Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

1-bit Hy3 running locally is 2.2x faster than its API at the same quality! We gave both models the same task and compared one-shot outputs. 1-bit Hy3 295B GGUF (92GB) ran locally on 4x RTX 5090 with 128GB VRAM against the same Hy3 over cloud API Tasks: - Flappy...

atomic_chat_hq's profile picture

atomic.chat

15,361 subscribers

91,182 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF vs. Claude 4.8 Opus vs. GPT-5.5 We gave 3 models the same prompt and compared one-shot outputs. The 1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF ran locally on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 256GB RAM at ~21.6 tok/s. Which output do you like best? GGUF:
0:21

1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF vs. Claude 4.8 Opus vs. GPT-5.5 We gave 3 models the same prompt and compared one-shot outputs. The 1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF ran locally on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 256GB RAM at ~21.6 tok/s. Which output do you like best? GGUF:

Unsloth AI

1,543,147 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

New Muse Glimmer 30B destroyed Gemma 4 31B at making retro arcade games! We gave three models the same task and compared one-shot outputs. Muse Glimmer 30B, Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.6 27B each ran locally on its own RTX 5090 with 32GB VRAM Tasks: - Space Invaders - Tetris - Arkanoid with multiball Outputs: Muse Glimmer 30B: 83.4K tokens, 17.7 min Qwen3.6 27B: 23.7K tokens, 5.4 min Gemma 4 31B: 17.8K tokens, 4.5 min Glimmer's games play like the originals. The alien fleet speeds up with every kill, the blocks lock and lines clear, the bricks break. Nothing froze or crashed. Gemma broke on Tetris, its bot piles every piece against the left wall until the stack hits the ceiling with half the well empty. Qwen finished all three but some of its Arkanoid balls phase straight through the paddle. Run Muse Glimmer yourself in Atomic Chat from day 0!
0:26

New Muse Glimmer 30B destroyed Gemma 4 31B at making retro arcade games! We gave three models the same task and compared one-shot outputs. Muse Glimmer 30B, Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.6 27B each ran locally on its own RTX 5090 with 32GB VRAM Tasks: - Space Invaders - Tetris - Arkanoid with multiball Outputs: Muse Glimmer 30B: 83.4K tokens, 17.7 min Qwen3.6 27B: 23.7K tokens, 5.4 min Gemma 4 31B: 17.8K tokens, 4.5 min Glimmer's games play like the originals. The alien fleet speeds up with every kill, the blocks lock and lines clear, the bricks break. Nothing froze or crashed. Gemma broke on Tetris, its bot piles every piece against the left wall until the stack hits the ceiling with half the well empty. Qwen finished all three but some of its Arkanoid balls phase straight through the paddle. Run Muse Glimmer yourself in Atomic Chat from day 0!

atomic.chat

39,067 просмотров • 24 дней назад

We compared 1-bit Kimi K3 to Claude Opus 5 and GPT 5.6. We gave 4 models the same prompt: Create a glass aquarium whose side panel develops a visible crack and then bursts. 1-bit Kimi K3 GGUF ran locally on 4x B200s at 36 tok/s. GitHub repo:
0:35

We compared 1-bit Kimi K3 to Claude Opus 5 and GPT 5.6. We gave 4 models the same prompt: Create a glass aquarium whose side panel develops a visible crack and then bursts. 1-bit Kimi K3 GGUF ran locally on 4x B200s at 36 tok/s. GitHub repo:

