Live data from Hacker News

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

qwen.ai

151–160 of 246 posts

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#151
post #25

It's in Unsloth Desktop already. Looks like it's 73GB, so 128GB Mac or Strix Halo etc will work. Exciting!

73GB for the 1 bit model...

It's not 1 bit. It's ~4bit for n-gram and ~2.8bit for the model. Not idea why it's called Q1, but likely it's preliminary quant just for PR testing / very likely to be remade after llama.cpp support is merged.

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If/when we can get larger context this will mostly be mitigated by these smaller models being able to search the internet. Self-learning/improving would be even better but that's still a long way to go.

Search results suck because the web sucks these days. The big models from OpenAI/Anthropic have every book in existence baked into them

Does it really matter? What about including all relevant and up-to-date literature as skills for local models? I have no experience with this but I am pretty sure someone has already thought about it.

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#153
In initial testing on Ryzen 395 / Strix Halo it's about 22 tokens/s generation and the output quality is impressive. Better and faster than 3.8 27B, and enough better to justify moving away from 3.6 35B even though 35B is still faster. The Unsloth weights don't come with vision support but you can add that back yourself. llama.cpp recipe in case anyone else wants to save some time on setup: https://pastebin.com/fcqsbDTv

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#154

In initial testing on Ryzen 395 / Strix Halo it's about 22 tokens/s generation and the output quality is impressive. Better and faster than 3.8 27B, and enough better to justify moving away from 3.6 35B even though 35B is still faster. The Unsloth weights don't come with vision support but you can add that back yourself. llama.cpp recipe in case anyone else wants to save some time on setup: https://pastebin.com/fcqsb…

> Better... than 3.8 27B

How can a "6b active per token" MoE be better than a just released 27b in the same family? Possible maybe, but quite interesting and requiring some explanation.

Edit: ok, on second thought, probably because the small "experts" are really rich in specialized training compared to the dense model. Still raising questions about the details, e.g. the reasoning abilities (or all meta-skills) of a "6b per token" network compared to the dense capabilities...

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#155

In initial testing on Ryzen 395 / Strix Halo it's about 22 tokens/s generation and the output quality is impressive. Better and faster than 3.8 27B, and enough better to justify moving away from 3.6 35B even though 35B is still faster. The Unsloth weights don't come with vision support but you can add that back yourself. llama.cpp recipe in case anyone else wants to save some time on setup: https://pastebin.com/fcqsb…

We should still expect significant performance improvements.

I believe Unsloth’s branch (and ggml’s) don’t support MTP or the ngram embedding yet.

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#156
For the impatient, I merged llama.cpp tentative branches to get it running here https://github.com/alainnothere/llama.cpp/tree/disk-cache-ev..., thing runs at 23.54 token/sec and my setup runs at high 30 the 3.8 dense 27B.

and this is the pelican from the iq4_xs model https://github.com/alainnothere/llama.cpp/blob/disk-cache-ev...

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argument was that open ai cannot be profitable with this. But sure, use it while you can.

You can make the other argument that China subsidizes the price and that they can't be profitable at this pricing level. From an industrial strategy standpoint, they already do this for many other industries with huge subsidized state loans. So we can go round and round on this, each with our made-up objections about how it's temporary or unrealistic or impossible or whatever, or we can just accept the prices as list…

Private companies cannot play that game too long. Profit from current state of AI is a mirage and sooner or later stuff will hit the fan.

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#158
post #21

Adding to my homelab stack, hopefully it doesn't overthink like the little model. Actually, hoping it thinks a bit less. Wait actually I'm really praying it reasons a bit more directly. But wait, I'm really sure that it must be a bit better.

Since you're running through the trouble of setting that up, if its 125B params, but only 6B is activated, does that mean you mainly need to allocate enough VRAM for that much of the model? Or do you still need enough VRAM for the whole thing (and buffer for context window)? Or maybe anyone can inform me, this is one area I'm uninformed in.

I believe that at minimum, for usable performance, you need to be able to hold the 125B params + 51B ngrams in some sort of RAM.

Ideally VRAM, but the benefit of the MoE design is better performance with unified memory since most of that RAM is not read for every single token. So you could potentially have the model loaded in CPU RAM, and let unified memory systems page the relevant chunks on demand to VRAM, or run on a fully unified memory system and be able to achieve good speeds even with the limited memory bandwidth most of them have.

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#159
post #21

Adding to my homelab stack, hopefully it doesn't overthink like the little model. Actually, hoping it thinks a bit less. Wait actually I'm really praying it reasons a bit more directly. But wait, I'm really sure that it must be a bit better.

What kind of machine do you have in your homelab that can run this model?!

I've got a 48c Epyc with 2x3090s and 512gb ddr4 3200. It's good enough for 25+ tps with deepseek so I'm hoping for similar performance with less overthinking.

Re: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

#160

Waiting for llama.cpp support to land, but this might be a big deal for Strix Halo users. 6B active params helps around the memory bandwidth constraints, but a 128GB box can probably run the Q3/Q4 quants fairly easily with a decent context size. This might actually be better for strix users than 27B, which was already very good.

In my early testing it's way better both quality and speed on Strix Halo (posted recipe in sibling comment).
Post reply on HN