAM, then offload MoE experts to RAM (if possible), then offload other layers.
I use an RTX 3090 (24GB) and a GTX 1080ti (11GB). Just the 3090 for 3.8 I get maybe 60tg/s (UD-Q4 quant), for both I get around 40tg/s (UD-Q6). Not apples to apples though considering it's different quants.
Here's my config: https://gitea.va.reichard.io/evan/nix/src/branch/master/modu...
Yes. I can split a model like this across 3 GPUs (a 1080 with 8GB and two Titan Vs with 12GB), and it's much faster than running it on 36 CPU cores. As long as it fits in aggregate VRAM, it seems very advantageous to do so.
Depends on your pcie connection. If they're both x16 then it's pretty low overhead, x8 is ok, but x4 is too slow. Also it's a bit tricky getting an optimal setups with mismatched vram, I think you could probably still make use of the full vram if you're clever but it's trickier.
for layer parallelism (e.g. to get more vram) the bandwidth between layers is essentially nothing (like 16kb per token I think), so I don't think x4 would even be a problem!
Good point. It's much more of an issue when running dense models with tensor parallelism. In that case, I'd look for an MoE model instead.
I haven't tried this either but I'm guessing if you could pool the GPU memory over whatever the kids are using these days, I think it was SLI back in my day. The GPU memory should still be faster than the RAM?
That's a very deep rabbit hole involving PCIe topology on both the hardware and software (NCCL) side, among other things. It's too system-specific to answer directly, but the entrance to said hole can be found at https://github.com/local-inference-lab/rtx6kpro/blob/master/... .
Disregard references to RTX 6000 cards, most of it is generally applicable to all multiple-GPU boxes.
Lol at that command. Why is this stuff so hard to run locally? I've spent a few days trying to figure it all out and haven't been able to. LM Studio doesn't work behind proxies. Ollama is confusing and doesn't seem to support Qwen3? And Llama.cpp is your command.
I just want to run `<some-command> <model-name>` with some default parameters set and for it to run locally.
What makes you say that it would be hard to do that?
It's long, I guess, but not cryptic.
You tell llama server where the model is, which context size to use, what to use for the K/V cache quant, that it should do MTP, tune some MTP parameters, and that's kinda it.
Perfectly logical blocks with all the model-specific weirdness (that does exist!) abstracted away.
You could also just run -m <modelfile> and let llama-server do the right-ish thing. The defaults are probably fine, but not how you squeeze out these exact numbers. I think at least. I've never tried. My hubris stopped me from trying auto configs.
> llama server where the model is, which context size to use, what to use for the K/V cache quant, that it should do MTP, tune some MTP parameters, and that's kinda it.
isn't that the hard part? You know the ballpark ideal values for these many parameters since you're a knowledgeable expert but the vast majority of people are just like "I want AI" and have no idea what all the jargon even means.
Sure, but front ends like LMStudio exist for that crowd
Otherwise, if you're a programmer setting up a local harness, it only takes like 20-30 minutes to learn what the right parameters are.
It's very model, hardware, and use case dependent which is why a one size fits all solution doesn't work
Why would they wish to handcraft this ? That is what agents are for ?
They could ask your current agent to a) search for this type of content online for the optimal setup for their hardware b) have the current agent/harness spin it up have it verify the config run few experiments.
Sure AI may make mistakes, or won't get the best possible config probably, but it certainly do a good enough setup, this is a task with feedback on whether the server crashed or poor performance easily measured so the agent can do a pretty good job.
> Why would they wish to handcraft this ?
Because this is kinda the one new thing that arrived in the technology scene, so getting at least some amount of understanding of its "inner" workings might prove useful in the future.
Beside that, it is also just.. interesting? It's fun tuning the machine to see it improve. For some, anyway.
The people OP mentioned about "just want AI" .
The pain point they raised is this is too complicated for people who just want to get started, that is not true anymore.
It is certainly fun to fine-tune and setup if you like do something like that, however the need to do it hardly is a barrier for those who don't want complexity as OP imagines.
Lower level API/interfaces should not be a barrier for people if they are apply framing that way. More and more people are thinking agent native so this is not really a issue.
> More and more people are thinking agent native so this is not really a issue.
Why this headache inducing lingo tho? What does that even mean, and why should I sign up for your webinar about that?
The alternative is to label it AI. That is distasteful for some of us, Intelligence is much stronger than automation in our minds so we avoid the term and try to describe it differently .
This is exactly it. I already have broad access to Claude, Gemini, GitHub Copilot. I want to use open models on automated tasks that chew up tokens but where I don't necessarily need the best-in class models and UX.
For Claude, I setting a single config file and then download and run Claude Code CLI. Even easier for the GitHub Copilot CLI.
I'll actually defend you on this one, but not only the command, that's more of a fine tuning option. On the hugging face link for example, there's no flat 'download' area. It's completely unintuitive for people to know how to use it. Reminds me of my first time trying to make sense of torrents when they first arrived.
There are some clients that will index the models and allow you to do that but I'm no expert, I've used OLama studio but it always seems to go weird for me.
Even this command above, it's not clear where op got the model from. So I'm with yah.
For example, op uses : Qwen3.8-27B-IQ4_NL.gguf.. But I cant see where to download it. It's not tagged on hugging face at least..
Official llama.cpp releases ship with huggingface support. If you don't want to download it yourself, you can just use the `repo/model:quant` convention and it will handle downloading locally for you.
But you're assuming I'm using the Olama studio. This model as far as I see doesn't have a gguf download.. Unless I'm missing something on the page.
If I want to download the model myself, it's not clear. I thought it was supposed to behave like a package manager. But even in nuGet I can download a zip of the package.
What on earth are you talking about? llama.cpp != Ollama. You can (and should) just use llama.cpp directly. Upstream llama.cpp can take the shorthand huggingface path and automagically download it into a cache folder as part of the launch. Have you read any of the docs?
Plain question for you, where can I find the gguf model of this to direct download ?
Here: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF/tree/main
Excuse me, but thats a direct link you've just sent. I asked where I can find the links. I like to believe in the source of truth.
They shared a lot of links, I'm struggling to find yours. Where did yours come from ?
Who is Unsloth AI? Have they modified the model ? Is this really the source of truth ?
Do you see how steep the barrier for entry is to do anything right ?
unslothai is not a name qwen has ever used. So you're sharing a link to a model that isn't from the owner, while saying it's the owner's. I'm not comfortable with that, and I want AI to be a better tool.
> Excuse me, but thats a direct link you've just sent. I asked where I can find the links. I like to believe in the source of truth.
You asked where to find the GGUF files of this model for direct download and I provided it. Almost all useful model files that can be downloaded are hosted on Huggingface.
> They shared a lot of links, I'm struggling to find yours. Where did yours come from ?
I went to Huggingface, went to the Unsloth org, as they tend to be the best, went to the Model page, and went to the "Files and versions" tab.
> Who is Unsloth AI? Have they modified the model ? Is this really the source of truth ?
Unsloth AI is a very popular, highly reputable organization that takes upstream model files, performs some optimization, and provides models in various formats. Apart from speed tweaks, they do not modify the models. They also provide useful benchmarks, copious documentation for local execution, and a Studio application for easy execution and post-training of models.
> Do you see how steep the barrier for entry is to do anything right ?