Unsloth AI

414,977 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:55

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

17,145 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

hy3 vs fable 5 vs opus 4.8 vs sonnet 5 Tencent Hy just dropped hy3 – their new open-weight model under apache 2.0. following the april preview they scaled up post-training, and it now rivals flagship open models with 2-5x the params. api pricing: ~$0.15 in / ~$0.59 out per 1m tokens. built for coding, office work, frontend, agentic tasks so we ran a test: hy3 vs fable 5 vs opus 4.8 vs sonnet 5 three prompts, one-shot each: • ocean wave crumbling a sand castle (canvas) • looping factory assembly line (html/css/js) • interactive 3d city with three.js + orbitcontrols self-contained files, no libraries beyond the cdn where asked totals across all three prompts: 1. hy3 – 1231 loc / 14m34s 2. sonnet 5 – 1373 loc / 18m55s 3. fable 5 – 1546 loc / 18m32s 4. opus 4.8 – 1904 loc / 27m21s hy3 is the fastest and the leanest by a wide margin we had opus 4.8 analyze hy3's code. the read: - sand castle: checklist-complete but the crumble is parametric, not physical. it shrinks and slumps the towers and fades alpha instead of dissolving into grains. the cheap-but-plausible interpretation. the tell of a smaller model - factory line: the arm-to-part sync is actually causal, not faked. it triggers each robot early by exactly the arm's descent time, so the tap lands right as the part arrives. it also pre-seeds the belt so it never cold-starts empty. clean state machine. one latent bug – a part gets marked processed before checking if the robot is free, so at a faster spawn rate a "laptop" could ship missing a part. never fires at current timing, but the invariant isn't enforced - 3d city: genuinely frontier-adjacent. correct modern setup (pcfsoft shadows, srgb, aces tone mapping, damped orbit + auto-rotate pause). clones the window texture per building and scales the uv repeat to each building's dimensions so windows don't stretch. downside: no instancing – ~800 texture clones across 200 buildings. runs fine, not optimized. roads are implicit gaps, not explicit planes our observations: • hy3 is quite fast • its animations are simple but you can see it trying – it adds detail, and the 3d render sits at the same level as the frontier models • sonnet 5 is weak here. hy3 beats it on the sand castle and the 3d render, level on the conveyor • opus 4.8 is anthropic's best model after the fable 5 nerf – it beats fable on the conveyor and the 3d render net: hy3 runs clean and well-formed across all three with zero syntax errors, even version-matching the three.js core and examples build. it's economical rather than ambitious – it does the minimum viable version of each hard requirement well, and only reaches for the expensive interpretation on the 3d task a very coherent profile for a cost-optimized open-weight model follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:24

hy3 vs fable 5 vs opus 4.8 vs sonnet 5 Tencent Hy just dropped hy3 – their new open-weight model under apache 2.0. following the april preview they scaled up post-training, and it now rivals flagship open models with 2-5x the params. api pricing: ~$0.15 in / ~$0.59 out per 1m tokens. built for coding, office work, frontend, agentic tasks so we ran a test: hy3 vs fable 5 vs opus 4.8 vs sonnet 5 three prompts, one-shot each: • ocean wave crumbling a sand castle (canvas) • looping factory assembly line (html/css/js) • interactive 3d city with three.js + orbitcontrols self-contained files, no libraries beyond the cdn where asked totals across all three prompts: 1. hy3 – 1231 loc / 14m34s 2. sonnet 5 – 1373 loc / 18m55s 3. fable 5 – 1546 loc / 18m32s 4. opus 4.8 – 1904 loc / 27m21s hy3 is the fastest and the leanest by a wide margin we had opus 4.8 analyze hy3's code. the read: - sand castle: checklist-complete but the crumble is parametric, not physical. it shrinks and slumps the towers and fades alpha instead of dissolving into grains. the cheap-but-plausible interpretation. the tell of a smaller model - factory line: the arm-to-part sync is actually causal, not faked. it triggers each robot early by exactly the arm's descent time, so the tap lands right as the part arrives. it also pre-seeds the belt so it never cold-starts empty. clean state machine. one latent bug – a part gets marked processed before checking if the robot is free, so at a faster spawn rate a "laptop" could ship missing a part. never fires at current timing, but the invariant isn't enforced - 3d city: genuinely frontier-adjacent. correct modern setup (pcfsoft shadows, srgb, aces tone mapping, damped orbit + auto-rotate pause). clones the window texture per building and scales the uv repeat to each building's dimensions so windows don't stretch. downside: no instancing – ~800 texture clones across 200 buildings. runs fine, not optimized. roads are implicit gaps, not explicit planes our observations: • hy3 is quite fast • its animations are simple but you can see it trying – it adds detail, and the 3d render sits at the same level as the frontier models • sonnet 5 is weak here. hy3 beats it on the sand castle and the 3d render, level on the conveyor • opus 4.8 is anthropic's best model after the fable 5 nerf – it beats fable on the conveyor and the 3d render net: hy3 runs clean and well-formed across all three with zero syntax errors, even version-matching the three.js core and examples build. it's economical rather than ambitious – it does the minimum viable version of each hard requirement well, and only reaches for the expensive interpretation on the 3d task a very coherent profile for a cost-optimized open-weight model follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

34,961 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

New Google Gemma 4 12B claims near-26B performance - we tested both! We ran both models locally on one RTX 4090 and gave each the same task: write a self-contained HTML5 canvas animation with real physics in one file without libraries. Three scenes - a Galton board, two blocks colliding off a wall, and a chaotic triple pendulum Outputs: Gemma 4 26B-A4B: 15 GB VRAM usage, 6.9k tokens, 138 tok/s Gemma 4 12B: 9 GB VRAM usage, 8.9k tokens, 80 tok/s Same Gemma 4 family, but the 26B-A4B won every scene and ran ~1.7x faster - on just 4B active params. The 12B stayed very close though, on almost half the VRAM - which makes it the ideal model for a 16 GB laptop
0:36

