Gemma 4 12B first coding agent test on a 4080 Super
Summary
A user tested Gemma 4 12B as a coding agent in VSCodium using Pi Agent extension, successfully performing a task to create a Python script that reads logs and outputs JSON. The model handled tool use autonomously with zero bugs.
Similar Articles
Tested (the updated) Gemma 4 locally on coding with OpenCode
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.
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.
Gemma 4 2B handling structured JSON output + tool calling + reasoning traces correctly via Spring AI / LM Studio — including identifying a real Java bug in code review
User tested Gemma 4 2B running locally via LM Studio and Spring AI for structured JSON output, tool calling, and reasoning traces, finding it correctly identified a Java bug in code review and performed comparably to larger models.
Gemma 4 12B is my new main squeeze
The author shares their experience switching from Qwen 3.6 to Gemma 4 12B (Unsloth Q5_K_XL) for local coding, praising its plug-and-play setup, better syntax accuracy, and manageable VRAM usage despite a slight speed trade-off.
Gemma 4 12b QAT is a regression for my use case, despite all the hype.. Not my main Squeeze
The author reports that the Gemma 4 12b QAT model suffers from a regression in tool calling and coding tasks compared to the standard Q5_K_L version, due to a bug involving control token misconfiguration. Despite high token speed, the model's inconsistent outputs make it unsuitable for agent workflows.