No. Searching for this information is not difficult. The llama.cpp documentation and guides that Unsloth provide are all you need. Search engines can take you further if you want.
> unslothai is not a name qwen has ever used. So you're sharing a link to a model that isn't from the owner, while saying it's the owner's. I'm not comfortable with that
Qwen also provides models in GGUF format on Huggingface, but they will not be as performant. Even when first-party GGUFs are available, most people will prefer quants from Unsloth or a few other popular optimizer accounts.
> I want AI to be a better tool.
Best of luck. Your attitude and unwillingness to even try and learn on your own when people have tried helping have burned my good will, and this is as far as I'm willing to carry you.
> I went to Huggingface, went to the Unsloth org, as they tend to be the best, went to the Model page, and went to the "Files and versions" tab.
"I went to youtube, gmail, ycombinator, deliveroo, then I went to another site I randomly chose, because they're the best, duh"
Okay.
> Unsloth AI is a very popular, highly reputable organization that takes upstream model files
And How am I supposed to know that arriving to huggingface as a new user? Enlighten me.
> Qwen also provides models in GGUF format on Huggingface
Cool.. Why don't they share em because I genuinely cant find em, I'm dumb.
> Your attitude and unwillingness to even try and learn on your own when people have tried helping have burned my good will
Well, I'm willing, but not from people who I might burn good will. Gracious. You do you.
> "I went to youtube, gmail, ycombinator, deliveroo, then I went to another site I randomly chose, because they're the best, duh"
The path I described is all within HuggingFace.
> And How am I supposed to know that arriving to huggingface as a new user? Enlighten me.
Because I told you, knowing it was the best starting point for newbies.
> Cool.. Why don't they share em because I genuinely cant find em, I'm dumb.
You could go to Qwen's organization page on HuggingFace, it has a search function at the top, but you would be better served sticking with Unsloth.
> Well, I'm willing, but not from people who I might burn good will. Gracious. You do you.
Expecting others to do everything for you is not the same as trying things and asking questions about what you found.
If you do not want to tweak parameters you can just run
That's itStart by copying the command line from the Unsloth guides.
You don’t need to fine tune all of those parameters to get started.
It’s really easy to ask an LLM to adjust the command line if you can’t be bothered to read the help out. Copy the help output into the LLM and tell it your goal.
> Ollama is confusing and doesn't seem to support Qwen3?
Typing “Ollama qwen3” into Google takes you right to this page:
https://ollama.com/library/qwen3
If even Googling for basic Ollama support is too hard, there might come a point where you have to acknowledge that local LLMs are not for you. None of this is really that hard with some basic Google bootstrap skills or by asking an LLM to help with the command.
I had seen this:
> Attention: To be updated for Qwen3
on Qwen's official docs: https://qwen.readthedocs.io/en/latest/run_locally/ollama.htm.... It's not like I just made it up. Of course I searched "ollama qwen3" and saw what you linked, but that doesn't mean it "works". I have other things to do besides to try a bunch of poorly documented and executed tools just to see if it works or not.
I guess the TLDR is that I'm stupid or lazy. Also, everyone is responding about how easy it is, and yet, it's apparently so easy that it's hard to document well.
There are easier ways to run it. OP seemed to enjoy tinkering and customizing the command to run it exactly the way they want. When I don’t want to tinker Unsloth Studio is probably closest to pick a model and voila.
Hi! From Ollama here - you can run: ollama run qwen3.8 (or if on mac qwen3.8:27b-mlx)
Well there's a lot of knobs to turn if you want to improve performance. You can always point an LLM at the model card, give it your info, and have it write up the command.
Sure, but shouldn’t the programs to run the LLMs go “the user has this much vram and the model is this size, so I’ll start with sensible defaults based on that”?
You could override, obviously.
Yes, llama.cpp does that.
just tell claude/codex "set this up on my system $huggingfacelink"
> LM Studio doesn't work behind proxies.
Woa, is that still a thing? You mean like SOCKS5 stuff that you have to manually configure in every application that uses the internet?
I mean maybe I'm just living under a rock but I feel like that's a rather niche situation you got there.
> I feel like that's a rather niche situation you got there
Every big company in the world uses a network proxy. LM Studio, as far as I can tell, cannot be configured to work behind such proxies.
> Every big company in the world uses a network proxy.
It's becoming more rare, now.
A lot of the universal truths about corporate networks from the early 2000s are no longer true today. Some companies are stuck in their ways though.
The overlap between companies that require someone to use a network proxy and companies that have GPU-equipped machines with enough RAM for LLMs and and that allow people to download and run executables of their choosing has to be small.
> It's becoming more rare, now.
I would love to see more data on that because I've seen it constantly. There is more isolation maybe where you can do whatever on 'open' network, but always some kind of proxy/vpn connection for hitting anything sensitive.
The operlap is there.. But I would be worried if it was just flat out taken away from secure managed connections just because of AI.. Again, would love to see the numbers of your assumptions.
Woa TIL. I thought that was somehow long solved at the OS level or with VPNs or something like that (no idea exactly how, I'm sure just I'm misunderstanding something basic).
Makes it rather weird that LM Studio doesn't support it given how their target market, or well at least for their paid products, is very enterprisey.
Every big company? YMMV, but I'd say about 20-40% do.
If you're on Linux you can probably use proxychains.
You know free LLMs can help you understand that command line or design your own...
I never install this stuff manually anymore. Just tell your LLM of choice to download model X from URL Y, build the latest inference engine of choice E, and then create batch files or shell scripts to run instruct and/or reasoning models in accordance with instructions at URL Z.
While you probably have the audacity to check the commands and code that your favorite LLM generates to complete this task, i'm pretty much certain that at some point in time, due to this pervasive mindset of "just let an AI agent do it," we'll have a front page news story of someone who had their family photos on their NAS uploaded to some public space, their security cameras connected to a "live porn for lolz" webring, and perhaps even their crypto wallets and bank accounts pilfered, all because their favorite LLM got exploited by some prompt injection attack while trying to be helpful doing system administration tasks.
I remember there was a short story in BYTE Magazine about a similar kind of scenario way back when, I think at least 30 years ago, long before LLMs and AI agents became a reality.
Promise I'm not being flippant or rude, but why not ask it to write something like a parameterized script to do the same thing for you ?
Laziness, primarily. Plus, no two models are exactly alike, and some have different instructions in their model card or on the HF page.
Hmm I'm still struggling with the downloading of all the models I want to try locally, so I might be out of the loop, but all of this, including tuning (to your local HW), feels like it could be automated. I'm old though.
Beats Opus 4.7 Max (w/ Claude Code) on DeepSWE (42.2 vs 40). Looks like Qwen's 27B models continue to pack some punch.
Unsloth's GGUF quants are up: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF
> Beats Opus 4.7 Max
I'm a huge open model fan, and have used them since forever, even have daily drivers for on-prem dev, but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage.
Qwen models are impressively good for what they are, are "good enough" for plenty tasks, can be ran locally on decently priced hardware, and so on. They certainly have their uses, and the field in general has advanced faster than my early expectations. But to compare a 27B model to SotA behemoths from a few months ago is doing everyone a disservice, especially people who pick it up, try to use them just like API models, and leave disappointed and confused. Number goes up on a benchmark isn't it.
