Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Round 2: Dense edition Qwen3.5 27B vs Gemma4 31B Same 4 HTML canvas challenges, this time no MoE. Setup: > Quant: Unsloth Q6_K_XL (both) > Each running on an RTX 5090 > Single HTML file, no libraries, real-time animation My read per prompt: 🌳 Tree — Gemma, branches are... show more

stevibe

22,712 subscribers

33,304 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"122B has to be smarter than 27B" I showed 4 UI components to three Qwen3.5 models and asked them to recreate them from a screenshot alone: - 27B (dense) - 35B-A3B (MoE) - 122B-A10B (MoE) Same screenshot. Same prompt. Same task. Which one do you think nailed it?

"122B has to be smarter than 27B" I showed 4 UI components to three Qwen3.5 models and asked them to recreate them from a screenshot alone: - 27B (dense) - 35B-A3B (MoE) - 122B-A10B (MoE) Same screenshot. Same prompt. Same task. Which one do you think nailed it?

stevibe

101,239 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

DeepSeek V4 Flash vs V4 Pro, 4 canvas tests run. I'm a dev, and honestly DeepSeek was never on my list for coding tasks. After seeing these results, I might need to reconsider. 🌳 Tree: Flash actually beat Pro: denser canopy, better leaf distribution 🌌 Night sky: Pro wins, shooting stars, constellations, Milky Way band all there 🐟 Fish boids: Pro is stunning: proper caustics, tight schooling, real underwater feel 🏠 House builder: first model we've tested that knows how to actually build a rooftop DeepSeek coding might be underrated.

DeepSeek V4 Flash vs V4 Pro, 4 canvas tests run. I'm a dev, and honestly DeepSeek was never on my list for coding tasks. After seeing these results, I might need to reconsider. 🌳 Tree: Flash actually beat Pro: denser canopy, better leaf distribution 🌌 Night sky: Pro wins, shooting stars, constellations, Milky Way band all there 🐟 Fish boids: Pro is stunning: proper caustics, tight schooling, real underwater feel 🏠 House builder: first model we've tested that knows how to actually build a rooftop DeepSeek coding might be underrated.

stevibe

56,270 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

So we know Gemma 4 is good at tool calling, but what about web coding? I threw 4 UI screenshots at three Gemma 4 models and said rebuild this, one shot, no hand-holding, just image in, code out. Model lineup: - E4B - 26B A4B (MoE) - 31B Dense (skipped the E2B this round) Let me know which one you think cooked the hardest

So we know Gemma 4 is good at tool calling, but what about web coding? I threw 4 UI screenshots at three Gemma 4 models and said rebuild this, one shot, no hand-holding, just image in, code out. Model lineup: - E4B - 26B A4B (MoE) - 31B Dense (skipped the E2B this round) Let me know which one you think cooked the hardest

stevibe

124,942 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Yesterday we found out Qwen3.5-27B (dense) beats both the 35B and 122B MoE variants at UI replication from screenshots. Today's question: what about Jackrong's Qwen3.5-27B-Claude-Opus-4.6-Reasoning-Distilled? A distilled 27B with Claude Opus 4.6 reasoning baked in. So I put all 3 in the ring: - Qwen3.5-27B - Qwen3.5-27B-Claude-Opus-Distilled - Claude Opus 4.6 Since the distilled model isn't multimodal, I gave all three the same detailed text prompts describing the UI components from yesterday's test.

Yesterday we found out Qwen3.5-27B (dense) beats both the 35B and 122B MoE variants at UI replication from screenshots. Today's question: what about Jackrong's Qwen3.5-27B-Claude-Opus-4.6-Reasoning-Distilled? A distilled 27B with Claude Opus 4.6 reasoning baked in. So I put all 3 in the ring: - Qwen3.5-27B - Qwen3.5-27B-Claude-Opus-Distilled - Claude Opus 4.6 Since the distilled model isn't multimodal, I gave all three the same detailed text prompts describing the UI components from yesterday's test.

stevibe

126,243 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

I gave two MoE models the same vibe coding challenge Qwen3.6 35B A3B (31.8GB) vs Gemma4 26B A4B (23.3GB) Stack: > Unsloth Q6_K_XL > llama.cpp > Model-card recommended sampling for each 4 prompts, side-by-side. Which one do you think wins?

