Live data from Hacker News

Qwen 3.8 27B

huggingface.co

51–60 of 848 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#51

If the benchmarks don't lie, this is getting very close to Opus 4.6 capability - which was the turning point for me for when AI was "good enough" that it became very hard to justify not using it. I'm sure there's some benchmaxxing going on, and some things you get only with a a larger model. But I'm feeling pretty confident if not by Gemma 5 than by mid 2028 we'll have local models that are almost always as good as O…

What kind of things you only get with a larger model?

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beats Opus 4.7 Max I'm a huge open model fan, and have used them since forever, even have daily drivers for on-prem dev, but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage. Qwen models are impressively good for what they are, are "good enough" for plenty tasks, can be ran locally on decently priced hardware, and so on. They certainly have their uses, and the field in general has advanced faster than my early expecta…

> ...but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage. I agree, but then we just need meaningful benchmarks that clearly show that! Otherwise it's hand waving about something that should be put on paper in quantifiable terms.

A wise man once said, "not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#53

Kinda was expecting to see Gemma 4 26B in benchmark comparisons :(

Since Qwen 3.6 27b outperforms Gemma 4 26b in most benchmarks I'm not sure the value - also Gemma 26b is a MOE model whereas this is a dense model, so not typically direct competitors at their sizes - Gemma 4 31b comparison would be interesting though.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beats Opus 4.7 Max I'm a huge open model fan, and have used them since forever, even have daily drivers for on-prem dev, but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage. Qwen models are impressively good for what they are, are "good enough" for plenty tasks, can be ran locally on decently priced hardware, and so on. They certainly have their uses, and the field in general has advanced faster than my early expecta…

> ...but no. They do not beat opus on real-world usage. I agree, but then we just need meaningful benchmarks that clearly show that! Otherwise it's hand waving about something that should be put on paper in quantifiable terms.

Only useful benchmarks are those you (in particular) don't have access to.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#56
I wish this can run directly on my RTX 4090, seems like 30B is the sweet spot for dense model to run locally, sadly RTX 5090 is very expensive and I need a new PC and new power supply(and UPS) to run that, adding a second RTX 4090 is another option, but not sure if my PC can do that yet.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#57
Qwen 3.6 is ~$2/m tok, 3.8 should be drop in replacement. Gemma 31B is $0.34/m tok. The price differential on these models is massive on openrouter.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#58
post #50

Can anyone who has that specific personal test he tries on different models , and tries this model , to tell us here if possible , how good or bad is this new model ? compared to others ? I only trust those users genuine personal tests

There is a down to earth guy on YT that performs a series of tests against LLMs running on non-god-tier commodity hardware. He will likely be testing this soon enough.

https://www.youtube.com/@lukesdevlab

I don't know if that is what you are looking for or not and as always your experiences may be different.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#59

I hope really badly that we'll get a new 35B A3B or similar MoE model! I also miss the Qwen 3 Coder Next, which was 80B A3B, there are quite a few use cases where a non-dense model Also alternate link for viewing the images without signing in: https://xcancel.com/Alibaba_Qwen/status/2088280182356611304

> I'd gladly take A5B or A8B or even A10B as a sort of middle ground.

Whats up with focusing on the active param count? Do yall fiddle with the weights or something?

Post reply on HN