Live data from Hacker News

Qwen 3.8 27B

huggingface.co

41–50 of 848 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#44
Model benchmarks are useful, to a point, but it is the long tail of things you do with the model that determines if it's good at a wide range of activities. Ant/OAI, to their credit, build their models -- even the small ones -- so they follow instructions and do tool calling well, without the system prompts confusing them. This is especially important for long-horizon tool calling.

So one open weight model might "meet" Opus or whatever on benchmarks, but then fail to follow a simple answer format and also tool call correctly. The models are whipped to within an inch of their lives to strictly adhere to their post training quality gates.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#45
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

> 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.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#46
post #7

27b dense model at Opus 4.6 level Opus at home I hope there also will be a new ~10b variant

can you tell me ideas of usecases of 9 or 10B language models ? I cant find any usecases other than training a lora on them to give good bash commands for example

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#47

remember to let llama.cpp catch up to anything new in this model. Save your judgment until about 2 weeks of use.

'Good' news, there seems to be nothing new architecture-wise. Same as Qwen 3.5 and 3.6, so llama.cpp doesn't know the difference.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#48
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

> 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…

> They do not beat opus on real-world usage

We have an internal eval that measures performance on tasks for a handful of embedded systems repos for our mmWave radios (mostly Rust, some C for microcontroller stuff). Qwen3.6-27B scores only 4% lower for pass@1, n=250 compared to Opus-4.8.

For the labeled dataset, the average PR size they're being measured against is around 1.5k SLOC.

This is very much "real-world usage" for us. The sort of change sets that come in daily/weekly and are solving non-trivial issues in the respective codebases.

As is usually the case, the most broad claims from both the labs and from the consequent pushback are talking past each other.

Re: Qwen 3.8 27B

#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

Post reply on HN