I don't know about good, I use a lot of local models and they're still pretty painful to run locally You have dense models (qwen 27b, gemma 31b) who are pretty smart, but pretty slow You have MoE models (gemma 26b, qwen 35b, north mini code 30b) who are pretty fast, but make a lot of mistakes You need a lot of memory to run these well, quantization makes tool calling weaker, so most run at 4 bit quants and are wonder…
Running local models is good now
171–180 of 651 posts
Re: Running local models is good now
#172My 2c: I think the "cloud vs local" debate is (maybe) a false dichotomy. In my experience, I use a hybrid approach and I've seen a huge productivity boost from it. The cloud-based models are fine for big and complex tasks, but the pricing is ridiculous for small stuff—like summarizing a discussion or fixing a small bug. And cloud and privacy have never been a good match. As an example, this comment itself was written…
Why not just use DS V4 Flash for the small stuff? Very fast and extremely cheap.
Also, a lot of my day-to-day tasks perform the same on both small and bigger models: summarize a web page, draft a response, translations, quick web search, etc.
Re: Running local models is good now
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO running local models "well" still requires an expensive hardware investment. You really want 96GB of VRAM on a modern Blackwell arch to run these models with decent KV cache. Trying to run them on a unified memory Mac, an AI Max AMD processor, or a DGX Spark-alike is really just asking for trouble. Prefill kills perf. If you throw the right GPUs at the problem, they become much better - but still not quite in the…
Not really, Qwen 27b offloads to a decent gaming GPU (RTX 4090 in my case) without needing tons of RAM.
Re: Running local models is good now
#174I don't know about good, I use a lot of local models and they're still pretty painful to run locally You have dense models (qwen 27b, gemma 31b) who are pretty smart, but pretty slow You have MoE models (gemma 26b, qwen 35b, north mini code 30b) who are pretty fast, but make a lot of mistakes You need a lot of memory to run these well, quantization makes tool calling weaker, so most run at 4 bit quants and are wonder…
i use it usecases like that latter and they are fine.
Re: Running local models is good now
#175Re: Running local models is good now
#176I don't know about good, I use a lot of local models and they're still pretty painful to run locally You have dense models (qwen 27b, gemma 31b) who are pretty smart, but pretty slow You have MoE models (gemma 26b, qwen 35b, north mini code 30b) who are pretty fast, but make a lot of mistakes You need a lot of memory to run these well, quantization makes tool calling weaker, so most run at 4 bit quants and are wonder…
What counts as a lot of memory? What could someone do with 16 GB of RAM?
Re: Running local models is good now
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe we shouldn't be running these models on laptops with their thermally constrained form factor, and we shouldn't expect quick inference on a par with a large cloud-based platform either, at least not for near-SOTA model quality. It's still worth it to avoid becoming massively reliant on centralized services.
I have a 5070 12 GB laptop GPU and can hit 72 tokens per second in the first couple thousand tokens before dropping to mid-high 50s after about 15k context. This setup is extremely optimized down to the last flag. Changing any param above the temp flag craters performance. I don't have enough system RAM to properly handle the large context windows so I don't use local models. # 1,257 tokens 17s 72.18 t/s $env:CUDA_DE…
Re: Running local models is good now
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not going to be as good as Claude, but if you know what you're doing, it may be good enough to get your work done.
A highly skilled carpenter may be able to 'get work done' by banging nails in with a heavy-bottomed cocktail glass, doesn't mean it's not painful to do so when it is continuously breaking and leaving shards of glass all over the workshop for you to find every day for the rest of your life until you clean up the mess you made using the wrong tool for the job.
The carpenter has to get up close and personal with the wood. He can't match the crew's throughput, but maybe that's not what he's trying to do.
