Finally, a reason to own a 128GB Strix Halo or GB10 device. Or a reason to consider the new Mac Studio.
I have a Strix Halo and dual 32GB GPUs in my desktop, and the latter is pretty much always better for running local models because it's quite a bit faster due to higher memory bandwidth. There simply haven't been any models that are better than Qwen 27B or Gemma 31B, which run comfortably in 64GB with big context.
And, MoE should make it run at a close to usable speed.
And the newly announced/launched Apple M6 has 170GB/s of unified memory bandwidth, meanwhile M5 Ultra gets 1.2TB/s of unified memory bandwidth. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/08/apple-introduces-m6-a... Not sure if the first one is a typo on their press release, can't be just 170GB/s then be pushed for AI use, can it? Could be a different measurement I suppose...
I can do traditional server stuff on any old computer with a big hard disk and a decent amount of RAM. That's not worth $3500-$4000. When RAMpocalypse is over and we can buy a Strix Halo for under $2000 again, the math starts mathing. It becomes a pretty great desktop computer that also happens to run AI pretty well at a pretty good price.
The Strix Halo and DGX Spark are pretty danged slow, relatively speaking. I don't recall exact numbers, but with MoE models in this size ballpark (Laguna S 2.1), I seem to recall I was seeing about 20-25 t/s with a big context, which is close to usable. Qwen 3.8 27B crawls on this hardware, though, at 10-16 t/s, definitely not comfortable for interactive use. (Though this makes it seem like you can cook pretty good with a 4-bit ROCmFP4 quantization: https://github.com/julianmb/q38rocm the model does get notably dumber below six bits.)
A model similar in size to Laguna S 2.1, but with only 6B active parameters, should be a notable amount faster, so I would imagine 25-30 t/s would be a reasonable guess for where Qwen 3.8 Flash Next will land.
DFlash2 might improve all these numbers. It wasn't available last I was testing new models on the Strix Halo; I've only used MTP (which doesn't generally improve MoE models, but I believe DFlash2 can).
Given software improvements, I'm hopeful an MoE in this size range will be the sweet spot that pushes past 40 t/s and is also smart enough for real work. Qwen 3.8 27B is finally a self-hostable model that's smart enough, but it thinks so hard it still isn't really useful for agentic interactive use.
Note also prefill with large models is pretty slow on the Strix Halo (300 t/s, maybe). Time to first token is a painful wait, when using it interactively with large models.
I enjoy the Qwen models a lot, but building things on top of them with OpenRouter has been painful.
OpenRouter does a lot of great work and I really enjoy being able to use different models so easily. I like when a provider is phasing out an older model that still works for my needs and the price is much lower. It seems like such a good win-win.
However, the problem is that many Qwen models have almost no capacity or is so flaky you literally have to just litter your code with a blacklist/whitelist of providers. OpenRouter has some attempts to solve this, but they don't work. In fact, OpenRouter has a lot of really cool stuff that is documented, but if you read the code it's not yet implemented or isn't actually there yet, which is a shame.
I tried to get in contact with them at OpenRouter about this and I was interested in working with them in the past, but it's difficult to get in touch with the right people and they are growing very fast. I expect being acquired by Stripe will accelerate those problems in some ways. I have no doubt they will resolve all of these issues eventually and scaling that much that quickly is really hard, so kudos to them, but the road has been pretty lame and taken some wind out of my sails.
Openrouter was pretty great before prompt caching became common. Now it is extremely expensive for most individual workflows, unless you spend a lot of work customizing router preferences, and then you still get a worse cache hit rate than using the provider directly. I only keep $5-$10 in OR for occasional testing.
The best solution to this for me is to self host litellm or a different router and use model aliases. For example I have a model called "coding" and when a new good model comes out I just switch the backend without needing to change the alias or the key in my projects (opencode, etc).
I have a few of them even a smart router called "agents" which will use local models but if it thinks the request might require higher reasoning it's routing to a different model
It will be interesting to see the intersection of this with inference engines like FreeToken which improve distribution of work for MoE models across CPU/RAM and GPU/VRAM.
