Tested Nemotron 3.5 Lightning locally on coding, Hermes Agent and agentic work
Summary
User tested Nemotron 3.5 Lightning locally with llama.cpp and quants, finding good speed and agentic tool-calling but below-expectation coding output for its size.
Similar Articles
Tested how OpenCode Works with SelfHosted LLMS: Qwen 3.5, 3.6, Gemma 4, Nemotron 3, GLM-4.7 Flash - v2
A developer benchmarked multiple self-hosted LLMs (Qwen 3.5/3.6, Gemma 4, Nemotron 3, GLM-4.7) with OpenCode on two coding tasks, revealing speed and quality trade-offs on RTX 4080 hardware.
Tested Muse Glimmer locally on coding with OpenCode & agentic work
A user shares local testing of Muse Glimmer (Q4 quant via Unsloth) on llama.cpp with OpenCode, noting it performs below Qwen3.6 27B but had reliable tool calls.
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt Evaluation using real-world tasks
作者用真实工作场景的 ETL 任务（shell 脚本重构与 Python 编排器开发）对比评估 Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 与 Qwen Flash Next，并由 Gemini 作为裁判判定胜负，结果各赢一局。
@heyshrutimishra: NVIDIA just dropped Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30 billion parameters. Only 3 billion active. Built for the execution layer …
NVIDIA released Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, a 30B-parameter MoE model with only 3B active parameters, optimized for agent execution tasks. It claims faster, cheaper tool calls and agent execution while staying fully open-source under OpenMDW-1.1.
I benchmarked 21 local LLMs on a MacBook Air M5 for code quality AND speed
A developer benchmarked 21 local LLMs on MacBook Air M5 using HumanEval+ and found Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B (MoE) leads at 89.6% with 16.9 tok/s, while Qwen 2.5 Coder 7B offers the best RAM-to-performance ratio at 84.2% in 4.5 GB. Notably, Gemma 4 models significantly underperformed expectations (31.1% for 31B), possibly due to Q4_K_M quantization effects.