Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mistral Medium 3.5

mistral.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 248 posts

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#131

Post by simjnd »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #117
simjnd wrote: post #52

I'm not sure what people are on in the comments. It doesn't beat the other models, but it sure competes despite its size. GLM 5.1 is an excellent model, but even at Q4 you're looking at ~400GB. Kimi K2.5 is really good too, and at Q4 quantization you're looking at almost ~600GB. This model? You can run it at Q4 with 70GB of VRAM. This is approaching consumer level territory (you can get a Mac Studio with 128GB of RAM…

Yeah, you can run it locally if you have enough VRAM, but the reports trickling in are saying about 3 tok/sec. This was on a Strix Halo box which definitely has the needed VRAM, but isn't going to have as high mem bandwidth as a GPU card, it's going to be similar on a Mac - that's the dilemma... the unified memory machines have the VRAM, but the bandwidth isn't great for running dense models. This size of a dense mod…

I don't think this is quite correct, a Strix Halo box usually has 256 GB/s memory bandwidth. An M5 Max has 614 GB/s. An M3 Ultra (no M4 or M5 Ultra) has 820 GB/s. It's still not GDDR or HBM territory, but still significantly faster.

That's the edge of Apple Silicon for AI. When they scale up the chip they add more memory controllers which adds more channels and more bandwidth.

But yeah in the end it's still going to be only a handful of people that can run it.

What I meant is that I think researching and developing smaller more powerful model is more interesting than chasing the next 3T parameter model while burning through VC money and squeezing your customer base more and more aggressively.

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#132

Post by andhuman »

The Vibe CLI is really bad on Windows, sure they don’t officially support it, so can’t blame them, but a FYI for anyone wanting to try it. It can’t get find and replace right.

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#133

Post by [deleted] »

xcrjm wrote: post #121
giancarlostoro wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is insane, if you billed me an extra $200 for a bug in your system I'd flat out cancel my subscription. If you're not going to credit that back to me, you don't deserve anymore of my money. I'm a Claude first guy, but if you're going to bill me incorrectly, that's on you, own it, fix it.

They did credit it back to him. There's a comment in the linked issue.

[deleted]

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#134

Post by simjnd »

xcrjm wrote: post #121
giancarlostoro wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is insane, if you billed me an extra $200 for a bug in your system I'd flat out cancel my subscription. If you're not going to credit that back to me, you don't deserve anymore of my money. I'm a Claude first guy, but if you're going to bill me incorrectly, that's on you, own it, fix it.

They did credit it back to him. There's a comment in the linked issue.

Where? All I see is Boris saying "we are unable to issue compensation for degraded service or technical errors that result in incorrect billing routing".

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#135

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

simjnd wrote: post #52

I'm not sure what people are on in the comments. It doesn't beat the other models, but it sure competes despite its size. GLM 5.1 is an excellent model, but even at Q4 you're looking at ~400GB. Kimi K2.5 is really good too, and at Q4 quantization you're looking at almost ~600GB. This model? You can run it at Q4 with 70GB of VRAM. This is approaching consumer level territory (you can get a Mac Studio with 128GB of RAM…

I would love to be able to run frontier locally, but I think the larger importance of open weight models is price accountability.

In the US with our broken system of capitalism, it’s the only way we can tether these companies to reality. Left to their own devices, I’m not convinced they would actually compete with each other on price.

Buy nobody like to talk about how “moat” building is fundamentally anti-competitive, even in name.

Funny that self proclaimed capitalists hate the system in practice. Commodity pricing is what truly terrifies them.

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#136

Post by kergonath »

Giorgi wrote: post #50

Oh they are still a thing?! Completely forgot about Mistral. I am assuming they are still burning trough investor money.

> they are still burning trough investor money

Difficult to say, this information is not really public. That said, those investors include EU agencies and European multinational companies and governments. It’s not as flashy as the ridiculous sums OpenAI is getting but it should be enough to keep them going for a while.

They also have a different business model. They are selling their expertise to fine tune and adapt their models to on-premises computers (which they can help you build) to handle confidential data and information. I would not be surprised that the revenue they get from normal people is negligible in comparison.

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#137

Post by argee »

MarsIronPI wrote: post #130
xcrjm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did credit it back to him. There's a comment in the linked issue.

Where? Just searched the entire thread for both the word "refund" and the word "credit" and I'm seeing nothing about credit being issued. Also what's with @sasha-id talking to himself? Looks weird as all get out.

Looks like he copy pasted responses he got from their support agents.

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#138

Post by simjnd »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #67
simjnd wrote: post #52

I'm not sure what people are on in the comments. It doesn't beat the other models, but it sure competes despite its size. GLM 5.1 is an excellent model, but even at Q4 you're looking at ~400GB. Kimi K2.5 is really good too, and at Q4 quantization you're looking at almost ~600GB. This model? You can run it at Q4 with 70GB of VRAM. This is approaching consumer level territory (you can get a Mac Studio with 128GB of RAM…

It has similar SWE bench score to qwen 3.6 27b[1]. No one is comparing it to frontier. [1]: There is no other common benchmark in the blog.

That's more a testament of how good Qwen3.6 27B is (it really is great) more than how bad this one is IMO. Gemma 4 31B was already good, but Qwen3.6 27B is incredible for its size.

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#139

Post by simjnd »

kobalsky wrote: post #111
DeathArrow wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This model? You can run it at Q4 with 70GB of VRAM. >This beats the latest Sonnet while running locally Not sure it will beat Sonet at Q4. >This is approaching consumer level territory (you can get a Mac Studio with 128GB of RAM for ~3500 USD). For $3500 I can get 7-8 years of GLM using coding plans, have a faster model and much better code quality.

> For $3500 I can get 7-8 years of GLM mind sharing where's the go to place to pay for open models?

I recommend using OpenRouter (openrouter.ai). Basically a broker between inference providers and you which allows you to pick, try, and switch models from a massive catalog, extremely transparent about usage and pricing.

Re: Mistral Medium 3.5

#140

Post by gnulinux »

gregsadetsky wrote: post #62
simjnd wrote: post #52

I'm not sure what people are on in the comments. It doesn't beat the other models, but it sure competes despite its size. GLM 5.1 is an excellent model, but even at Q4 you're looking at ~400GB. Kimi K2.5 is really good too, and at Q4 quantization you're looking at almost ~600GB. This model? You can run it at Q4 with 70GB of VRAM. This is approaching consumer level territory (you can get a Mac Studio with 128GB of RAM…

I didn't know about HERMES.md ... (??) - found information here for others who are curious https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/53262

This github thread is incredible, thanks for sharing. This link should be its own HN topic.
Post reply on HN