> They do not beat opus on real-world usage
We have an internal eval that measures performance on tasks for a handful of embedded systems repos for our mmWave radios (mostly Rust, some C for microcontroller stuff). Qwen3.6-27B scores only 4% lower for pass@1, n=250 compared to Opus-4.8.
For the labeled dataset, the average PR size they're being measured against is around 1.5k SLOC.
This is very much "real-world usage" for us. The sort of change sets that come in daily/weekly and are solving non-trivial issues in the respective codebases.
As is usually the case, the most broad claims from both the labs and from the consequent pushback are talking past each other.
Let us know when you have Qwen vs Qwen comparison stats. As long as there's not a regression, that'd be awesome.
4% is within the margin of error anyways for pass@1, so I think pass@k > 1 is gonna be the better indicator of any movement (still need to calibrate the optimal k to re-test). 10 seems too tolerant even though that tends to be the next tranche I reach for.
Depends on where you sit on the binomial curve. At p=0.04 for n=250 4% points would not be within margin of error.
Right I take your point, but that's not the comparison in this case though. These are paired results on the same 250 tasks, so whether a 4 point gap is meaningful depends on the task-level deltas, not just plugging p=0.04 into the binomial SE.
How much does it score though? 0% would be 4% less if Opus was at 4%. Unless you mean relative fraction not percentage points - but people usually mean percentage points in such situations.
0% is not 4% less than 4%, that would be 3.84%.
0% is 4 percentage points (pp) less than 4%.
> ...but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage.
I agree, but then we just need meaningful benchmarks that clearly show that! Otherwise it's hand waving about something that should be put on paper in quantifiable terms.
If you are working in a company and using language models, it is a very good idea to hold a bunch of evals you can trust and use to validate new models. Calibrate every once in a while with prod data. We have our own and the only numbers on quality and cost I trust come from this setup.
A wise man once said, "not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".
That’s well and good, but how are we supposed to evaluate the accuracy of random HN comments without anything resembling somewhat objective metrics? People say all manner of things, and usually it’s contradictory. What heuristic do you propose?
In the end, the only benchmark that matters is your own.
> but then we just need meaningful benchmarks that clearly show that!
That's the rub. AI benchmarks are IMO, by and large totally unreliable. We think of them as similar to traditional benchmarks of deterministic processes where the number of variables is low. But they're anything but that. Non-deterministic processes with an astounding number of variables and fuzzy acceptance criteria.
It leads to results like these, where if you take it at face value, the only conclusion you can draw is "wow Anthropic must be stupid if Opus takes 1T parameters to do what Qwen can do in 27B."
Only useful benchmarks are those you (in particular) don't have access to.
The only useful benchmarks are those you've created for your specific workflow. Only then can you assess whether a given model is better or worse for what you are using it for.
There are tools like promptfoo designed for this.
How can you say this when you haven't even tried it yet? Is it just hypothetical vibes?
Yep. These small models are actually worse than GPT 3.5 at some tasks (like recalling facts). You can definitely make models smarter at specific tasks (like tool calling, coding) but you can't compress the entire human knowledge into a 30GB file. It's just not enough bits.
That's a good sign.
Ideal local model would not know stuff like who Britney Spears is, best to leave precious weights for something useful.
Of course the line is very blurry but I'd be perfectly happy with local model that doesn't know anything about history, geopolitics, art or even biology etc. just coding, operating systems etc.
At one point there were specific -Coder release of Qwen e.g. 2.5 but they dropped that, still wondering how much better 3.6-Coder or 3.8-Coder would be when they ignore everything else
But why would you use a model to store factual knowledge, that is stupid. We want intelligence, not a database.
Models cant make any decisions if they have 0 idea that the feature exist in this language or in some general fact.
For example you would tell a model hey, become an expert in this language for me, search it online, it would still need to learn it and download the data to it's context and then increasing the memory usage, there's no way around it.
In my experience, the facts that are compressed away in small models are ones you don’t need them to memorize. They need familiarity with the essential concepts in a field, so that they will have better comprehension of material put into the context (and make better retrieval decisions). They don’t need to know very particular details which are a hallucination risk and should be derived from the context instead.
that is why we enable web search for the agent. the memory can come from the internet.
deepseek-v4-flash needs web search to return true facts.
Yeah but results are worse, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49301574
There is 0 shot you can make that claim about this model you have not used or downloaded yet
"Benchmark is stupid" and "model beats model on benchmark" are two different things, though. The second one is objectively true regardless of your views on the first one, right? To expect everyone to share your opinion that benchmarks are stupid is pretty weird, and just saying "no" to an objective truth is the definition of delusion.
If a benchmark is a measure of nothing useful, then model beats model is an objectively useless fact
But that's the problem with that logic. The author subjectively claims benchmarks are stupid (a debatable opinion) and treats that as inherently true while making the second claim (hence, you shouldn't say model A beat model B).
I can say I find the law stupid, so no one should say person A beat person B in court. But I did not prove the law is stupid; I merely thought it subjectively and demanded others to follow the second part because I believe the first part is true.
Saying that "if the law is useless, court cases are useless" is objectively true and cannot be argued with. But you still need to prove why the law is useless, not why you think it is and even then if people disagree and use the law as a reference, then it's not objectively useless and court cases are not useless as well.
Is there any advantage to using the model from Unsloth compared with https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B-FP8 ?
Depends on what software/hardware you'll run it. GGUFs from Unsloth can run on pretty much every single potato; full weights need beefy gpus
We also made NVFP4 ones if that helps! https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-NVFP4
This is the version we'll be testing on our rtx 6000 today! Thank you
Why not just run FP8 on vLLM with that much vRAM? It's plenty fast.
For high concurrency, using the blackwell's native native W4A4 MLP compute path, nvfp4 is something like a 1.2-1.5x performance increase over FP8. We're doing data enrichment (so, tasks completed successfully + tokens/second) so the performance bump shows up in the tasks/month number.
I am just now getting the benchmarks running against 3.8 27b but I expect similar results from benching 3.6 27b at the same quant.
I see. Did you see any intelligence degradation between FP8 and NVFP4 for 3.6 27B? You're using vLLM, right?
Unsloth one is gguf for llama.cpp (and some other on-device engines).
So advantage is not having to produce your own quantisation / gguf from .safetensors you've linked.
Run the unsloth if you are using llama.cpp (GGUF)
Run the one you linked if you are running vllm (safetensors)
Unsloth usually also fixes the models when they bork something, which always happens. For Gemma for example the tool calling wasn't working for the longest time.
That wasn't our problem right? Gemma officially updated tool calling which we adopted
if you have the VRAM, use offical release. quantized model lose focus after long context and can do damages or thinking loop
Considering the clusterfuck that is opus 5 or even fable, if Qwen 27B is trully better than Opus 4.7 Max, I will rejoice.
Yeah Opus 5 is almost unusable as a daily driver without making me go insane from excessive claude babble.
If it's as good as Sonnet 4.6 for most things I'd be happy.
Same
I wish each quant was benchmarked on the same tests as the original network so we could compare their performance
Unsloth publishes KL divergence numbers which measures how much the quantised probability distribution changes vs unquantised: https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3.8#quantization-analysis
It's a bit bare at the moment, I assume they are going to add further detail later (eg comparison to other quants), similar to their other releases.