I gave two MoE models the same vibe coding challenge Qwen3.6 35B A3B (31.8GB) vs Gemma4 26B A4B (23.3GB) Stack: > Unsloth Q6_K_XL > llama.cpp > Model-card recommended sampling for each 4 prompts, side-by-side. Which one do you think wins?

stevibe

262,265 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

GLM 5.1 vs GLM 5.2 6 advanced HTML canvas challenges: 💧 Ink diffusing in water ⚔️ Energy-blade duel 📱 Slide to unlock 🅿️ 360° parking assist 🔥 Burning letter to ash 🏠 Build-a-house sequence Pure canvas, zero libraries.

GLM 5.1 vs GLM 5.2 6 advanced HTML canvas challenges: 💧 Ink diffusing in water ⚔️ Energy-blade duel 📱 Slide to unlock 🅿️ 360° parking assist 🔥 Burning letter to ash 🏠 Build-a-house sequence Pure canvas, zero libraries.

stevibe

347,433 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Got a 24GB Graphics Card? These 6 coding models all fit on it (Q4): - qwen3.5:27b (17GB) - qwen3.5:35b (24GB) - glm-4.7-flash (19GB) - nemotron-3-nano:30b (24GB) - nemotron-cascade-2:30b (24GB) - gpt-oss:20b (14GB) I gave them the same challenge: draw a campfire with HTML Canvas. Why Canvas? HTML/CSS forgives bad syntax — things still render. JavaScript + Canvas doesn't — one mistake and the screen goes black.

Got a 24GB Graphics Card? These 6 coding models all fit on it (Q4): - qwen3.5:27b (17GB) - qwen3.5:35b (24GB) - glm-4.7-flash (19GB) - nemotron-3-nano:30b (24GB) - nemotron-cascade-2:30b (24GB) - gpt-oss:20b (14GB) I gave them the same challenge: draw a campfire with HTML Canvas. Why Canvas? HTML/CSS forgives bad syntax — things still render. JavaScript + Canvas doesn't — one mistake and the screen goes black.

stevibe

76,096 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

I gave Kimi K2.6 and K2.7 Code the exact same prompt to animate a letter burning to ash. Pure HTML canvas, zero libraries.

I gave Kimi K2.6 and K2.7 Code the exact same prompt to animate a letter burning to ash. Pure HTML canvas, zero libraries.

stevibe

89,982 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Qwen3.5-35B with only 3B active parameters This MoE model runs FASTER than most 7B dense models. Tested on 3 generations of NVIDIA: - 5090: 137 tok/s - 4090: 112 tok/s - 3090: 78 tok/s The surprise? The 4090 <> 5090 gap is only 22%. With a 3B active MoE, even old GPUs fly.

Qwen3.5-35B with only 3B active parameters This MoE model runs FASTER than most 7B dense models. Tested on 3 generations of NVIDIA: - 5090: 137 tok/s - 4090: 112 tok/s - 3090: 78 tok/s The surprise? The 4090 <> 5090 gap is only 22%. With a 3B active MoE, even old GPUs fly.

stevibe

69,532 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Completed a first hour side-by-side comparison between Qwen3.5 27b and Qwen3.6 27b on the same 4 canvas coding tests. Running the Qwen3.6 27b FP8, vLLM. What do you think?

Completed a first hour side-by-side comparison between Qwen3.5 27b and Qwen3.6 27b on the same 4 canvas coding tests. Running the Qwen3.6 27b FP8, vLLM. What do you think?

