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.

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.

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 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 It just feels outdated/ cherrypicked to not use what by many accounts is the current consumer hardware SOTA if doing such an analysis.

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.

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.

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:", 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).

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.

I've gotten around 16 t/s gen with 4bit and mxfp4 on that model for generation. The 3090 I mentioned has a little over 900 gb/s, while those macs i think are around 270 GB/s. If my understanding is correct, macs do utilize the bandwidth better in this case, but it still doesn't make up the difference (on the 3090 it's around 30-35 t/s depending on size of ctx).

Also, do run a quick experiment removing the cache quants if you want to tinker with it a bit more, iirc KV quant does add a small overhead during prefill.

I would be very interested to know your prefill and generation numbers.

I ran 8 tests on a variety of open-weights models, and opus 4.7 (1mil ctx version) and the little dense model was right behind it: https://github.com/sleepyeldrazi/llm_programming_tests/tree/... Of note is that opus was the only model to push back against the spec on the hardest challenge, saying 'thats not possible', when there are links in the spec to examples of it being done.

There may be problems with the mlx versions, as i haven't had any looping in all the testing i've done, which is all my agentic and coding work the last couple of days (since it dropped). I have had tool_call misses 4 or 5 times so far, which isn't ideal but no looping. First I used it in pi-mono and later when i realized it's a serious model switched to opencode.

My setup is llama.cpp running on a 3090 in WSL, unsloth IQ4_NL with those flags: --ctx-size 128000 \ --jinja \ --temp 0.6 \ --top-p 0.95 \ --top-k 20 \ --min-p 0.0 \ --repeat-penalty 1.0 \ --presence-penalty 0.0 \ --threads 12 \ --gpu-layers 99 \ --no-warmup \ --no-mmap \ -fa on

- Coding task test: https://github.com/sleepyeldrazi/llm_programming_tests/ - Design task test: https://github.com/sleepyeldrazi/llm-design-showcase

Coding was against minimax-m2.7 and glm-5, and the design against other small models

- Implement a numerically stable backward pass for layer normalization from scratch in NumPy.

- Design and implement a high-performance fused softmax + top-k kernel in CUDA (or CUDA-like pseudocode).

- Implement an efficient KV-cache system for autoregressive transformer inference from scratch.

and tested Qwen3.6-27B (IQ4_NL on a 3090) against MiniMax-M2.7 and GLM-5 with kimi k2.6 as the judge (imperfect, i know, it was 2AM). Qwen surpassed minimax and won 2/3 of the implementations again GLM-5 according to kimi k2.6, which still sounds insane to me. The env was a pi-mono with basic tools + a websearch tool pointing to my searxng (i dont think any of the models used it), with a slightly customized shorter system prompt. TurboQuant was at 4bit during all qwen tests. Full results https://github.com/sleepyeldrazi/llm_programming_tests.

I am also periodically testing small models in a https://www.whichai.dev style task to see their designs, and qwen3.6 27B also obliterated (imo) the other ones I tested https://github.com/sleepyeldrazi/llm-design-showcase .

Needless to say those tests are non-exhaustive and have flaws, but the trend from the official benchmarks looks like is being confirmed in my testing. If only it were a little faster on my 3090, we'll see how it performs once a DFlash for it drops.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719744

Points: 2

# Comments: 1