The talk around KL divergence is oversold. People talk about it as if it’s not a benchmark, but at its core it is in the same neighborhood! You get a different KL divergence number on different “calibration datasets”, so in other words it’s data-dependent. It is NOT a universal guarantee about the fundamental divergence of a model.
KL divergence is nothing close to a replacement for benchmarks. As flawed as benchmarks are, KL divergence is a barely useful signal. The fact that Unsloth only just started publishing KL divergences shows how unserious the quantization space is.
Actually we do publish non KLD benchmarks - top-1% is better - for NVFP4 for eg we did MMLU Pro, GPQA, AIME 2025: https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3.6#nvfp4-benchmarks
Sometimes they're just slow and expensive, so we we KLD as a proxy measure and it's very high correlation (95%+)
You're very right about KL divergence. I spent a couple days playing with the Gemma 4 models. That's 10 separate models (varying weights, MoE, QAT or not, etc...) with identical tokenizers. I treated 31B at BF16 as the gold standard, feeding Wikipedia snippets, and anthropomorphizing a bit:
Gemma 4 31B: "Um, if I really said all of that, I guess I'd say this next"
Gemma 4 26B: "Dude, I would've said completely different stuff" (large divergence)
Gemma 4 12B: "Umm, there's zero chance I would've said some of this" (INFINITE divergence)
Gemma 4 E4B and E2B: "Derp derp, I'm happy to say almost anything" (lowest divergence)
For models which are chat trained, they simply would not recite Wikipedia, so the divergence is almost meaningless. I thought about capturing a realistic coding session and trying to use that as the corpus, but you need to preserve the turn-based tokens and such, so I moved on to other things.
> The fact that Unsloth only just started publishing KL divergences shows how unserious the quantization space is.
Just wanted to say that this is a very important point that I totally agree with. People are obsessed with KL divergence, but it is yet to be demonstrated to be a descent proxy for agentic coding benchmarks.
That's not a replacement for benchmarks
When I tested various eval benchmarks on Qwen3.5/3.6 27B with Unsloth's quants, the scores usually dropped 0-5% between UD-Q6 and UD-Q3 depending on the eval.
Oh, goody goody goody! Can't wait for a Q4M with *MTP* support. Does anyone know if there are plans for it?
I am currently using Qwen 3.6 on RTX 3090 and I have to admit that without MTP it would be too slow to be acceptable for me (30-35 tok/sec without MTP, 60-70 with MTP). Without MTP I would just use OpenRouter and rather pay for speed despite having a capable local setup.
It comes with MTP already, they just don't mention it in the filename as it's now the default.
Oh, thank you for telling me this. Trying it out now.
That kind of result makes me suspicious of benchmaxxing. Qwen 27B is 100x smaller than Opus 4.7. Is it really 100x more parameter-efficient? Two orders of magnitude is hard to believe. I don't have the hardware to run a 27B, but I'm curious what real world use is like. Maybe I'll have to buy some usage on a cloud provider to run my own tests, but this seems fishy to me.
Qwen small models are heavily coding focused, whereas Opus is everything to everybody (even if code is their bread and butter). The downside is they'll frequently hallucinate world knowledge so they need to be RL'd to double check their knowledge against sources and verify facts/library names/etc.
It's very agentic coding focused; and I'd say a good executor but certainly not Opus in scale; overall knowledge; long-horizon work and recovery; etc.
e.g. If you try to chat to it about something philosophical for example, or maybe a debate / creative writing, then you'll very quickly see how it is still a much smaller model at the end of the day.
Still, it's such a relatively accessible model to run, and I find a big part of leveraging smaller models is to give it well-scoped tasks; not too high level or ambitious ones. Very impressive for its size and the ability to run locally :)
Interesting! I'll definitely give that a shot then.
That's crazy, considering the massive size difference. But the small Qwen models are known for punching above their weight.
In the local LLM communities there is a lot of respect for the Qwen models, but everyone comes to acknowledge that they do a lot of benchmaxxing after using them. Even at full precision they're never as good as models with similar benchmarks.
Good morning Dario!
Unsloth Q4_K_M on a single 3090, llama.cpp "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" first try https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1voa3ch/comment...
Most people cannot draw a bicycle that well!
Any tips on the best approach at running this at an M4 Max 128GB? Token throughput was a bit slow with the last 27B one (MLX), ended up using the A3B variant but if I could get this one to reasonable speed I'd much prefer it.
I have an M4 Max (unfortunately 64GB). I have been running the Qwen 35B A3B one for a while now, after testing and benchmarking a number of models. That one was consistently the best in class for tasks like despamming, E-mail classification, OCR and dictation post-processing. It was also really fast (90 tokens/s).
I'm benchmarking the 3.8 model now, it seems it is better (near-perfect score on my E-mail spam filtering benchmark, best of any model I tested, ever). But it is slow.
One thing I would recommend is keeping an eye on MTP parameters. I tested and benchmarked extensively, and I use `--spec-draft-n-max 2` with llama.cpp. Longer sequences actually decrease overall performance.
As for running, I ended up using llama.cpp and its llama-server, with a bunch of scripts written by AI, because I got tired of LM Studio not implementing the image-related parameters which made gemma4 useless for OCR.
How are you using email despamming?
I am looking to automatically recover mail from junk folder due to bad icloud mail filtering.
Go for a slightly more quantised version, and experiment with different MTP settings. I find that MLX versions are marginally faster on my 64GB M1 Max, but I usually use Unsloth's GGUFs via llama.cpp as there's a much greater range of quants available and I prefer llama.cpp. MTP sometimes also helps a little, but I suspect it's less helpful on my system than others.
Unsloth: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF
This might work for you, but I didn't get on very well with MTPLX when I tried it a while back; YMMV: https://huggingface.co/Youssofal/Qwen3.8-27B-MTPLX-Optimized...
This is the way if you need speed. It costs a little bit in smarts, but compare the MTPLX option listed above with the oQ4e-mtp quant using oMLX. The good cacheing layer in oMLX will help things feel faster for some classes of tasks in my experience.
Wait for the MTP variants that will likely be out within days. I'm on a 128GB Strix Halo box and for 3.6-27B 8bits I was getting about 9tok/sec (not great). With MTP that gets closer to 18 tok/sec (kind'a usable).
The MTP is available, but I'm definitely not seeing 18 t/s on the Strix Halo from the 8-bit quantization, even with MTP (more like ~10 with full context on long tasks). This is a slow model (but so was 3.6). What's your exact llama-server command that gets 18 t/s?
Seems like MTP is available immediately!
27B is a dense model so it will be slower with an MoE (A3B), but should have better quality? I still haven’t found very good uses cases on my M3 Max for dense models. Even if you can find a MTP version, it doesn’t help much, especially if you compare against an MoE with MTP as well.
Unfortunately, that chip just doesn't really have the memory bandwidth to run this (or nearly any) model at acceptable speeds. I have the exact same chip (M4 Max 128GB) and I've been trying to optimize a completely purpose-built implementation with Fable and this is just not possible. Even if you could reach the full 576GB/s, it's just physically impossible to exceed these numbers with the model's architecture:
2 bpw - ~85.7t/s
3 bpw - ~58.0t/s
4 bpw - ~43.9t/s
6 bpw - ~29.5t/s
8 bpw - ~22.2t/s
16 bpw - ~11.2t/s
without cheating. You'd have to exclude layers, skip operations, etc. basically do stuff the model wasn't trained for. And speed collapses so fast with context that even 2 bpw would be looking at ~37.6t/s after just 128K tokens.
