sleepyeldrazi

2 things, 1st: Alibaba's official endpoint pricing. they don't want to undercut too much as there is profit to be made to be close to it but not too low

2nd, and maybe more importantly: KV is not as efficient (vram usage-wise) as something like deepseek v4 flash. for 256k, fp8 kv is 9.3gb (full precision ~17.3gb). deepseek v4 flash is ~2.5b for the same size at full precision (which is fp4/8, if you are interested in it, read the paper, its pretty cool).

Doing the math, hosting 27B at NVFP4 (~23gb) with 2.3M total ctx (9 agents) matches the vram usage of ds v4 flash for the same 2.3M ctx (2.3 agents). the break point is 1.5M (6 27B agents) if you use full precision 27B.

To be clear, the qwen3.5 architecture (what 3.8 uses) is still considered decent in terms of KV efficiency, its just that dsv4f's architecture is SOTA in that space, and with the lower active params, you get better max kv scaling and higher speed serving that, if you have a lot of gpus.

yeah, I was confused during the whole thing, i get 70 t/s on a 3090, which evens out around 50 t/s at 128k+ , have been running 3.6 and now 3.8 (both iq4_nl at 256k q4 kv) on the 3090 for months. I am confused as to what we 'discovered' here, it's a common config. and at less than 1/2 the price of the gpu (and double the bandwidth, though no fp4 cores to be fair).

MTP is lossless in the sense that running a model with and without (at temp=0, meaning no randomness) will produce identical results. It's true that with enough samples across domains and runs with MTP it should even out around concrete numbers, but I don't have time currently for long tests. On a quick test (before I remembered MTP is on), 27B was around 60-70 ts and 35B around 180-200 ts, both going up and down but mostly in those ballparks, which is inline with the ~3x from not using MTP.

One somewhat related thing is that, without drafters (the models doing just generation) ts tends to slowly go down, while with drafters, as the model is "checking drafts" instead of pure generation, even when the avg ts has fallen to say 50 ts (27B, ~128k ctc for example), there still tend to be random spikes to up to 70 (mostly during coding), which is always funny to me but also makes models a bit more "resilient" to the slow degradation of ts.

Ran a quick test so that we both have accurate numbers, without MTP* at 10k ctx 27B hovers around 42 ts in llama.cpp, 35B around 135 ts. So not the 8x I assumed, just over 3x, but thats still a big difference.

For the sake of testing I turned MTP off, as that heavily depends on what the generated text is (structured text like code is very often a lot more predictable, therefore bigger boosts) and the quality of the quantization, as drafters learn how to "mimic" the full precision generated tokens, so when you layer the fact that MTP is a 'guesser' of the main model's next token, and quantization affecting what exact token is generated, it'd make comparisons like this needlessly noisy.

Speed is (for the most part) active-parameter based, so a 30B-A3B model is roughly 10x the speed of a dense 30B (realistically closer to 8x) in the case when both fit. That's the proposition of MoE and why everyone is trying to make massive models with very few active params, so that they are still fast while having access to a lot of knowledge (at the cost of reasoning, as reasoning ability 'for the most part' comes from active params).

You can test this by running this nemo or 35B on the 3090. I have and its very fun (but sadly a worse model than 27B, so I usually keep 27B on my 3090)

loading the model would be similar vram footprint, correct, however the size of KV is based on 'active' params, not total params. So while at 1k ctx both will be in the same ballpark vram footprint-wise, at 100k the story will be very different. 27B at q4 kv for 256k takes ~8gb, while 35B at q4 kv around ~3.5gb, so at full precision kv those would be ~32gb and ~14gb (all ballparks, if you want exact numbers, its not hard to test).

As for the "cost", here i think the interesting arguments are around speed vs accuracy/"getting the job done", not literal $ cost per token.

Not by the looks of it, but it got me thinking, currently in the middle of Level1Techs coverage on the model and switchyard and he mentions "how easy it is to customize it". Fully admitting that I haven't yet read the docs, my issue with that is "we can train LORAs for 35B as well, why use this (according to benchmarks) worse model for customization instead of a slightly bigger better one?"

Assuming I eat my words after going through the docs and this is actually a more efficient model / loras adapt better, I don't see as much value in it as is, as a REAP of it (remove least-important experts, domain-locked tests show ~98% retained accuracy) to something like 20B-A3B (rouhgly matching gpt oss, which while a good model, is outdated knowledge-wise and not as good with tool in my xp).

Having a 20B-A3B model at q4 that has a lora to be your local orchestrator (delegating coding to server/cloud models) and ci/cd runner does start sounding like an appealing proposition to me, as that would fit in 16gb vram easily (fitting many consumer gpus and 24gb macs).

