1 Day in and I feel okay saying Muse-Glimmer-30B finally beats 3.6-27B for the size in some use-cases
Summary
A user reports that Muse-Glimmer-30B outperforms Qwen3.6-27B in reasoning efficiency and trivia knowledge, while being somewhat weaker at coding, making it a viable option on 24GB GPUs.
Similar Articles
@TheAhmadOsman: Will Qwen 3.8 27B make a comeback against Muse Glimmer 30B? In all cases, extremely happy about this release
A user expresses excitement about a new AI model release and speculates whether Qwen 3.8 27B can compete with Muse Glimmer 30B.
Muse Glimmer ACTUALLY fits on a single RTX 3090
User reports that Muse Glimmer, a 30B model, fits on a single RTX 3090 with full 256k context using Q4_K_XL quantization and DFlash, achieving 64-124 tok/s and perfect long-context retrieval, unlike comparable models.
Tested in Coding: BF16 Muse Glimmer vs BF16 Qwen3.6 27B
A hands-on coding comparison between BF16 Muse Glimmer and BF16 Qwen3.6 27B, evaluating diagnostic quality, implementation reliability, and self-correction on a complex enterprise web app. Qwen shows better persistence on stubborn bugs, while Muse Glimmer struggles with iterative fixes.
Local Benchmark : Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen 3.6 27B vs Gemma4 31B (and many other models and finetunes)
A local benchmark comparing Muse Glimmer 30B, Qwen 3.6 27B, and Gemma4 31B, noting request counts and final scores, with links to detailed results.
Layman's comparison on Qwen3.6 35b-a3b and Gemma4 26b-a4b-it
A user compares Qwen3.6 35B-A3B and Gemma 4 26B-A4B-IT running locally on a 16GB VRAM GPU via LM Studio, finding Qwen3.6 produces more detailed outputs while both run at comparable speeds. The post is an informal community comparison using quantized models.