New Google Gemma 4 12B claims near-26B performance - we tested both! We ran both models locally on one RTX 4090 and gave each the same task: write a self-contained HTML5 canvas animation with real physics in one file without libraries. Three scenes - a Galton board, two blocks colliding off a wall, and a chaotic triple pendulum Outputs: Gemma 4 26B-A4B: 15 GB VRAM usage, 6.9k tokens, 138 tok/s Gemma 4 12B: 9 GB VRAM usage, 8.9k tokens, 80 tok/s Same Gemma 4 family, but the 26B-A4B won every scene and ran ~1.7x faster - on just 4B active params. The 12B stayed very close though, on almost half the VRAM - which makes it the ideal model for a 16 GB laptop

atomic.chat

152,526 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Open weight Kimi K3 performs at Claude Fable 5 level on 3D arcade games! We gave both models the same prompts: ✦ Pac-Man with four hunting ghosts ✦ Nokia Snake remade in 3D ✦ Retro space pinball table with real physics Outputs (thinking included): ✦ Kimi K3 (local, 8x B300): ~237K tokens, $0 ✦ Claude Fable 5: 92K tokens, $4.50 Every one of Kimi's tokens was free on our GPUs. Even via Moonshot's API the same Kimi run would be $3.60, still under Fable. Kimi held its quality against the strongest cloud model. Its snake is the liveliest scene of all six: soft shadows, floating dust, a flicking tongue, and a bot that checks it can still reach its own tail before every move. Fable's snake plays clean but looks flat next to it. Pac-Man is the closest call of the three. Kimi builds a fresh labyrinth on every restart and draws a live minimap in the corner while the red ghost tracks the player turn by turn through the corridors, and it even caught our bot on camera. Fable's maze answers with pearl pellets, +10 popups bursting over the floor and a wide-eyed cartoon ghost patrol. Fable won the pinball table: painted playfield art, a chrome ball that mirrors the neon lights, even little synth sound effects.
0:32

Open weight Kimi K3 performs at Claude Fable 5 level on 3D arcade games! We gave both models the same prompts: ✦ Pac-Man with four hunting ghosts ✦ Nokia Snake remade in 3D ✦ Retro space pinball table with real physics Outputs (thinking included): ✦ Kimi K3 (local, 8x B300): ~237K tokens, $0 ✦ Claude Fable 5: 92K tokens, $4.50 Every one of Kimi's tokens was free on our GPUs. Even via Moonshot's API the same Kimi run would be $3.60, still under Fable. Kimi held its quality against the strongest cloud model. Its snake is the liveliest scene of all six: soft shadows, floating dust, a flicking tongue, and a bot that checks it can still reach its own tail before every move. Fable's snake plays clean but looks flat next to it. Pac-Man is the closest call of the three. Kimi builds a fresh labyrinth on every restart and draws a live minimap in the corner while the red ghost tracks the player turn by turn through the corridors, and it even caught our bot on camera. Fable's maze answers with pearl pellets, +10 popups bursting over the floor and a wide-eyed cartoon ghost patrol. Fable won the pinball table: painted playfield art, a chrome ball that mirrors the neon lights, even little synth sound effects.

Atomic Agent

309,981 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

A CHINESE LAB VISUALIZED 2,000 NEURONS AND 1,191,000 SYNAPSES IN 3D. HERMES AGENT HIT 140,000 STARS RUNNING THE SAME NETWORK LOCALLY FOR $0 hermes is the first agent that writes its own skills from experience. complete a task once and it saves the procedure as a markdown file for next time agents with 20+ self-created skills complete similar tasks 40% faster than fresh instances. less time and less tokens to get the same result qwen 3.6 35b outperforms last year's 120b models and runs on 20gb of memory. the intelligence that needed a data center now fits on your desk setup takes 30 minutes. install lm studio, pull qwen 3.6, install hermes, point it at localhost. zero api fees, zero data leaving your machine most people pay for cloud agents that forget everything between sessions. the ones running hermes locally in 2026 will look very far ahead in 2028 bookmark this and read the article below
1:37