Re: Running local models is good now
#179After having been a happy user of Qwen3.6-27B for a few weeks, due to being away from the hardware, I'm currently forced to use Claude Sonnet 4.6 It is such a downgrade. I don't understand how that's even possible. The thing has so many strongly-held opinions I did not ever ask it for, talking just way too much and generally feeling somehow dumber. Of course, being significantly larger, it will encode more knowledge,…
Yep, I daily drive Qwen3.6-27B (including for work), have done pretty much since it came out. IMO it's the only (small-ish, local) model worth using, if you can run it. It might not be as good as Opus at "add X large feature" but I don't want that in a model. I want to do the thinking while it does the typing. And Qwen 3.6 27B is perfectly good at that (while in my experience models like the 35A3B and gemma are signi…
Re: Running local models is good now
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't spent a dime on cloud inference, so cannot make a direct comparison like you. But I can 100% attest to the fact that Qwen3.6-27B is a very capable local model for coding tasks. Over the last month and a half I've been using it almost daily, either on my M2 Ultra or on my RTX 5090 box. I use it for small mundane tasks at ggml-org [0] - nothing really impressive, but definitely a helpful tool for a maintainer…
> About the generation speed: ~100-150 t/s on the RTX 5090 and ~40 t/s on the Mac Curious if you can share the prefill speed too? I run locally on a crappy desktop (some AMD iGPU with Vulkan llama.cpp, 32 GB DDR4 RAM) for experimentation. I get 15 tok/s on generation for the qwen & gemma4 MoE models. I get around 150 tok/s prefill speed. Reason I'm asking about the prefill is looking at my stats at work, I use betwee…
Device 0: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, compute capability 12.0, VMM: yes, VRAM: 32109 MiB
| model | size | params | backend | fa | test | t/s |
| ------------------------------ | ---------: | ---------: | -------- | --: | --------------: | -------------------: |
| qwen35 27B Q4_K - Medium | 15.92 GiB | 27.32 B | CUDA | 1 | pp2048 @ d512 | 3714.02 ± 10.85 |
| qwen35 27B Q4_K - Medium | 15.92 GiB | 27.32 B | CUDA | 1 | pp2048 @ d1024 | 3684.86 ± 15.21 |
| qwen35 27B Q4_K - Medium | 15.92 GiB | 27.32 B | CUDA | 1 | pp2048 @ d2048 | 3650.80 ± 8.53 |
| qwen35 27B Q4_K - Medium | 15.92 GiB | 27.32 B | CUDA | 1 | pp2048 @ d8192 | 3473.88 ± 0.97 |
| qwen35 27B Q4_K - Medium | 15.92 GiB | 27.32 B | CUDA | 1 | pp2048 @ d32768 | 2754.69 ± 4.07 |
ggml_metal_device_init: GPU name: MTL0 (Apple M2 Ultra)
| model | size | params | backend | fa | test | t/s |
| ------------------------------ | ---------: | ---------: | -------- | -: | --------------: | -------------------: |
| qwen35 27B Q8_0 | 26.62 GiB | 26.90 B | MTL | 1 | pp2048 @ d512 | 379.75 ± 0.21 |
| qwen35 27B Q8_0 | 26.62 GiB | 26.90 B | MTL | 1 | pp2048 @ d1024 | 377.15 ± 0.35 |
| qwen35 27B Q8_0 | 26.62 GiB | 26.90 B | MTL | 1 | pp2048 @ d2048 | 371.46 ± 0.91 |
| qwen35 27B Q8_0 | 26.62 GiB | 26.90 B | MTL | 1 | pp2048 @ d8192 | 344.84 ± 0.41 |
| qwen35 27B Q8_0 | 26.62 GiB | 26.90 B | MTL | 1 | pp2048 @ d32768 | 222.42 ± 5.29 |
Btw, based on your numbers, I think our use cases are quite different. I use the agent for very targeted sessions - basically things that are clear to me how to do, just want to automate them. My workflow is usually: new session -> read this, this and this -> do that. I.e. I don't let it wander at all in the codebase, so I rarely exceed the context window.Also, I get a lot of mileage from the ngram-based speculative decoding functionality [0] as it allows me to iterate on the implementation much faster.