MTP only improves the situation by up to 2x in the ideal case, while drastically reducing the performance floor. While optimizing a 9B model on this hardware, I've found that the GPU just doesn't have enough FLOPS to handle speculating more than one or two tokens ahead on a single stream, regardless of quant level, simply because of the arithmetic cost of the forward pass. The 27B model would be even more expensive than that, potentially such that it's already bottlenecked by the GPU itself rather than memory.
I wouldn't get my hopes up for the 35B-A3B either. Not only is it reportedly much less intelligent, but I hit a similar ~85t/s wall in practice (again with highly specialized inference).
Without speculation I can reach around 120t/s on Qwen3.5-9B and with n-gram speculation (not even MTP; this derivative didn't come with one) around about 150t/s on average. This is on the very very edge of what I'd consider acceptable for me to even consider using such a compact model. YMMV due to the silicon lottery but the situation isn't good.
What is bpw?
Also whats your cutoff for 'acceptable' speed? I would have said 25tok/s.
bits per weight
Check out MTPLX and limit your context size.
I wonder how this practically compares with Muse Glimmer, especially quantized.
I've got an RX 7900 XT (20GB of VRAM) and I can run glimmer with a full 128k context window with the draft model at 65-80 tok/s.
This model, on the other hand, I get about 30 tok/s with a 30k context. Raising the context or loading the draft layers for MTP drops performance to 9-15 tok/s.
So I wonder how big the "real world" delta between Glimmer and Qwen is here. I can already run 3-bit DSv4-flash at 9-15 tok/s with 100k~ context, and I suspect it would outperform 4-bit Qwen 3.8 27B here.
I'll have to experiment and see if I just made a stupid mistake somewhere, but it looks like Glimmer might make more sense for the comically specific niche of "20GB VRAM".
I'm in the exact same boat with a 7900 XT and a good Glimmer 30B experience. I was really hoping qwen 3.8 would bring some memory/space efficiency savings along the lines of whatever is going on with Glimmer 30B. I have been surprised that a 30 billion model fits and runs better (at higher unsloth quantization! UD-Q4_K_XL fits!) than a 27 billion model.
The $1500 Intel B70 with 32GB of VRAM can run this model at max context with good performance, btw. If you don't want to drop $5-10k for running DeepSeek this is your best budget option for local refactor/small scale dev help
I understand the B70 is a bargain vs AMD and especially nVidia offerings, but to me it feels like I would be buying something that would feel too limited in less than a year. 48G would be much more confortable.
And I know the 96G nVidia cards are selling for over 10k$.
The future can’t arrive fast enough!
You can buy two b60s for $1300 right now (650 each) if you want a total of 48gb. Intel recently raised the price on all of their gpu's except the b60 series, so they are currently the best deal per gb I think.
They have terrible cross connectivity, it's not wise to share a model between them
32GB is perfect for models around 30B parameters. Since qwen has really hit the spot with their 27B dense models, I think it's a good bet. Also, 32GB is enough for other tasks such as image/video generation and loading multiple smaller specialized models
I wonder how this would stack up against 4x RTX 3060, assuming you have the physical room for them.
Since the 3060s would have to communicate constantly using pcie, I think I'd go with intel
I have a B70, what llama options are you using and what performance are you seeing?
Oh, can it work with the /v1/completions/ auto-complete endpoint?
Sorry, I wrote autocompletion by force of habit. I simply meant it can complete code you have already created a structure for, which personally is very nice
I thought so, but thanks for the clarification. I am a little bit disappointed that local autocompletion models have been left by the wayside in favor of models post-trained for agentic coding. Both Codestral and Qwen-2.5-coder are more than a year old at this point, but local auto-complete seems to me to be such a great usecase.
The latest Qwen models (including 3.8 27B) do still support FIM-style in-editor code auto-completion if that's what you're looking for. I wouldn't want to use a large dense model like 27B for such a task (since FIM-style auto-completion really works best with low-latency responses), but it works.
You don't need $10k to run DeepSeek, I run it on a $1000 system.
Go on… what is this $1000 system?
4x CMP-170HX he purchased with his time machine last month
Could you elaborate please? Genuinely interested
The file "Just loads" on llama.cpp, the Unsloth https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF is an MTP file, I see mostly the same speed on pp and generation. There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks, I find extremely hard to believe a 27B model can work similar or exceed opus 4.6.
Worth distinguishing knowledge/task benchmarks from IF / agentic. It doesn't seem out of the question that you can have a small model thats generally good at instruction following and long-horizon agentic, as usually in those cases any requisite knowledge is in the context.
Most of the benchmark improvements afaict are in agentic and instruction following benchmarks.
I think you've been drinking the "LLMs only improve by adding parameter counts" that SOTA labs are selling VCs to build data centers so they can keep eating through cash to their own benefits.
To the countrary, the reason Chinese models are excelling in the smaller area is because there's tons of fat in closed source models because of the crazy cash being thrown around.
There absolutely is space to improve intelligence and capabilities without lathering on more and more parameters.
Qwen3.6-27B has been the main LLM powering my little agentic stack. I have adopted the test and verify approach to any models allowed to run on my machine. When the "heretic" version drops, I will fire up the harness and test. Super excited to see how it stacks up against Qwen3.6!!!
Beating or comparable to Opus 4.6 in benchmarks. Opus 4.6 was released in February, 2026. So if we still want to talk about a "6 month difference" between Chinese and American AI, the sentence should now be:
Chinese (small model) AI is 6 months behind American (largest model) AI.
Given that glimmer only caught up-ish to 3.6 how far behind is American (largest model) to American (largest model) ?
This is one of the most important model releases since most use cases don't need SOTA/Frontier
If you want Qwen3.8-27B Serving Configs for the DGX Spark vLLM NVFP4 and RTX 4090 llama.cpp GGUF I added the setups here https://x.com/ErdalToprak/status/2088299678085308761?s=20
For those who don't wanna open twitter: https://xcancel.com/ErdalToprak/status/2088299678085308761?s...
If the benchmarks are a real indication, we now have a local model that is runnable on a high-end personal PC that trades blows with the leading model Claude Opus 4.6 Max from half a year ago.
Insane if that is the case. Downloading now!
Yeah this is the first model I have been able to run locally that actually feels useful, this is unreal I am considering cancelling my claude sub and going to just api (maybe GLM?) for really hard tasks.
Check out OpenCode Go as well. They give some Kimi K3, Qwen3.8 Max, and GLM5.2 (probably 5.3 soon?) usage which may cover your needs for $10/mo
Yeah I was thinking open router but I will look around at options, I genuinely think this model is good enough for like 90+% of my use cases, and the top frontier models are still not that good at architecture so I have to do that myself still so I won't be losing out.
27b dense model at Opus 4.6 level
Opus at home
I hope there also will be a new ~10b variant
I'm hoping for a 3.8-122B MoE
can you tell me ideas of usecases of 9 or 10B language models ? I cant find any usecases other than training a lora on them to give good bash commands for example
I use Gemma 4 12B in the 4-bit quantization for all sorts of vision tasks (image sorting, classification, description). It's also good for the same sorts of things for text (but there are probably better/faster models for text, 12B just happens to excel at vision tasks). The Qwen 9B is also very good for those tasks. If you need to do any kind of "search the web, grab some data, do some kind of action" tasks, these small models are perfect for that. Scraping data in a fuzzy format into a database or report or spreadsheet, producing a dashboard of news, etc.