A CHINESE LAB VISUALIZED 2,000 NEURONS AND 1,191,000 SYNAPSES IN 3D. HERMES AGENT HIT 140,000 STARS RUNNING THE SAME NETWORK LOCALLY FOR $0 hermes is the first agent that writes its own skills from experience. complete a task once and it saves the procedure as a markdown file for next time agents with 20+ self-created skills complete similar tasks 40% faster than fresh instances. less time and less tokens to get the same result qwen 3.6 35b outperforms last year's 120b models and runs on 20gb of memory. the intelligence that needed a data center now fits on your desk setup takes 30 minutes. install lm studio, pull qwen 3.6, install hermes, point it at localhost. zero api fees, zero data leaving your machine most people pay for cloud agents that forget everything between sessions. the ones running hermes locally in 2026 will look very far ahead in 2028 bookmark this and read the article below

starmex

13,420 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Agent Zero crushed Codex by 2.6× on token efficiency! We gave both agents the same task on the same local model (Qwen3.6 27B): build a retro Q*bert arcade game. Each agent wrote and rewrote it across iterations, adding enemies and a HUD. Outputs: • Agent Zero: 239K tokens, 53 min • Codex: 627K tokens, 51 min Both agents built a working Q*bert, but GitLawb 's Agent Zero is the cleaner build, with crisper textures and hops that land where they should. Codex refills the context window with its whole history every turn, so the model loses the thread and hallucinates code it never wrote. Agent Zero sends only what's new, so it keeps more of the window open and makes fewer mistakes. Run agents on local AI models in Atomic Chat!
0:25

Agent Zero crushed Codex by 2.6× on token efficiency! We gave both agents the same task on the same local model (Qwen3.6 27B): build a retro Q*bert arcade game. Each agent wrote and rewrote it across iterations, adding enemies and a HUD. Outputs: • Agent Zero: 239K tokens, 53 min • Codex: 627K tokens, 51 min Both agents built a working Q*bert, but GitLawb 's Agent Zero is the cleaner build, with crisper textures and hops that land where they should. Codex refills the context window with its whole history every turn, so the model loses the thread and hallucinates code it never wrote. Agent Zero sends only what's new, so it keeps more of the window open and makes fewer mistakes. Run agents on local AI models in Atomic Chat!

atomic.chat

320,187 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

another example: a developer used the exact same $8 ESP32-S3 chip and local AI setup to build a real-time object recognition camera the fact that this is running entirely offline, on an eight-dollar microcontroller, without any cloud API calls, is wild... it captures the video feed, processes it locally through the model, and identifies objects in real-time. we are entering an era where you can just glue intelligence onto any physical object for less than $10. the hardware barrier is completely shattered.
0:39

another example: a developer used the exact same $8 ESP32-S3 chip and local AI setup to build a real-time object recognition camera the fact that this is running entirely offline, on an eight-dollar microcontroller, without any cloud API calls, is wild... it captures the video feed, processes it locally through the model, and identifies objects in real-time. we are entering an era where you can just glue intelligence onto any physical object for less than $10. the hardware barrier is completely shattered.

ard

224,247 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

We've tested the Qwen 3.8 Max preview and it absolutely rocks! Each scene is built in one shot, a single Three.js file with nothing else added: • Odysseus' war galley riding the waves • Trojan horse • Greek war helmet Qwen managed to execute the task faster than the other models, while output quality is relatively the same across all of them. If the pricing stays close to Alibaba's previous flagships, we'll get one of the best speed/quality ratios on the market — perfect for running agents at scale. Soon live on AI/ML API.
0:23

We've tested the Qwen 3.8 Max preview and it absolutely rocks! Each scene is built in one shot, a single Three.js file with nothing else added: • Odysseus' war galley riding the waves • Trojan horse • Greek war helmet Qwen managed to execute the task faster than the other models, while output quality is relatively the same across all of them. If the pricing stays close to Alibaba's previous flagships, we'll get one of the best speed/quality ratios on the market — perfect for running agents at scale. Soon live on AI/ML API.

AI/ML API

132,425 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

THIS $1,300 CARD HAS THE SAME 32GB OF VRAM AS A $2,000+ RTX 5090 - FOR LOCAL AI, THAT'S THE SPEC THAT DECIDES EVERYTHING. that clip is the gigabyte radeon ai pro r9700 ai top, 32gb of vram, built for local ai. the pitch is simple: the same memory capacity as an rtx 5090, for roughly a third of what a 5090 actually sells for. here's why that matters, and where it doesn't. for ai, vram is the gate. a model either fits in memory or it doesn't. 32gb loads models a 16gb card can't touch, full stop. so for running local llms and image models, this card does the one thing that counts, cheap. honest line: this is not a 5090 for gaming. the 5090 is far faster at raster and ray tracing. they only match on how much vram they carry. if you want frames, buy the 5090. if you want to fit big models locally, you just found the same 32gb for a third of the money. no $2,000+ price tag, no cloud gpu rental, no model too big for 16gb. the uncomfortable part isn't that amd is cheaper. it's that for local ai you were about to overpay for gaming power you'd never use. follow RetroChainer for more on paying for the spec that matters, and bookmark this before your next gpu.
1:52

