Live data from Hacker News

Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

quesma.com

421–430 of 809 posts

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#421
post #308

If I have 10k to spend, what should I buy for the best local model experience?

You can buy a pair of DGX Sparks and run Deepseek V4 Flash at ~60-70TPS (once DSpark support matures over the next few days).

That will get you a near-frontier experience. DSv4 Flash launched in April with capabilities on par with GLM 5.0, which launched in February.

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#422

I love my MacBook Pro M5 128GB RAM and I love qwen3.6. BUT DO NOT buy this MacBook if you plan on doing serious coding using local LLMs with it. The reason is simple: your fingers will burn and your head will explode from the noise. Running any kind of sophisticated job on the very laptop you are using is just not viable. Sure you can use it in clamshell mode, but forget touching it while working with AI coding or ag…

I just checked apple's website and configured them:

Mac Studio: Ships: 16–18 weeks

Mac mini: Ships: 10–12 weeks

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#423
post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think giving it a year for the hardware market to come back to earth and spending a fraction of that for API access to the same models is a better use of the money.

Implicit in your answer is the belief that they will come back to earth. I wonder how realistic that belief is.

We have decades upon decades of hardware getting dramatically cheaper year over year for the same performance, and ~1 year of the inverse due to dramatic buildout for AI.

It's a surprising example of the recency bias to me to assume anything other than the market returning to its historic norm, even if the AI buildout doesn't slow, producers will scale factories to meet that demand.

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#424
Considering the cloud version, all three models compared in the article (Qwen 3.6 35BA3b, 3.6 27B and DeepSeek V4 Flash), have very similar performance[0], BUT on cloud, for some reason DeepSeek V4 Flash is 10-20x cheaper than the Qwen models.

If Qwen models are so much easier to run, why are the providers charging more than V4 Flash?

[0]: https://aibenchy.com/compare/qwen-qwen3-6-35b-a3b-medium/qwe... <-- compare how the three models draw hamsters svgs, lol

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#425

Running LLMs locally for development doesn’t make sense to me. The hardware gets outdated in just a few years. Even hyperscalers replace their GPUs faster than they can buy them, plus the cost of running it locally, isn’t cheap. the cost saving just ain't there.

From the perspective of LLM inference, you currently mostly care about:

- Memory bandwidth; BUT the requirements are currently capped because models have stopped growing at around 1-1.5 trillion parameters for quite a while now. You only need more bandwidth if you're optimizing for the highest possible concurrency (i.e. you're a cloud provider). Also, MoE exists.

- Support for native low-precision math (like FP4 and FP8); BUT once your GPU supports native FP4 (Blackwell+), there's generally no reason for GPUs to go lower because of the obvious quality degradation.

- VRAM capacity - just like memory bandwidth, it's practically capped by 1-1.5 trillion parameter models and is unlikely to need much more in the near future. Also, the current trend is toward miniaturization: modern 30B-class models (which require far less VRAM), now completely destroy 200B-class models from just two years ago on most tasks. We also have better understanding now how to compress contexts.

Most model improvements currently seem to come from RL/harness-based methods, not from scaling models or running new algorithms that require fundamentally new GPUs.

So I don't see why GPUs that exist today must become "outdated" in a few years. They'll be seen as outdated by hyperscalers because they need to serve the maximum number of users as cheaply as possible, so of course they'll replace their GPUs with newer ones that have higher memory bandwidth or more tensor cores. But you don't need that for local inference.

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you want to run Qwen3.6 27B / 35B at its best, get a MacMini M4 with 64GB of RAM and put it in the basement Im sorry, but its time to start calling Apple sycophants out. Stop trying to push your tech jewelry on other people. You only buy those computers because they are Apple, you don't know anything about computing or running LLMs, you don't do any real work, so you should probably not give advice on what to buy…

I am not going to flag you, I am much OK with having good arguments. I just purchased a Mac Mini M4 Pro 64GB for $3k - 2nd hand of course. I am not a hater of Nvidia and I am planning on building a workstation based on RTX cards. You clearly do not seem to understand how convenient the MacMini actually IS - the form factor, how quiet it is, how durable it is, how well it integrates with other Macs, how well it works…

>You clearly do not seem to understand how convenient the MacMini actually IS - the form factor, how quiet it is, how durable it is, how well it integrates with other Macs, how well it works as a bridge to a personal agent like Hermes (integration with iMessage, Calendar, Reminders, iCloud, etc).

If you are that locked in to Apple, its pretty easy to buy a used Mac Mini older gen for all the non AI stuff.

But this is a discussion about inference. Buying a Mac anything for any sort of local inference is a COLOSSAL waste of money.

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to nail a zero-shot greenfield project is relatively easy even for a small model Not really germane to your comment but I hope I don’t sound old when I say I remember a time when spinning up a PoC was a week of work, and a statement like yours was pure science fiction.

In what era spinning up a PoC required a week of work? Especially on the web. I've been a developer for roughly 20 years and that has never been the case, to the point that I believe people impressed by LLMs are the same who had a very low productivity. Today we have game jams as short as 3 days and talented people are able to produce very good PoC, with some almost complete!

[flagged]

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#428
This is probably the first small model I got through some simple web game tests without having to reset the context. It tends to opt to overwrite an entire file instead of doing edits... which editing is where most of these small models fall apart along with getting stuck in repeating loops. Only 24k tokens in so far, it did some decent newbie work.

Re: Qwen 3.6 27B is the sweet spot for local development

#429

I can come close to agreeing because queen-3.6-27b is my second favorite for local coding. I am using gemma4:26b-a4b-it-qat-48k (the "-48k" is from my modifying a model run with Ollama to always use a 48K context size). On a 32G Mac I use gemma4:26b-a4b-it-qat-48k and OpenCode and on my 16G MacBook Air I use gemma4:12b-it-qat-16k ("-16k" is my resizing context size) and little-coder. I break up projects into small li…

Curious why OpenCode instead of a more 'full-fat' version of Pi with the larger model?

I feel like the amount of context bloat that OpenCode puts these small models into the dumb zone too quickly. The system prompt alone is 9k tokens, and when you add your own setup it can easily creep up to 15k.

Post reply on HN