Qwen 3.8 Flash Next, DeepSeekV4 Flash and Time
Summary
A user with a 128GB Mac Studio M1 Ultra compares running Qwen 3.8 Flash Next versus DeepSeek V4 locally, noting that Flash Next benchmarks higher but takes dramatically longer per task, questioning the practical tradeoff between quality and speed.
Similar Articles
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next optimised for Macs
The article details custom optimizations for running the Qwen3.8-Flash-Next AI model on Mac M1 Max hardware, including SSD streaming, custom quantizations, and a sparse attention mechanism to improve performance.
Ran Qwen3.8-Flash-Next (79 GB, 2-bit) at 350K ctx for 3.5 hours on a 128 GB M5 Max — speed vs context depth, 100 turns, one graph
This article reports on running the Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model on a MacBook Pro M5 Max, benchmarking speed versus context depth over 100 turns, with insights into performance and issues like role confusion at long contexts.
Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next smaller quant?
A user compares Qwen3.8-27B and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next models for intelligence and coding performance with 128GB RAM, seeking advice on which is better.
DeepSeek v4 Flash vs. Qwen3.6-27B, 3.5-122B, and Gemma 4 31B Benchmark
User benchmarks DeepSeek v4 Flash against Qwen3.6-27B, Qwen3.5-122B, and Gemma 4 31B on a local coding benchmark, finding Flash wins overall but Qwen 122B performs surprisingly well with better first-try success and lower token usage.
Qwen 3.8 27b vs Deepseek Flash
The post compares the open-source AI models Qwen 3.8 (27B) and Deepseek Flash, discussing benchmarks and seeking user experiences to evaluate their performance.