THIS $1,300 CARD HAS THE SAME 32GB OF VRAM AS A $2,000+ RTX 5090 - FOR LOCAL AI, THAT'S THE SPEC THAT DECIDES EVERYTHING. that clip is the gigabyte radeon ai pro r9700 ai top, 32gb of vram, built for local ai. the pitch is simple: the same memory capacity as an rtx 5090, for roughly a third of what a 5090 actually sells for. here's why that matters, and where it doesn't. for ai, vram is the gate. a model either fits in memory or it doesn't. 32gb loads models a 16gb card can't touch, full stop. so for running local llms and image models, this card does the one thing that counts, cheap. honest line: this is not a 5090 for gaming. the 5090 is far faster at raster and ray tracing. they only match on how much vram they carry. if you want frames, buy the 5090. if you want to fit big models locally, you just found the same 32gb for a third of the money. no $2,000+ price tag, no cloud gpu rental, no model too big for 16gb. the uncomfortable part isn't that amd is cheaper. it's that for local ai you were about to overpay for gaming power you'd never use. follow RetroChainer for more on paying for the spec that matters, and bookmark this before your next gpu.

RetroChainer

38,844 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Tencent just dropped Hy3, and it's worth a look if you're building AI agents. I spent some time putting it through its paces today. A quick rundown of what makes this release notable: → 295B total parameters (Mixture-of-Experts), but only 21B active at inference — a real efficiency play → 256K context window for handling large codebases or long documents → Purpose-built improvements for coding and multi-step agent tasks → Fully open under Apache 2.0 — no restrictive commercial terms → A free two-week API window currently live on OpenRouter On the practical side: prompts involving layered instructions and coding tasks came back fast and coherent. Tencent says this release builds directly on feedback from 50+ internal product teams following an earlier preview, with reported drops in hallucination rate (12.5% → 5.4%) and commonsense errors (25.4% → 12.7%). Those are Tencent's own numbers, so treat them as a starting point rather than gospel until third parties weigh in. For context: Tencent's own comparisons put Hy3 behind GLM-5.2 specifically on coding benchmarks — GLM is a much bigger model (~744B total), so the trade-off makes sense. Hy3's pitch isn't "biggest," it's "efficient enough to actually deploy." Bottom line — if you're evaluating open-weight options for agent workloads, this is a solid one to add to the testing queue while the free window is open. Try it here: Tencent Hy #Hy3 #Hunyuan #TencentAI #AICoding
0:43

Tencent just dropped Hy3, and it's worth a look if you're building AI agents. I spent some time putting it through its paces today. A quick rundown of what makes this release notable: → 295B total parameters (Mixture-of-Experts), but only 21B active at inference — a real efficiency play → 256K context window for handling large codebases or long documents → Purpose-built improvements for coding and multi-step agent tasks → Fully open under Apache 2.0 — no restrictive commercial terms → A free two-week API window currently live on OpenRouter On the practical side: prompts involving layered instructions and coding tasks came back fast and coherent. Tencent says this release builds directly on feedback from 50+ internal product teams following an earlier preview, with reported drops in hallucination rate (12.5% → 5.4%) and commonsense errors (25.4% → 12.7%). Those are Tencent's own numbers, so treat them as a starting point rather than gospel until third parties weigh in. For context: Tencent's own comparisons put Hy3 behind GLM-5.2 specifically on coding benchmarks — GLM is a much bigger model (~744B total), so the trade-off makes sense. Hy3's pitch isn't "biggest," it's "efficient enough to actually deploy." Bottom line — if you're evaluating open-weight options for agent workloads, this is a solid one to add to the testing queue while the free window is open. Try it here: Tencent Hy #Hy3 #Hunyuan #TencentAI #AICoding

Felix

36,925 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Ollama 0.2 is here! Concurrency is now enabled by default. This unlocks 2 major features: Parallel requests Ollama can now serve multiple requests at the same time, using only a little bit of additional memory for each request. This enables use cases such as: - Handling multiple chat sessions at the same time - Hosting code completion LLMs for your team - Processing different parts of a document simultaneously - Running multiple agents at the same time Run multiple models Ollama now supports loading different models at the same time. This improves several use cases: - Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG): both the embedding and text completion models can be loaded into memory simultaneously. - Agents: multiple versions of an agent can now run simultaneously - Running large and small models side-by-side Models are automatically loaded and unloaded based on requests and how much GPU memory is available.
0:23