I got it off kleinanzeigen, its a ebay-like site (but mostly 'pick it up yourself' instead of delivery). Looking at it right now, i do see multiple sales for 850-900. I did spot the 750 one after frequenting the site for a week or two, so it may be a bit of a 'better than average' deal, and it seems most are in the 1k euro range, but there are a handful available under.

As of writing this, it shows 24 offers between 700 and 950.

I can't speak for the US, but in Germany (where hardware is usually more expensive, not less), I got my 3090 3 months ago for 750 euro and have been running the iq4_nl 27B using q4 kv (which after recent patches in llama.cpp is in my xp indistinguishably accurate from q8 of f16) at full ctx, with MTP at 2, peaking around 70 t/s on small ctx, around 50 t/s when im around 64k and ends around 40 t/s near the cap. The rest of the PC is a 50 euro ddr3 16gb i5 4th gen box, absolutely nothing special. And this setup is often more useful than dsv4pro (and sometimes kimi, but not glm) for research and ML work.

I need to ask, since I have desperately wanted to make Gemma 4 12B work, but im not sure if its the quant (i usually up it to q8, which is a lot higher than iq4_nl that i use for 3.6 27B) or the model itself, but it just starts confusing itself really quickly when I give it coding tasks. And quickly starts failing tool calls.

I really want to have a model that i can run locally on my 24gb m4 pro mbp for when i don't have internet to connect to my 3090 running the qwen, and i love how gemma 4 models 'feel', but i can't make them be competent. I am in the middle of finetuning both qwen3.5 9B and gemma 4 12B just to try and make those bridge closer to 27B for coding/agentic tasks (and am trying to ternarize and DQT 27B so that it fits in ~9gb pre-KV).

How do you run the gemma? What do you use it for (and in what harness), maybe llama.cpp and pi-mono just aren't for this model and that's what i'm doing wrong.

I've been running it almost since launch on a 3090 (24gb vram), you really don't need that much. Second hand those are really cheap and i get 50-70 t/s (with MTP at 2), full ctx. IQ4_NL (unsloth) on this model seems suspiciously competent, and after the (by now not so recent) updates to q4 KV on llama.cpp, I just keep going back to it after dsv4pro disappointed me for the 100th time because it gave up on a task.

Inspired by [https://github.com/antirez/ds4](ds4), [https://github.com/CerebrasResearch/reap](REAP) and [https://huggingface.co/0xSero/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-162B](OxSero's Deepseek v4 reap) I wanted to push and see how much performance can be extracted from a single DGX Spark. It should also work day one (hopefully) on the upcoming Spark devices.

I made three versions, one with 128 experts kept, one with 150 and the biggest (borderline fitting one) with 180 experts out of 256. Experts kept are based around coding / agentic / research workloads.

Goal is to have a higher-precision (NVFP4) option to run the model, the original full ds4 already runs the IQ2XXS version. Custom CUDA kernels are written to try and best align the NVFP4 models to the Spark.

The K180 runs at around 119/122GB ram usage at the full 1M context, tested up to 32k prefill and was stable. For best memory efficiency, you might need DS4_CUDA_MANAGED_MODEL=1 DS4_KV_TURBO=1. More memory/bandwidth optimizations are coming, after that I plan on tackling re-adjusting the MTP heads (which would require re-training them on the new architectures).

Benchmarking hasn't been done yet, as I have mostly been busy with the CUDA. Treat as experimental.

Model links: https://huggingface.co/sleepyeldrazi/DeepSeek-v4-Flash-REAP-... https://huggingface.co/sleepyeldrazi/DeepSeek-v4-Flash-REAP-... https://huggingface.co/sleepyeldrazi/DeepSeek-v4-Flash-REAP-...

That's why I like qwen3.6 27B, it has 0 ego, it knows that it doesn't have complete world knowledge, so when it sees a web_search tool it searches all the time. Even qwen3.5 9B is mostly search-eager (but given the size, it's weaker on reasoning on the results if that's needed). I use a stock pi harness with only web_search and web_fetch (cleans up the html to only keep text) tools defined.

I have given up on making Opus actually retrieve online information for me. At this point I only query it side by side with qwen to laugh at how it didn't even attempt to search properly, and how a small local model is beating it every time. Gemini is very fast for searching, but somehow miss-sources all the time.

Opus also has a deeply ingrained personality that always de-rails sneakily into what it's taught, not what the user intends. This is good if the user doesn't know the details of the work they need performed and a huge time waste when the user knows exactly how something needs to be implemented.