If all it takes for a competitive model to run locally at good speeds is a used 3090 and some DDR4, then we might be in for the year of local AI.
Have you tried FreeToken yourself? I was hoping to find some benchmarks on their github but took a quick pass at their research paper and it seems they're showing ~2x performance on qwen 3.6 35b when compared to llama.cpp - but llama.cpp is so sprawling and has so many options I find that a difficult comparison.
I haven't yet, though plan to when this model is released. The models that I've been daily driving (Gemma 4 26B, Qwen 3.8 27B) have fit nicely on my 3090. I think FreeToken only offers a perf increase for MoE models that you can't feasibly fit in VRAM.
Yeah I'm sometimes unsure how to get best perf out of llama.cpp, and honestly thought it already did what the FreeToken paper discusses, but from everything I've been able to find since llama.cpp has no dynamic expert cache for GPU. An RFC discusses adding such capability and there's impressive results some are claiming from a fork, but I had to stop reading the thread, reading all the LLM generated comments and summaries from people was making me dizzy.
> It is still slow, a lot slower than what you are used to with claude and co.
That really depends on the model, I run a few models locally. All at speeds comparable to or faster than Opus.
In general we haven't reached the ceiling for what performance we can get out of consumer hardware. As evidence by FreeToken which hasn't even added MTP/speculative drafting support yet, which will add another boost.
> Then when it runs for 30 minutes for something claude needs 5, your device will get hot.
I doubt the timing differential here, but even still I run my 3090 pretty heavily with inference workloads and it stays cooler than when I use it for gaming.
> And even a used 3090 is apparently now between 1-2k.
Yeah I guess the price went up significantly in the last couple months, used to be hovering around 1k. 3090 isn't the only option though.
So, I know https://cactuscompute.com/needle is designed only to enable tool calling on tiny devices. But, I wonder if anyone has used it as a CPU-side mediator between a tool and a GPU-side local LLM making semi-natural-language tool requests...
Just out of curiosity, why run "local-local" when you could just set up a Mini or Studio at home and query it over http? [edit] whole conversation about this in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49433413
I’m personally considering retiring my MBP for a Studio + 15" Air whenever this MBP ages out.
Why not? It's not really competing in the same size class.
Besides, as they explicitly wrote here, the main goal for this release is not performance, rather to serve as a reference for inference runtimes about what to implement. So that later Qwen 4 can be released with zero day support.
Time to dust off my 128GB strix halo (literally—it’s been dusty, and it’s running a bit warm these days).
Any idea where this model sits according toquality benchmarks? Pre-bubble MSRP on this hardware was $1400, and it draws 200-ish watts, putting it down into consumer territory.
I’m wondering if it can replace claude for llm-friendly coding tasks.
So back in the Qwen 3.5 release, the 122B-A10B model scored slightly better than the 27B model. I'd expect this new 125B-A6B to perform similarly to the recently released 27B. Qwen3.8 27B is supposed to rival Sonnet/Opus 4.6.
Qwen3.8/Qwen3.6 has a weird self doubt/thinking too much problem. You can prompt it away. I would say it "approximates" Opus 4.X class models well enough especially for coding/linux problems.
The only reason I stopped using it as much is I was getting 25-35tok/s on Intel B70 (non-quant) which made some responses slow. For a long running/autonomous task, it would probably be sufficient.
There is the rule of thumb that if you take the geometric mean of the total and active parameters of an MoE model you get the equivalent size of an equally capable dense model.
If you follow that formula, you would expect a 125b-a6b model to match a 27b model (sqrt(125*6) = 27.3). That does not feel like a coincidence
Thanks. My current stack ranking of anthropic models is:
4.6 ~= 4.8
4.7 much worse.
Fable and newer consistently tells me to pound sand, so I’m not sure what I’m paying $200/month for. 4.8 sometimes does too, but it’s at least usable most of the time.
So, I’d expect this to mostly replace Claude for my workflows. The main tradeoff for me should mostly be token throughput vs. no longer really trusting anthropic.
This is great. I have a weird system layout (192gb system ram, 8gb vram). the mixture of experts models have been nice when i can run the dense reasoning layers on the gpu (which somehow fit?!) and then the expert on the cpu.
its worked out to to 40 tokens/seconds on their 80b-a3b model. we'll see how much of a hit this is.