Ollama 0.2 is here! Concurrency is now enabled by default. This unlocks 2 major features: Parallel requests Ollama can now serve multiple requests at the same time, using only a little bit of additional memory for each request. This enables use cases such as: - Handling multiple chat sessions at the same time - Hosting code completion LLMs for your team - Processing different parts of a document simultaneously - Running multiple agents at the same time Run multiple models Ollama now supports loading different models at the same time. This improves several use cases: - Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG): both the embedding and text completion models can be loaded into memory simultaneously. - Agents: multiple versions of an agent can now run simultaneously - Running large and small models side-by-side Models are automatically loaded and unloaded based on requests and how much GPU memory is available.

ollama

219,440 просмотров • 2 лет назад

New Kimi K3 beat Opus 4.8 at making retro games for 2x cheaper! We gave three models the same task: make three old arcade games that play by themselves. Each game is one HTML file with a bot that plays it Prompts: – Road Fighter – Battle City – Q*bert Outputs: Kimi K3: 18.4K tokens, $0.28 GPT-5.6: 18.1K tokens, $0.28 Opus 4.8: 21.3K tokens, $0.54 Kimi K3 made the best games. Its Q*bert is the best of all three. The player jumps on the cubes, paints them and runs from the purple snake. Its Battle City looks just like the real game and plays right. The tanks move, aim, shoot and break the walls. GPT-5.6 could not handle the cars. Its Battle City broke too. The tank died on its own and the base got hit. But GPT had the nicest textures of the three
0:27

New Kimi K3 beat Opus 4.8 at making retro games for 2x cheaper! We gave three models the same task: make three old arcade games that play by themselves. Each game is one HTML file with a bot that plays it Prompts: – Road Fighter – Battle City – Q*bert Outputs: Kimi K3: 18.4K tokens, $0.28 GPT-5.6: 18.1K tokens, $0.28 Opus 4.8: 21.3K tokens, $0.54 Kimi K3 made the best games. Its Q*bert is the best of all three. The player jumps on the cubes, paints them and runs from the purple snake. Its Battle City looks just like the real game and plays right. The tanks move, aim, shoot and break the walls. GPT-5.6 could not handle the cars. Its Battle City broke too. The tank died on its own and the base got hit. But GPT had the nicest textures of the three

atomic.chat

100,082 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

DFlash makes Qwen 2.2x faster with no quality loss! We ran the same Qwen3.6-27B locally three ways on one RTX 6000: baseline, MTP, DFlash. The tasks only differ in one thing - how predictable the next word is: quicksort, describe a file in JSON, a logic puzzle, a sci-fi story. Outputs: Baseline: 44 tok/s · 1.00x MTP: 65 tok/s · 1.45x · 71% accepted DFlash: 98 tok/s · 2.20x · 30% accepted Baseline writes one token per step. MTP works inside the model itself and guesses 3 tokens ahead. DFlash is a separate small model that writes 15 tokens at once, and the big model only checks them. In JSON the same words repeat all the time, so most guesses were right: 152 tok/s, 3.4x speedup. In the story 9 guesses out of 10 were wrong. DFlash did all that extra work for nothing and became slower than baseline: 42 vs 44 tok/s. MTP guesses only 3 tokens, so a wrong guess costs very little: 46 tok/s and the win in that round. The output is identical in all three modes - DFlash is the pick for tasks with predictable output, like coding, and for chat and creative writing MTP works better. DFlash is now natively integrated into Atomic Chat on llama.cpp - speed up your Qwen models!
0:26

DFlash makes Qwen 2.2x faster with no quality loss! We ran the same Qwen3.6-27B locally three ways on one RTX 6000: baseline, MTP, DFlash. The tasks only differ in one thing - how predictable the next word is: quicksort, describe a file in JSON, a logic puzzle, a sci-fi story. Outputs: Baseline: 44 tok/s · 1.00x MTP: 65 tok/s · 1.45x · 71% accepted DFlash: 98 tok/s · 2.20x · 30% accepted Baseline writes one token per step. MTP works inside the model itself and guesses 3 tokens ahead. DFlash is a separate small model that writes 15 tokens at once, and the big model only checks them. In JSON the same words repeat all the time, so most guesses were right: 152 tok/s, 3.4x speedup. In the story 9 guesses out of 10 were wrong. DFlash did all that extra work for nothing and became slower than baseline: 42 vs 44 tok/s. MTP guesses only 3 tokens, so a wrong guess costs very little: 46 tok/s and the win in that round. The output is identical in all three modes - DFlash is the pick for tasks with predictable output, like coding, and for chat and creative writing MTP works better. DFlash is now natively integrated into Atomic Chat on llama.cpp - speed up your Qwen models!