I have found claude models, especially fable, to be impossible to work with when the work requires reading papers from days ago and reasoning on top of the findings in it. I have multiple long sessions with opus (not as many with fable as it got taken down quickly) where it keeps fighting me on problems, sayings "that's not how it works" / "that is not possible", followed by me linking the paper (after i've told it to actually read up on the latest research in this field), and it hits me with the usual "You were right.". If your workflow is using the exact tools, frameworks, git layouts that claude expects, it can be magical, yes. But it is very heavily optimized to never say 'I am not sure' (as that gives 'bad vibes') and instead lean on its (nowadays with the speed of things DOE) knowledge to formulate a reasonable sounding answer, dissectible only if you already know the answer beforehand (which defeats the purpose of using it in the first place).

Qwen3.6 27B (the only <100B model worth looking at in my experience) is dumb, knows it, and will fight tooth and nail to complete the task it was given, gaining the needed context (online or file-wise) in the meantime. If you mention it should read papers, it goes and reads a pile of papers. If you tell it 'implement MCP in my app', the result will (probably) be catastrophic. If you instead describe where the feature should sit, how it should handle edge cases, what use cases it needs to attend to, and to first look online for reference implementations, it does it and does it well.

Knowing what is in context, what should and shouldn't be there, and how to manage it for the specific model you are using (as every model, even in the same family, behaves differently to differently worded prompts) is what makes or breaks them. They are just auto-complete, they complete text based on what is already there, it's not magic.

So yes, while this small open-weights models are not opus 4.5, it's good precisely because if that, because it is a good tool and a bad 'coworker replacement'. If you want the latter, kimi is already there, it has started to not believe the user and do what it was taught just like claude models (which is helpful when you don't care about implementation specifics or performance/security). GLM models (mostly 5.1, i haven't tested 5.2 extensively yet) have fixed a lot of low-level programming issues I've had that opus just walks in circles and writes reports that "it doesn't/can't work". That is to say, open-weights, in many cases, have already surpassed Opus. I can't comment on gpt 5.5, but while I used 5.4, it also performed a lot more tasks without being fussy than opus 4.6/4.7.

Have you tested Qwen3.6 35B? Putting aside the capability claims for that model (which I support, but are not my point here), that 35B has smaller active parameter count than the gemma 4 26B, potentially making both prefill and decode faster out of the box, and has MTP heads built in the model and well supported (you may need to make sure you download a quant that didn't strip them off, as some do to preserve space). I would be curious to see your numbers there too. And if you do test this, please go for a clean one and not a fine-tuned one.

Finetuning takes little resources, the base model training is the slow and expensive part. Architecturally 3.5 models are identical to their 3.6 counterparts, that is why there is a consensus that those are probably finetunes and not re-trained from scratch, like you will se many people publish their own on huggingface.

The best thing I have come up with is just make a bunch of prompts / tasks that I personally care about and need a model to know how to do. As an example, when qwen3.6 27B dropped, I ran it, kimi, claude and glm 5/5.1 on a bunch of LLM-architecture specific tasks (stuff like 'implement an incremental KV-cache for autoregressive transformer inference' or 'implement flash Attention backward pass with D-optimization') and analyze the results, who made tests, are the tests valid, does their implementation actually work or are they only claiming it to, that sort of thing.

It is a day/weekend worth of work, but I think this is the best way to determine if the model fits your need specifically. This is what lead me to finding out that qwen 27b outperformed even kimi on those tasks, and that opus tries gaslighting me when I give it a spec of something that has been proven, but no published solution exists online. All other models gave their best shot at solving it, opus just said it's not possible (even when I gave it the finished working product that obviously works).

Especially for small models (but also big ones) I think the only way to know if a model will improve your workflow is this, personal benchmarks, expanded over time, ran in private.

I don't think I can handle another small model release by qwen, I'm still trying to find the limits of 3.6 27B and they are already threatening us with a new one?

But jokes aside, I love the fast iteration, these are most probably again finetunes on the 3.5 architecture that appear better in internal testing, which is still very nice to see. Putting more and more pressure on the bigger labs to perform better is always a good thing.

I feel like if I had the infrastructure and saw that there is a huge interest in the model, i'd just undercut alibaba's prices a little harder to grab all the consumers. I am sure that the providers have done the math and found that there is a reason not to do this (compute-bound if too many users?), but the delta is very stark, especially for output. Last I checked the cheapest 27b on openrouter was 2$ out vs 0.38$ for the 31b.

But I do agree that the openrouter prices aren't a strong signal and probably should have worded it a little better. It's just a really stark and 'in your eyes' gap.

If you want a good dense model, use qwen3.6 27B instead, speed will be up, and if you don't take my word for it being smarter, take openrouter's prices of it against the bigger, slower and less memory-efficient gemma do the talking.

If you want a faster model, go for qwen3.6 35B (or gemma 4 26B if gemma models perform better for your tasks). There is a reason why people (myself included) haven't shut up about those two (especially the 27B). Its small enough to run at a decent speed (especially with the built in MTP that finally has official llama.cpp support) and for many workloads (every benchmark I have ever thrown at it) it is matching or surpassing models it has no right to.

A couple of days ago I woke up with my internet being down, started 27B in pi, told it to diagnose whats wrong by giving it my router's password, went to grab a coffee and by the time I got back, i had a full report with suggestion on how to proceed. I love openrouter and I use it for many things, but it is not cheaper.

Subjectivity and opinions based on personal experience with all those models implied naturally, I assume the 31B gemma has cases in which it edges out, I've just failed finding any and I have been running all 4 models mentioned since hours after each of them dropped nonstop for different tasks. Hell, for my hermes, I've started getting better results once I switched from gemma 4 26B to qwen3.5 9B, not even the massively improved 3.6 series. It just feels outdated/ cherrypicked to not use what by many accounts is the current consumer hardware SOTA if doing such an analysis.

It is actually very exciting that they are also working on 3.5, I will keep this toy project up in the meantime, trying it out and testing things around it helps me learn a bunch.

As for the treating them as a block idea, that was my initial plan, but the GatedDeltaNet is doing most of the work in 3.5. Trying to bundle them together would hurt acceptance rates drastically, potentially making the speed benefits not a lot bigger, or smaller, than the native MTP.

Think of this as another way of achieving that. This theoretically has a higher ceiling of how much it can predict at a time. And more importantly is a lot more memory efficient during actual inference.

If anyone is interested in watching my 0.8B experiments: https://orthrus.kokoham.com/ . The current code is here: https://git.kokoham.com/sleepy/qwen_orthrus .

The hard part was that the original Orthrus works with transformers, but 3.5(and 3.6) is Hybrid: 75% GatedDeltaNet + 25% GatedAttention. I am testing a trick that might make is work with the GatedDeltaNet, and dry runs are promising, but only a full train will reveal if it works. More information in the repo and on the site under the "What is this all about?" button.

Note: i may restart it or try different configs at different points, if the site is down there is probably some sort of result/conclusion in the repo.

My plan is to validate it first using qwen3.5 0.8B if it even works (as it has the same architecture as qwen3.6 27b, just scaled down a bit) on my 3090. If it does, I'll make a git about the process if anyone wants to use my approach, while I try to convince my uni to lend me h100s for a day.

Scratch that, I don't have that kind of money, and 3.5's architecture is a little more divergent from 3's, so it will be a bit less trivial. It does look possible, just not on a student's paycheck.

From a quick and shallow view of the paper, it looks very feasible (with a little tinkering ) to be adapted to qwen3.6 27B. The process looks somewhat similar to training a LoRA, or in a way distilling your own model so that a mini model learns how to imitate it, and you glue them. I might bite the bullet and rent a gpu to do it for 3.6 27b, as this will solve a lot of my problems.

I love this community, I started building a simple website for this exactly a couple of hours ago and you made an even more advanced version already. Hats off to you sir.

If i ever decide to actually publish the site, is it alright if I mention you somewhere as a "If you want a more accurate estimation, check out this project:<your repo>", as i think there is value in having a simple website estimate this information for you, and give you instructions/ common flags on how to start it yourself (also a prompt crafted for you to optionally give to an llm to set it up for you), but im going off simple "choose an os, gpu/vram, here's a list of options" and not actually scanning (which is a lot more accurate).

I specifically tested on tasks I designed because I know every modern model, not only local ones, are bechmaxxed. The common benchmarks most labs use are (very likely) in their datasets to a degree (I'm assuming unintentionally, but is still highly probable) and there was a recent report on how easy it is to actually cheat them, as shown by people at UC Berkeley https://rdi.berkeley.edu/blog/trustworthy-benchmarks-cont/

That is precisely why my testing has been daily driving the model for everything + 8 tasks in a domain I care about. Could there be something very similar in their datasets? Of course, at least for most of the tasks, but if that lead to the good performance experience and results I'm getting, I am personally ok with that. I don't care how high the numbers are on the common benchmarks, only if it works well enough for me.

And if this model doesn't work for you, that's perfectly ok. Everyone has different needs from models. I was just impressed that it did for me, as it was a first from a local model.