Small local models can also be used for sub-agent tasks in most agent harnesses. But I'd probably run a larger MoE for that; they're faster and have broader knowledge. The dense models, even very small ones, are not blazing fast.
I don't code with any models small enough to run locally, at least not so far. Qwen 3.8 27B might be the tipping point, though. It's looking really promising, though it's probably slow enough that I won't ever actually use it. I'd rather pay $100/month for a faster model, even if Qwen 3.8 turns out to be smart enough for most of my work. Running it locally with the 8-bit quantization is going at 12-30 t/s, depending on how much context it's chewing on. So, if all you do with AI is coding, then you're better off doing it in the cloud.
But, there's lots of things a small model can do that aren't coding.
they are all overlapping but:
categorization, information retrieval, semantic search, image description
also with the model as part of an agentic system with tool calling
(edit: it is quite impressive what a small model in a feedback loop can do)
9B Qwen models are good and fast for local python coding tasks.
For those commenting on the long reasoning, it may be interesting to know that the reasoning effort is set to xhigh by default [0]. Other possible values are medium, low and none. Flag for changing it in llama.cpp below, but note that the long reasoning seems to contribute a great deal to the quality.
[0] https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/qwen3.8#thinking--preserve-th...Is there any way to turn off thinking if I'm using Ollama? In my particular case, the Ollama API (the software I want no-think for is tied to Ollama's bespoke API). If not, I'll stick to 3.6 for the time being...
I wonder if Anthropic and OpenAI possibly missed the window to go public. A 27B open-weight model trading blows with the SOTA from just half a year ago is not great news for trillion-dollar investments...
Trading blows in some benchmarks is a bit exaggerated. If you try the model, `xhigh` is basically feels like the `max` mode (i.e. massive thinker and extremely presistent), and the amount of world knowledge and intent understanding is nowhere close to an Opus class model even from 6mo ago.
It's still very useful, and it'll probably displace a good bit of API spend; but it's not really "trading blows with SOTA from just a half year ago". A bit overblown on the Anthropic/OpenAI has missed the window I reckon.
Also, on the open weight frontier side, Kimi K3 is pretty expensive, and Deepseek V4 Pro/Flash is getting a little less juicy with price increases.
Why would anyone rely on the world knowledge built into a model when the harness can just let it search for current information?
Intent understanding is a big point for sure, but world knowledge I'm not sure I see a use case for it.
Lacking world knowledge is fine for me, I rarely want to rely on the model’s training anyway when there are plenty of great search options to integrate with.
Another way of rephrasing that though is that the public (including large pension funds, retirees, etc.) just dodged a bullet and aren't left holding the bag.
Nevertheless, I doubt anyone's going to emerge unscathed when the valuations start falling though. Vast sections of the American stock market will be wiped out yet and with it the global economy.
Why do you assume 2-3 American companies failing will have a more negative impact on the economy than positive impact of the widespread availability of self-hostable, open-sourced, and efficient models?
There will surely be tons of new companies that make a business off of hosting these models and even tuning them for specific purposes. Not to mention the massive pricing difference will benefit people who actually utilize them
Firstly, I don't think it will be just 2-3 companies that fail. Due the circular investing between companies in the AI ecosystem, the fallout is going to be much bigger.
Secondly, even with that being true, I think open models are a great net benefit for all mankind in the long run.
I think both of those things are true at the same time.
IMO AI companies are selling the infrastructure and easier access to the models, beyond competing to get the smarter model. We can run Qwen locally, but at what cost? A good enough GPU for running 27B is more than 4,000 USD where I live (Brazil). Even if I were to spend 100s of hours in credits I would never reach a point where the 4000 USD investment pays off. Unless I'm doing it for the sport, building my own LLM rig is not financially viable.
This is without saying that company clients of Anthropic or OpenAI will not have the upfront money to get a RTX 3090 for each and every employee. Much better to sign a deal with the LLM providers and get cheaper token price with a sales person.
> RTX 3090 for each and every employee
That’s quite inefficient. Get 2x RTX 6000 Pro and run DeepSeek v4 Flash for the whole company. This may or may not be cost effective compared to cheap third party providers, but it lets you own your own data, is not actually that expensive, and reports suggest that you can get 2k tok/s or so from a setup like this (at respectable batch size, but that’s exactly what you want in this situation).
I’m not sure I believe that the unquantized performance is as good as people are claiming, but even light quantization would make it fit easily.
Depending on your compliance needs this may be the only way.
What would the time to first token be on a setup like this?
The real target for Anthropic, OpenAI and tons of others are large enterprises and workflows. I think they will do all right if they execute well.
I don’t think so for two reasons:
1. They still have extreme revenue growth (and despite what HN says, good gross margins supposedly).
2. People will pay a premium for the best model. So far, we see catchup but no leapfrogging.
This is why they've been making bank on the secondary market. They can retire now.
I mean, that was obvious from the word "go".
Even Zuckerberg isn't as deluded to think that there's money in constantly releasing closed models and hypserscaling their deployment, which is why we got muse-glimmer 30b last week. I have been playing with it on a 32gb MBP w/ M2 Pro. If prosumer-grade hardware from almost three years ago can now offer a novice a way to host a possibly serviceable software development agent, then there's little incentive to pay out for LLMs like Anthropic's or OpenAI's over the long run.
These are massive improvements - and something you can actually run on a laptop.
Architecture thread! Afaict they continue to use gated attention + delta net, which was also adopted+adapted by K3, but im surprised theres no improvements to the residual stream (deepseek are using manifold hyper-connections, kimi have attention residuals) ?
Perf improvements seem to all come from training?
As was the case with GLM 5.3, it seems that there is still much juice to be squeezed from post-training
I'm struggling to figure out what to use this for. From the intelligence benchmarks in OMLX. If only they would release another MoE model.
Try manually asking both more discrete esoteric knowledge questions. Or use benchmarks which are less coding focused. The 3.6-35B-A3B with post-training may do well in coding type benchmarks and math but the density of its knowledge falls off in my experience (vs 3.6 27B dense Q8-K-XL unsloth GGUF) when you need to use it for less commonly used domains of knowledge.
My use cases try to avoid accessing world knowledge in the model (I give it access to web search for some adhoc RAG), and ya, I'm just focused on coding so that's the only place I'm looking at right now.
I think you may find that the dense 27B also does better if challenged with more rare coding tasks, less common or weird languages or things that aren't well represented in the active 3B parameters of the MoE model (eg: NOT css, javascript, python, c++, etc).
True. Benchmarks have led me astray before, I'll have to actually benchmark it directly in Goose with my real use cases right now (which are mostly writing python code, so it probably still doesn't apply?). Still, I've never noticed a benefit to using a dense model rather than an MoE for coding with an agent tasks.
Apart from model performance, what harness are people using to come close to Claude Code or Codex workflow styles with tool use, conversations, loops, remote control, etc.?
and more specifically - what harness is known to be the best fit for Qwen local models, and are there any evals/benchmarks for harness+model pairs?
Better than Opus 4.6 at computer use? Comparable with it for SWE? Am I reading this right?
I’ve heard rumours about AI shops optimizing for benchmarks. I also don’t think Qwen/Alibaba would be crazy enough to claim something unless there is some truth in it. Would love to see a side-by-side with Opus 4.6 on categories where Qwen 3.8 27B aces it.
I am so happy right now, qwen3.6-27b was an absolute game changer. To see another one in the same league.. phew
Hmm. No MoE or active params weights means this will run _slow_
Model benchmarks are useful, to a point, but it is the long tail of things you do with the model that determines if it's good at a wide range of activities. Ant/OAI, to their credit, build their models -- even the small ones -- so they follow instructions and do tool calling well, without the system prompts confusing them. This is especially important for long-horizon tool calling.
So one open weight model might "meet" Opus or whatever on benchmarks, but then fail to follow a simple answer format and also tool call correctly. The models are whipped to within an inch of their lives to strictly adhere to their post training quality gates.
The default reasoning is set to 'xhigh', if you want to compare with the past or reduce the time (if you can take the hit in output quality) then you can pick 'high' or 'medium' as well.
I think I am going to buy a second rtx 3060, as 27B has been just outside of my range for to long, and this looks like the parameter count tipping point
Running it on 2x3060 now. Works pretty well but VRAM is tight. 4bit quants. 1x128k context, 8bit KV, MTP on.
whats the tok/s you get on that. I have heard a few claims of around 30-50 with mtp, but for how cheap the setup is I am surprised I don't hear more about 3060 stacks so I assume there has to be some catch.
I used GPT-5.6 Sol high to optimize it, and it claimed it was getting 50. I'm seeing ~40 on my goto smoketest: "Make me a vector add in CUDA".
Funny side note. It successfully one shot the program, but it wasn't able to run it because there literally wasn't enough VRAM left to allocate CUDA memory. Watching it try to debug that was fascinating. I'm pretty sure it would have killed the llama-server (and thus itself) if it hadn't been running in a separate container.
I'm wondering whether any provider can offer this for cheaper $/token than the new DSv4 Flash, which is both cheaper and smarter :/
Completely local use is a different story, of course.
Would I be surprised there’s bench maxing happening? Yes. But some users also use Q4 quantized and complain how dumb local models are.
Having some really good fun with it so far with System Design (ERP) mainly SAP.
I did notice if you go beyond Medium he starts overthinking like hell as per usual for a Qwen model.
Anyone seen this show up in any APIs yet? I'd love to try it out faster than my Mac can run it.
The Hugging Face page (https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B) shows that Featherless supports the model (and includes the inference widget to try it out directly on the page)
q4km is about 48 tps on a 4090. my llama.cpp params are --flash-attn on --parallel 1 --load-mode mmap
With spec decode should easily get to >100tps
on my dual 3090s qwen 3.5 27b was running at around 110tps using the config from https://github.com/noonghunna/club-3090
make that 200tps on a single 5090, 4x faster than opus https://x.com/radixark/status/2088285681131110446
devs about to get handed a two 5090 box each and told to max that out
I've been experimenting with a few settings in my 4090 , and if 3.6 run at 90-110 tps, 3.8 staya below 80 tps and it's most often at 60 tps. I'm using flash attention, mtp speculative decoding (n=2). I've looked at the club-3090 repo, but haven't found anything meaningful but get back to 3.6 performance
Man what a week, We just had GLM 5.3 that came out and then we had smaller local model Qwen3.8-27B from Qwen
Just tried using Pi Agent and looks very promising
Qwen 3.6 is ~$2/m tok, 3.8 should be drop in replacement. Gemma 31B is $0.34/m tok. The price differential on these models is massive on openrouter.
Where do you see that? From what I can see on Open Router, Qwen 3.6 27B (the closest dense equivalent to Gemma 31) is $0.28/m. Am I missing something?
https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3.6-27b
They're comparing Qwen 3.8 Max to Gemma 31B, fundamental mistake.
Yeah, I would appreciate if someone could make sense of the pricing differences between these models. How can a provider run DSv4F at lower cost than a 27B dense or 35B A3B model?
Does it come down to utilization and/or specific model tricks and efficiencies (attention, kv cache, etc.)?
DeepInfra prices:
Qwen 3.6 27B: $0.32 in / $3.20 out
Gemma 3 27B: $0.08 in / $0.16 out
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731: $0.08 in / $0.18 out
Qwen 3.6 35B A3B: $0.10 in / $0.95 out
https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3.6-27b
https://openrouter.ai/google/gemma-3-27b-it
https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3.6-35b-a3b
https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731
DeepSeek V4 Flash is natively FP4 MoE with very compact KV cache. Say 8 GB/s. Qwen 27B is about 60 GB/s at full FP16 precision.
If active weight bandwidth is everything, then wouldn't Qwen 35b a3b (FP8) be roughly half the cost of dsv4f (FP4)?
dsv4f appears bigger and more memory/computationally expensive to run any way I look at it.
> and more memory/computationally expensive to run any way I look at it.
Just speculating, but look at attention. 35B-A3B context is heavier -- about 20GB per 1M tokens vs ~7GB. So if you have ≥10M tokens of context per inference node, then DS4 Flash uses less memory than Qwen 35B.
Qwen attention is probably more computationaly expensive as well.
Also I guess not much interest/competition in serving Qwen edge model.
Yeah, it should be basically free. No idea why it is not. I guess KV cache taking up RAM and possibly bad business sense or amortized engineering costs, I honestly do not know.
Why are you comparing a 2.4 trillion Max model to a 31 billion model?
I am waiting for Qwen 3.8 MoE - last time 3.6 MoE was better on codding that just dense 3.6.
Been trying out Qwen3.8-27B-Q5_K_S_20GB and it's quite interesting it's behaving very well.
Going to give it some coding tasks and see how it goes.
We been eating good at LocalLlama this week.
"Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" - generated a promising image at first shot.
https://avilpage.com/qwen-3.8-27b.html
Really excited to see what people do with this. 3.7 27B was probably the best compromise between size and intelligence to run on consumer hardware
Do you mean 3.6 27b? Because qwen 3.7 didn't have an open weight version
I wish this can run directly on my RTX 4090, seems like 30B is the sweet spot for dense model to run locally, sadly RTX 5090 is very expensive and I need a new PC and new power supply(and UPS) to run that, adding a second RTX 4090 is another option, but not sure if my PC can do that yet.
even a 3090 will give you the VRAM headroom. i run Q8 on an 3090/A6500 combo. well, Q8 of 3.6-27B. I'm building the Q8 GGUF for 3.8 now, assuming mine will finish before someone else's.
Others in this thread said it runs on RTX 4090.
remember to let llama.cpp catch up to anything new in this model. Save your judgment until about 2 weeks of use.
'Good' news, there seems to be nothing new architecture-wise. Same as Qwen 3.5 and 3.6, so llama.cpp doesn't know the difference.
it is amazing folks! it works like charm with 5090
Does anyone have a https://tenstorrent.com/hardware/cards to try it on?
hopefully for us mere mortals without $4k+ hardware a 35B MOE model will be released. or a new prism ternary bonsai model based on this one.
Looks like a pretty significant improvement on the DeepSWE benchmark compared to the previous 27B model.
Wow. Speed improved as well. 200t/s on a RTX 5090!
https://x.com/sgl_project/status/2088281320422322413
All this performance at such small model sizes, why are the API fees so high for the AI monopolists on this side of the world?