atomic.chat

82,776 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Atomic Agent beat Hermes on GAIA: 69.8% vs 58.5%, and it was 1.6x faster! We ran both agents through the full GAIA Level 1 benchmark, 53 real-world tasks, same 4-bit qwen-3.6-35b on the same Apple M4 Max. Results: ✦ Atomic Agent: 37 of 53 solved, done in 3h 12m ✦ Hermes Agent: 31 of 53 solved, took 5h 10m Atomic solved 6 more tasks and finished nearly 2 hours sooner. Hermes ran into the 900s timeout on 7 tasks; Atomic on just 2. Hermes burned 71% of its total time on tasks it still failed, Atomic, 48%. Where it showed: ✦ Audre Lorde poem, which stanza is indented: Atomic pushed through a dead source, switched tools, and answered in 7.6 min. Hermes ran the full clock and returned a blank. ✦ Vietnamese specimens, which city they ended up in: Atomic pulled it from the first source and normalized the answer in 33s. Hermes spent 7.3 min and never answered. ✦ The dinosaur featured-article nominator: Atomic walked the Wikipedia chain to "FunkMonk" in 57s. Hermes guessed a wrong name after 11 min. Atomic keeps a byte-stable prompt prefix, so llama-server reuses the KV-cache instead of re-encoding the whole context every turn, and it emits one JSON array of tool calls per inference, then compresses results back instead of pasting them in full, so the context never balloons and a small model stays sharp deep into a task. On top of that a no-progress guard vetoes repeated identical tool calls (warn at 3, hard veto at 5) and forces a reply, so Atomic never sinks 15 minutes into re-scanning one page the way Hermes did. Both agents missed some of the same questions, and on a few Hermes got there and Atomic did not, usually format slips where Atomic computed the right number but printed the working instead of the bare value. But on identical hardware and identical weights, the runtime that reuses its cache and refuses to spin came out ahead on accuracy and speed. Getting this from the runtime alone is wild. Run the same 53 GAIA tasks on Atomic Agent!
0:27

Atomic Agent beat Hermes on GAIA: 69.8% vs 58.5%, and it was 1.6x faster! We ran both agents through the full GAIA Level 1 benchmark, 53 real-world tasks, same 4-bit qwen-3.6-35b on the same Apple M4 Max. Results: ✦ Atomic Agent: 37 of 53 solved, done in 3h 12m ✦ Hermes Agent: 31 of 53 solved, took 5h 10m Atomic solved 6 more tasks and finished nearly 2 hours sooner. Hermes ran into the 900s timeout on 7 tasks; Atomic on just 2. Hermes burned 71% of its total time on tasks it still failed, Atomic, 48%. Where it showed: ✦ Audre Lorde poem, which stanza is indented: Atomic pushed through a dead source, switched tools, and answered in 7.6 min. Hermes ran the full clock and returned a blank. ✦ Vietnamese specimens, which city they ended up in: Atomic pulled it from the first source and normalized the answer in 33s. Hermes spent 7.3 min and never answered. ✦ The dinosaur featured-article nominator: Atomic walked the Wikipedia chain to "FunkMonk" in 57s. Hermes guessed a wrong name after 11 min. Atomic keeps a byte-stable prompt prefix, so llama-server reuses the KV-cache instead of re-encoding the whole context every turn, and it emits one JSON array of tool calls per inference, then compresses results back instead of pasting them in full, so the context never balloons and a small model stays sharp deep into a task. On top of that a no-progress guard vetoes repeated identical tool calls (warn at 3, hard veto at 5) and forces a reply, so Atomic never sinks 15 minutes into re-scanning one page the way Hermes did. Both agents missed some of the same questions, and on a few Hermes got there and Atomic did not, usually format slips where Atomic computed the right number but printed the working instead of the bare value. But on identical hardware and identical weights, the runtime that reuses its cache and refuses to spin came out ahead on accuracy and speed. Getting this from the runtime alone is wild. Run the same 53 GAIA tasks on Atomic Agent!

