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

Qwen 3.8 27B

huggingface.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 848 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#61

Post by xienze »

KronisLV wrote: post #45
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #34

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.

> but then we just need meaningful benchmarks that clearly show that!

That's the rub. AI benchmarks are IMO, by and large totally unreliable. We think of them as similar to traditional benchmarks of deterministic processes where the number of variables is low. But they're anything but that. Non-deterministic processes with an astounding number of variables and fuzzy acceptance criteria.

It leads to results like these, where if you take it at face value, the only conclusion you can draw is "wow Anthropic must be stupid if Opus takes 1T parameters to do what Qwen can do in 27B."

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#63

Post by gurkwart »

tosh wrote: post #29

also cool: Qwen 3.8 27b is multi modal!

strong visual reasoning apparently, which is nice. still lacking native audio however. hoping for more companies to embrace the spirit of something like `gemma-4-12b-qat` for actual multi-modality (text, image, video, audio).

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#64

Post by ramon156 »

People will claim it's not comparable to Opus despite it beating the score. I'm not sure I disagree, but I'm also unsure whether I care. Most new models nowadays are "good enough". I cannot complain because I'd rather spend that time improving my prompts and docs. Opus might be a _slight bit better_ at picking up vague hints, but it's also extremely expensive, and I hit the 5 hour limit way too quick.

I care a lot about speed and efficiency right now. For my setup I would like to have 2-3 different model families. I've settled on GLM-5.3 (formerly Deepseek v4 pro 0813) for architecting, Deepseek V4 Pro 0813 for developing, and Gemini flash lite (any recent cheap model) for repo scouting. I'll add another one in the mix for reviewing (in this case Gemini 3.7) and that's all I need.

I've tried most models except Grok.

Qwen is too expensive IMO (Alibaba Cloud subscriptions are hard to come by and I'm not spending 50 euros a month for a tool, so 18 euros it is). If it ever becomes efficient enough to run locally I will definitely look back.

Claude is slow and expensive (the cache hit prices are absurd).

OAI is pretty good, I might add it to my arsenal seeing how cheap it is.

These opinions change every day. Last week I would've never picked Deepseek until I read about the pricing. even post aug 16 it's worth it (although it's getting close to gemini pricing).

Right now my costs are 12 euros a month (z.ai) + whatever deepseek consumes. This typically isn't more than 8 euros a week. 44 euros a month and I have a setup that is doing pretty well.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#65

Post by baron3dl »

synergy20 wrote: post #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.

even a 3090 will give you the VRAM headroom. i run Q8 on an 3090/A6500 combo. well, Q8 of 3.6-27B. I'm building the Q8 GGUF for 3.8 now, assuming mine will finish before someone else's.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#66

Post by martinald »

Alifatisk wrote: post #59
KronisLV wrote: post #10

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?

You can run these on CPUs at a somewhat reasonable speed.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#67

Post by Foobar8568 »

scrlk wrote: post #8

Beats Opus 4.7 Max (w/ Claude Code) on DeepSWE (42.2 vs 40). Looks like Qwen's 27B models continue to pack some punch. Unsloth's GGUF quants are up: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF

Considering the clusterfuck that is opus 5 or even fable, if Qwen 27B is trully better than Opus 4.7 Max, I will rejoice.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#68

Post by hypfer »

ramon156 wrote: post #64

People will claim it's not comparable to Opus despite it beating the score. I'm not sure I disagree, but I'm also unsure whether I care. Most new models nowadays are "good enough". I cannot complain because I'd rather spend that time improving my prompts and docs. Opus might be a _slight bit better_ at picking up vague hints, but it's also extremely expensive, and I hit the 5 hour limit way too quick. I care a lot ab…

> I've settled on GLM-5.3 (formerly Deepseek v4 pro 0813) for architecting

Dude, GLM-5.3 released _today_.

The phrasing "I've settled on" is incorrect for this context.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#69

Post by ramon156 »

hypfer wrote: post #68
ramon156 wrote: post #64

People will claim it's not comparable to Opus despite it beating the score. I'm not sure I disagree, but I'm also unsure whether I care. Most new models nowadays are "good enough". I cannot complain because I'd rather spend that time improving my prompts and docs. Opus might be a _slight bit better_ at picking up vague hints, but it's also extremely expensive, and I hit the 5 hour limit way too quick. I care a lot ab…

> I've settled on GLM-5.3 (formerly Deepseek v4 pro 0813) for architecting Dude, GLM-5.3 released _today_. The phrasing "I've settled on" is incorrect for this context.

hence the "former deepseek v4 pro". I tried it out this morning and have had no complaints. I already liked glm 5.2

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#70

Post by versteegen »

DanielHB wrote: post #51
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #21

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?

IME using 5.6 Luna and DS V4 Flash, I notice that although they are excellent at programming, even Opus-like in the way they try to debug, the thing they are worst at is inferring user intent and making good decisions with little information. They are absolutely terrible at that, will misinterpret small wording ambiguities. I suspect that's an ability you can't add with RL training, that it requires the depth of understanding from vast pre-training.
Post reply on HN