Tested (the updated) Gemma 4 locally on coding with OpenCode
Summary
Tested the updated Gemma 4 locally using llama.cpp on an M5 Pro, achieving 60 tokens/s for coding tasks with OpenCode; good for backend but poor for UI/UX.
Similar Articles
@leopardracer: GEMMA 4 26B ON AN RTX 4060 WITH A 248K TOKEN CONTEXT WINDOW 20 tokens per second and a context window so large you can …
Gemma 4 26B runs on an RTX 4060 with 248K token context at 20 tokens per second using llama.cpp and Q4_K_XL quantization, enabling local processing of entire codebases on consumer hardware.
Gemma 4 31B's competence surprised me
A user shares anecdotal findings that Gemma 4 31B outperforms Qwen 3.6 models and matches Opus 4.7 in understanding and refactoring messy academic code, highlighting a benchmark (SciCode) where Gemma excels.
@Freerunnering: This actually makes Gemma 4 26B-4A usable for a coding agent @ 72tk/s on my MacBook Pro M1 Max. This video is realtime,…
Unsloth AI announces that Gemma 4 runs 2x faster with MTP GGUFs, making it feasible for local coding agents on hardware like a MacBook Pro M1 Max at 72 tokens/s.
Gemma 4 + LiteRT-LM on mobile: much better memory/perf than my llama.cpp setup
A user shares a hands-on comparison of running Gemma 4 with LiteRT-LM on mobile devices versus their previous llama.cpp setup, noting significantly better memory usage (1.5-2 GB vs 4-5 GB) and faster inference (2-4 seconds vs 7-10 seconds) on smartphones like Samsung S25 Ultra and iPhone 13 Pro Max.
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.