Atomic Agent

111,357 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

New Kimi K2.7 Code performs at GPT-5.5 level 3x cheaper! We gave both models the same three prompts: build a self-contained HTML5 canvas sim with real physics, no libraries. A spring pendulum on a stretching coil, a 1 kg block trading collisions with a 100,000 kg block, and 22 balls churning in a spinning hexagon Outputs: Kimi K2.7 Code: $0.28 on 52.4k tokens GPT-5.5: $0.93 on 23.4k tokens Spring pendulums and blocks came out even. The balls Kimi did better: its pile spins with the drum when GPT's bounce around in pure chaos. On price to quality, K2.7 Code is the clear pick
0:25

New Kimi K2.7 Code performs at GPT-5.5 level 3x cheaper! We gave both models the same three prompts: build a self-contained HTML5 canvas sim with real physics, no libraries. A spring pendulum on a stretching coil, a 1 kg block trading collisions with a 100,000 kg block, and 22 balls churning in a spinning hexagon Outputs: Kimi K2.7 Code: $0.28 on 52.4k tokens GPT-5.5: $0.93 on 23.4k tokens Spring pendulums and blocks came out even. The balls Kimi did better: its pile spins with the drum when GPT's bounce around in pure chaos. On price to quality, K2.7 Code is the clear pick

atomic.chat

139,760 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

FREE GPT 5.5 API from a Chinese provider. I already farmed $520 in credits. Plug it directly into Hermes Agent or OpenClaw. > This is a Chinese proxy for OpenAI's official API - same models, same token pricing, same caching. GPT 5.5, Codex, the full stack. I found a way to farm credits through a Telegram bot and it still works. Here's the exact flow: → Go to on Telegram → subscribe to the channel → Join and complete the captcha (use the app, tap the first button) → Go back to the bot, grab your referral link → Invite 1 friend → you get an invite code → Register at with the invite code → Farm points: daily spins (+1-10 pts), each referral (+1/4 pt) → Redeem points for credits: $10 API = 1pt, $100 API = 5pts, $1000 API = 50pts → Create API key → select Codex/another GPT model → plug into Hermes Agent or OpenClaw Ready-made configs for Claude Code and OpenCode are in the "Use Key" section under API Keys. > I have $520 balance. Prices match official OpenAI rates. Caching works. Everything tested. // You can also use these points to buy a ChatGPT account or a subscription for your account. But they get blocked pretty quickly. USE THE API. // Nobody knows how long this lasts. Coupons have been restocked twice already. Move now.
0:34

FREE GPT 5.5 API from a Chinese provider. I already farmed $520 in credits. Plug it directly into Hermes Agent or OpenClaw. > This is a Chinese proxy for OpenAI's official API - same models, same token pricing, same caching. GPT 5.5, Codex, the full stack. I found a way to farm credits through a Telegram bot and it still works. Here's the exact flow: → Go to on Telegram → subscribe to the channel → Join and complete the captcha (use the app, tap the first button) → Go back to the bot, grab your referral link → Invite 1 friend → you get an invite code → Register at with the invite code → Farm points: daily spins (+1-10 pts), each referral (+1/4 pt) → Redeem points for credits: $10 API = 1pt, $100 API = 5pts, $1000 API = 50pts → Create API key → select Codex/another GPT model → plug into Hermes Agent or OpenClaw Ready-made configs for Claude Code and OpenCode are in the "Use Key" section under API Keys. > I have $520 balance. Prices match official OpenAI rates. Caching works. Everything tested. // You can also use these points to buy a ChatGPT account or a subscription for your account. But they get blocked pretty quickly. USE THE API. // Nobody knows how long this lasts. Coupons have been restocked twice already. Move now.

Atenov int.

65,251 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Fable 5 is BACK on AI/ML API We gave Sonnet 5 and Fable 5 the exact same prompt and same real flight dataset of 70 airports and 435 routes pulled from flightradar. Then asked each one to turn it into a cinematic 3D globe as a single HTML file. Outputs: Sonnet 5: 9.8k tokens, $0.10 Fable 5: 15k tokens, $0.77 Sonnet 5 came in 87% cheaper. It drew the routes, but the planet underneath them barely exists: a dark wireframe with the arcs floating in space. Fable 5 built an actual Earth: textured oceans, ice caps, atmospheric glow. Mythos-class models are truly a masterpiece. Docs, guides & setup below:
0:37

Fable 5 is BACK on AI/ML API We gave Sonnet 5 and Fable 5 the exact same prompt and same real flight dataset of 70 airports and 435 routes pulled from flightradar. Then asked each one to turn it into a cinematic 3D globe as a single HTML file. Outputs: Sonnet 5: 9.8k tokens, $0.10 Fable 5: 15k tokens, $0.77 Sonnet 5 came in 87% cheaper. It drew the routes, but the planet underneath them barely exists: a dark wireframe with the arcs floating in space. Fable 5 built an actual Earth: textured oceans, ice caps, atmospheric glow. Mythos-class models are truly a masterpiece. Docs, guides & setup below:

AI/ML API

498,492 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад