News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google releases Gemma 4 open models by petu on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:59PM (#47620105)
Qwen 3.5 27B is dense, so (I think) should be compared to Gemma 4 31B.

Or Gemma-4 26B(-A4B) should be compared to Qwen 3.5 35B(-A3B)

Re:Google releases Gemma 4 open models by redman25 on Thursday April 02, 2026 @05:38PM (#47620543)
Exactly, compare MoE with MoE and dense with dense otherwise it's apples and oranges.
Re:Google releases Gemma 4 open models by swalsh on Thursday April 02, 2026 @08:00PM (#47621796)
Its coding to coding. I could care less how the model is architected, i only care how it performs in a real world scenario.
Re:Google releases Gemma 4 open models by daemonologist on Thursday April 02, 2026 @09:43PM (#47622387)
The implication is that there is (should be) a major speed difference - naively you'd expect the MoE to be 10x faster and cheaper, which can be pretty relevant on real world tasks.
Re:Google releases Gemma 4 open models by petu on Friday April 03, 2026 @03:05AM (#47623998)
If you don't care about how it's architectured, why you care about size? Compare it to Q3.5 397B-A17B.

Just like smaller size models are speed / cost optimization, so is MoE.

G4 26B-A4B goes 150 t/s on 4090/5090, 80 t/s on M5 Max. Q3.5 35B-A3B is comparably fast. They are flash-lite/nano class models.

G4 31B despite small increase in total parameter count is over 5 times slower. Q3.5 27B is comparably slow. They are approximating flash/mini class models (I believe sizes of proprietary models in this class are closer to Q3.5 122B-A10B or Llama 4 Scout 109B-A17B).