I use the Qwens as a vision model for my DeepSeek V4 Flashes to handle. But the Qwens run on old RTX A6000 Ampere. Does anyone know if there's any news about INT4/AWQ quants for the RTX A6000?
Was recently thinking about doing something similar, do you basically just have the qwens describe what they see for the flashes?
Was considering adding a LoRa/vision head to Flash, but seems like it could take a while to get it right.
If DSv4 Flash was multimodal, I’d probably be done model shopping for a while
Same, with a multimodal DSv4 Flash I would just stop paying attention to things. Very smart, and at 260 tok/s it's too fast to care about anything else. If you ever graft something like that I would love to hear about it.
Yes, I have a very dumb flow. The harness has a describe_image tool that takes an image and a prompt and so DSv4 Flash uses it to get an idea of what it's looking at.
Yeah, I might just replicate what you're doing. Main issue right now is just finding spare vram to actually run another model in parallel... And yeah, if I train up a vision adapter somehow, I'll try to put it up/post about it, seems like we're getting the killer apps for local LLMs right now, where it's just feasible enough if you're enthusiastic enough to be a bit economically irrational, and just useful enough to sort of rationalize.
Can anyone who has that specific personal test he tries on different models , and tries this model , to tell us here if possible , how good or bad is this new model ? compared to others ?
I only trust those users genuine personal tests
There is a down to earth guy on YT that performs a series of tests against LLMs running on non-god-tier commodity hardware. He will likely be testing this soon enough.
https://www.youtube.com/@lukesdevlab
I don't know if that is what you are looking for or not and as always your experiences may be different.
So much potential for that channel. He's got a nice range of tests and a no nonsense presentation style.
However, watching tests of heavily quantized models that weren't designed for it (non-QAT) is frustrating. There's no way to tell if the actual model fails because it's dumb or if the lobotomy made it that way.
I noticed he does pay attention to feedback on his videos and I think some people have pointed that out.
thaaanks man, this channel seems really informative, although < 10K subs only !
It's a relatively new channel - but yeah - I feel the guy puts a lot of effort into what he does and deserves more subs.
3.6-27B on little-coder was already mind blowing. looking forward to this guy!
Note: on the model card the comparison to Opus is Opus 4.6 Max, not 4.7
Need to upgrade to a second 3090! Slowly building up my local models with Krea2, MiniMax H3 (and their new Music3), and now Qwen 3.8
also cool: Qwen 3.8 27b is multi modal!
strong visual reasoning apparently, which is nice. still lacking native audio however. hoping for more companies to embrace the spirit of something like `gemma-4-12b-qat` for actual multi-modality (text, image, video, audio).
Why don't qwen/alibaba host the model themselves? I was looking forward to trying it on their coding plan. Google are the same way with their Gemma models.
Pretty sure you can use Gemma models on Google's "Vertex AI".
Monstrous benchmarks! Hoping it is not benchmaxxed.
I thought the same. But why claim something so shocking when it can easily be discredited and puts your reputation at risk? If they’re claiming Opus 4.6 level, I expect it to at least match Sonnet 4.6.
With my 5080 laptop so close yet so far to using this stuff
Is it just me or is 3.6 27B Q8 K XL (Unsloth) holding up better in sustained token/s rate as the context fill increases over time? The token/s rate seems to be much higher for a time period deeper into context than previously seen.
At least as compared to 3.6 27B in the same quantization.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48403639
my prediction was way too far out. 4.6 at home! Woo.
Seems to be SOTA for its size. Hopefully independent benchmarks will come soon.
Welcome deepseek flash flash!
Its so smart!
Kinda was expecting to see Gemma 4 26B in benchmark comparisons :(
Since Qwen 3.6 27b outperforms Gemma 4 26b in most benchmarks I'm not sure the value - also Gemma 26b is a MOE model whereas this is a dense model, so not typically direct competitors at their sizes - Gemma 4 31b comparison would be interesting though.
I see! Thanks.
wow
Is oMLX or MTPLX supported?
Will there be an A4B MoE?
O joyous day!
Waiting for the MTP version to pop up on Unsloth. Speculative decoding makes a huge difference.
Been running quantized 3.6 at 110t/s on a cheap 5060Ti and quite happy with it. If 3.8 improves on it, it would be awesome.
Good news, MTP support is already included in this release. Not sure why they haven't made this clearer.
I don't see an MTP entry on Unsloth though. Maybe it's not available in a lower quant I need for my poor GPU.
Yes.
I don't know much about the production of these models. How hard would it be to 'fork' something like this and have it not be full of CCP indoctrination?
Look for `heretic` fine-tunes in the next couple of days.
Why weren't the points merged again from the "dupe" thread that had 289 points?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49299684
What a weird mechanism. If someone is judging a thread/topic/event impact by the number of points it got, then doing this unfairly degrades that thread.
It should have deduped by user and combined the 168(at the time of writing this comment) + 289 points. Just add the twitter link from the previous thread as an additional link in the description, like you normally do, move all the points over, and remove the old thread.
Can anyone confirm whether this new Qwen release is any more concise when thinking? Overthinking was the biggest (only?) downside of the Qwen models.
I'm hoping to see folks distill this with current generation Opus / Fable reasoning traces. I have had my best results locally so far from Qwopus (Qwen 3.6-27B w/ Opus 4.6 reasoning distilled). This looks GREAT and I am definitely setting this up later today.
This is the homelab model hands down
This with ddg mcp to fill in world knowledge. Are local models the future when computer architectures catch up?
My Strix Halo is about to go overdrive!
I found this kind of amusing while running it (using Pi as the harness). Don't know if this is evidence of intense fine tuning from Claude but it smells like it...
" The user wants me to explore the repository at XXXX and report back. Let me start by understanding the project structure, reading the CLAUDE.md file, and getting a general overview of what this repository is.
Let me start by reading the main project documentation and exploring the directory structure.
I'll take a look around this repo. Let me start by getting a lay of the land.
read resource CLAUDE.md (ctrl+o to expand)
ENOENT: no such file or directory, access 'XXXX/CLAUDE.md'"
need another fable uncensored merge with 3.8, really curious what it can deliver
NICE, i've been waiting for this drop, thanks for posting this
Why is anyone even using video cards these days? You may as well be burning cash.
This is the perfect candidate for just splattering it on your nvme and then reading it off there and into memory. All of these run perfectly fine on simple m4 silicone:
https://github.com/drumih/turbo-fieldfare
https://github.com/leonickson1/Swiftlet
https://github.com/sqliteai/warp
Those are all for MoE models. And I prefer measuring my tokens in t/s instead of s/t
Lol, "burn money on apple hardware instead!"
And yet it's also a laptop you can basically take anywhere unlike a giant video card with 1000 watt power supply requirements.
Nvidia and AMD both have their own unified memory laptop SOCs, now. Apple Silicon's GPU is relatively weak, it's one of the less-efficient ways to use 100w for compute.
Even the fastest Apple Silicon chips like the M5 Max and the M3 Ultra still put up worse GPU compute performance than last-gen laptop RTX 4080 chips. And they don't scale, the largest M3 Ultra cluster you can configure is still ~2,000x smaller than a DGX SuperPOD. There's a reason Apple discontinued their rackmount hardware, there's very little demand for Apple Silicon in the datacenter.