This is what I copied from the en version of the modelscope page, right when they published it:
> Redisgned Multimodal MoE Model: 125B main model parameters, supplemented by an additional 51B N-gram embeddings,and 6B parameters activated per token.
> Efficient Training and Inference: Significantly reduces training and inference costs. At ~1/9th the training cost，Qwen3.8-Flash-Next achieves comparable capability against Qwen3.7-Plus, while being more capable in areas of coding and cowork.
There was another paragraph about a new attention, but I didn't copy that.
Only VRAM? Unlikely unless you can also load the whole model into regular RAM. The previous 3.5 release was 250gb at BF16, so FP8 would likely be around 125gb. Your best best is FP4/Q4.
oooh, I like a6b; that will be nice. 3.5 A10B qwen works really well in deer-flow when you want to seriously vibe code or research and you're just not going to baby sit.
I have a Strix Halo and dual 32GB GPUs in my desktop, and the latter is pretty much always better for running local models because it's quite a bit faster due to higher memory bandwidth. There simply haven't been any models that are better than Qwen 27B or Gemma 31B, which run comfortably in 64GB with big context.
And, MoE should make it run at a close to usable speed.
The 3080ti is 912.4 GB/s
I’ll admit though I’m biased because I bought my board for $1600 back before the prices went crazy.
also can you use it for fine tuning?
A model similar in size to Laguna S 2.1, but with only 6B active parameters, should be a notable amount faster, so I would imagine 25-30 t/s would be a reasonable guess for where Qwen 3.8 Flash Next will land.
DFlash2 might improve all these numbers. It wasn't available last I was testing new models on the Strix Halo; I've only used MTP (which doesn't generally improve MoE models, but I believe DFlash2 can).
Given software improvements, I'm hopeful an MoE in this size range will be the sweet spot that pushes past 40 t/s and is also smart enough for real work. Qwen 3.8 27B is finally a self-hostable model that's smart enough, but it thinks so hard it still isn't really useful for agentic interactive use.
Note also prefill with large models is pretty slow on the Strix Halo (300 t/s, maybe). Time to first token is a painful wait, when using it interactively with large models.
OpenRouter does a lot of great work and I really enjoy being able to use different models so easily. I like when a provider is phasing out an older model that still works for my needs and the price is much lower. It seems like such a good win-win.
However, the problem is that many Qwen models have almost no capacity or is so flaky you literally have to just litter your code with a blacklist/whitelist of providers. OpenRouter has some attempts to solve this, but they don't work. In fact, OpenRouter has a lot of really cool stuff that is documented, but if you read the code it's not yet implemented or isn't actually there yet, which is a shame.
I tried to get in contact with them at OpenRouter about this and I was interested in working with them in the past, but it's difficult to get in touch with the right people and they are growing very fast. I expect being acquired by Stripe will accelerate those problems in some ways. I have no doubt they will resolve all of these issues eventually and scaling that much that quickly is really hard, so kudos to them, but the road has been pretty lame and taken some wind out of my sails.
I have a few of them even a smart router called "agents" which will use local models but if it thinks the request might require higher reasoning it's routing to a different model
If all it takes for a competitive model to run locally at good speeds is a used 3090 and some DDR4, then we might be in for the year of local AI.
https://github.com/FlashML-org/FreeToken
Yeah I'm sometimes unsure how to get best perf out of llama.cpp, and honestly thought it already did what the FreeToken paper discusses, but from everything I've been able to find since llama.cpp has no dynamic expert cache for GPU. An RFC discusses adding such capability and there's impressive results some are claiming from a fork, but I had to stop reading the thread, reading all the LLM generated comments and summaries from people was making me dizzy.
RFC here https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/discussions/24528 which also links to some experimental implementations throughout the thread.
It is still slow, a lot slower than what you are used to with claude and co.
And as soon as you increase context size, your memory requirements jump.
Then when it runs for 30 minutes for something claude needs 5, your device will get hot.
And even a used 3090 is apparently now between 1-2k.
That really depends on the model, I run a few models locally. All at speeds comparable to or faster than Opus.
In general we haven't reached the ceiling for what performance we can get out of consumer hardware. As evidence by FreeToken which hasn't even added MTP/speculative drafting support yet, which will add another boost.
> Then when it runs for 30 minutes for something claude needs 5, your device will get hot.
I doubt the timing differential here, but even still I run my 3090 pretty heavily with inference workloads and it stays cooler than when I use it for gaming.
> And even a used 3090 is apparently now between 1-2k.
Yeah I guess the price went up significantly in the last couple months, used to be hovering around 1k. 3090 isn't the only option though.
It's been a pretty decent step up for me compared to Qwen3.6
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49362401
Laguna-S-2.1:UD-Q4_K_XL (no MTP) pp=186.4 t/s tg=27.8 t/s
Qwen3.6-35B:UD-Q4_K_XL (with MTP) pp=404.4 t/s tg=83.2 t/s
Qwen3.6-27B:UD-Q4_K_XL (recorded pre-MTP) pp=343 t/s tg=12.1 t/s
Laguna actually performed better than I remembered. I thought it was slower.
That gives me hope that "full family" means it will include smaller models like 4B.
For context 35B on my m4 runs at 10 tokens a second, 27B moe runs 50-60 tokens a second.
A 4-bit MLX quant with 128k window should fit perfectly, in the 50-70 tok/s range.
I’m personally considering retiring my MBP for a Studio + 15" Air whenever this MBP ages out.
I’m doing that. Mac Mini M4 Pro with 48G RAM as a headless llama.cpp server.
I much prefer using " thin clients " as the interface to the big VMs running in my homelab
qwen3.5:122b-a10b is significantly faster at around 60-65.
I've seen benchmarks that show 4-5x faster of M5 Max vs. M4 Max.
For local models you're likely using M5 Max, prefill is low thousands of tokens per second, as opposed to, say high hundreds with M4 Max.
For larger dense models, some fraction of that, but similar multiple.
Besides, as they explicitly wrote here, the main goal for this release is not performance, rather to serve as a reference for inference runtimes about what to implement. So that later Qwen 4 can be released with zero day support.
Guess Qwen 4 is the one to wait for.
Any idea where this model sits according toquality benchmarks? Pre-bubble MSRP on this hardware was $1400, and it draws 200-ish watts, putting it down into consumer territory.
I’m wondering if it can replace claude for llm-friendly coding tasks.
The only reason I stopped using it as much is I was getting 25-35tok/s on Intel B70 (non-quant) which made some responses slow. For a long running/autonomous task, it would probably be sufficient.
If you follow that formula, you would expect a 125b-a6b model to match a 27b model (sqrt(125*6) = 27.3). That does not feel like a coincidence
4.6 ~= 4.8
4.7 much worse.
Fable and newer consistently tells me to pound sand, so I’m not sure what I’m paying $200/month for. 4.8 sometimes does too, but it’s at least usable most of the time.
So, I’d expect this to mostly replace Claude for my workflows. The main tradeoff for me should mostly be token throughput vs. no longer really trusting anthropic.
They are just giving sleepless nights to the western tech giants.
Token generation is slow (and prefill is) but you will likely find it solves actual problems faster than Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B.
To change the reasoning strength you just put text in the system prompt.
From memory it is:
its worked out to to 40 tokens/seconds on their 80b-a3b model. we'll see how much of a hit this is.
This one is basically aimed at macs, Strix halo and DGX Spark.
It also said 51B of n-grams and new attention (IIRC it said "Qwen Sparse Attention").
edit: here's a random screenshot https://x.com/AiBattle_/status/2092210011858460819/photo/1
> Redisgned Multimodal MoE Model: 125B main model parameters, supplemented by an additional 51B N-gram embeddings,and 6B parameters activated per token.
> Efficient Training and Inference: Significantly reduces training and inference costs. At ~1/9th the training cost，Qwen3.8-Flash-Next achieves comparable capability against Qwen3.7-Plus, while being more capable in areas of coding and cowork.
There was another paragraph about a new attention, but I didn't copy that.
what a joke this resolver has become