stevibe

114,191 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Parameter scaling just broke in front of me. I gave 90 math problems as images to 10 local vision models, 3 runs each, only consistent answers across all 3 runs counted. Two findings: > Gemma 4 was the most consistent family, 31B took the crown at 89.6%. > But Qwen 3.5 4B came 2 answers behind it. A 4B. Ranked 2nd out of 10. Vision-math isn't one skill, it's two: reading the image, then solving it. The real lesson for anyone running local: small ≠ weak. If you're building agentic workflows, finding the right model for each task matters more than reaching for the biggest one. In this test, the 4B ran far faster because of its size, scored higher, and left VRAM free for the rest of your stack. Full results: 🥇 Gemma 4 31B — 242/270 (89.6%) 🥈 Qwen 3.5 4B — 240/270 (88.9%) 🥉 Gemma 4 E4B — 222/270 (82.2%) 🥉 Qwen 3.6 27B — 222/270 (82.2%) 5. Gemma 4 26B A4B — 216/270 (80.0%) 6. Qwen 3.5 2B — 201/270 (74.4%) 7. Gemma 4 E2B — 192/270 (71.1%) 8. Qwen 3.6 35B A3B — 192/270 (71.1%) 9. Qwen 3.5 9B — 168/270 (62.2%) 10. Qwen 3.5 0.8B — 45/270 (16.7%) All GGUF + mmproj, Unsloth's Q6_K_XL quant.

Parameter scaling just broke in front of me. I gave 90 math problems as images to 10 local vision models, 3 runs each, only consistent answers across all 3 runs counted. Two findings: > Gemma 4 was the most consistent family, 31B took the crown at 89.6%. > But Qwen 3.5 4B came 2 answers behind it. A 4B. Ranked 2nd out of 10. Vision-math isn't one skill, it's two: reading the image, then solving it. The real lesson for anyone running local: small ≠ weak. If you're building agentic workflows, finding the right model for each task matters more than reaching for the biggest one. In this test, the 4B ran far faster because of its size, scored higher, and left VRAM free for the rest of your stack. Full results: 🥇 Gemma 4 31B — 242/270 (89.6%) 🥈 Qwen 3.5 4B — 240/270 (88.9%) 🥉 Gemma 4 E4B — 222/270 (82.2%) 🥉 Qwen 3.6 27B — 222/270 (82.2%) 5. Gemma 4 26B A4B — 216/270 (80.0%) 6. Qwen 3.5 2B — 201/270 (74.4%) 7. Gemma 4 E2B — 192/270 (71.1%) 8. Qwen 3.6 35B A3B — 192/270 (71.1%) 9. Qwen 3.5 9B — 168/270 (62.2%) 10. Qwen 3.5 0.8B — 45/270 (16.7%) All GGUF + mmproj, Unsloth's Q6_K_XL quant.

stevibe

22,882 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

2.3x faster. Ran Unsloth AI Qwen3.6 MTP variants on a DGX Spark (UD-Q6_K_XL): > 27B → 27B MTP: 8.1 → 18.65 t/s (2.3x faster) > 35B A3B → 35B A3B MTP: 56.91 → 66.52 t/s (+17%) The 27B dense model more than doubled throughput from MTP alone. Free speed is free speed.

2.3x faster. Ran Unsloth AI Qwen3.6 MTP variants on a DGX Spark (UD-Q6_K_XL): > 27B → 27B MTP: 8.1 → 18.65 t/s (2.3x faster) > 35B A3B → 35B A3B MTP: 56.91 → 66.52 t/s (+17%) The 27B dense model more than doubled throughput from MTP alone. Free speed is free speed.

stevibe

24,315 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

no prompt engineering, no agentic harness, no tool calls. just me being lazy in llama.cpp's web ui and gemma 4 31b dense taking the task seriously. i typed "create gpu marketplace cards with hardware specs and prices per hour" and the model went and coded this ui, one shot, navy bg, glassmorphism cards, neon accent buttons, realistic pricing tiers per architecture. it even wrote a "why this looks premium" explanation under the code. for context this is a q4 quant of google's 31b dense thinking model, running on a rtx 5090 mobile 24gb in the rog scar 18 at around 15 tok/s sustained, same vram tier as a 3090 or 4090 desktop, so whatever you see here translates directly to your card at home. the whole interaction was me not trying and the model reasoning harder than the prompt deserved. that tells me more about where local ai is at in april 2026 than any leaderboard score. next test drops gemma 4 into hermes agent, autonomous tool calling, multi step reasoning, real agentic loop instead of a chat window. let's see what the same model does when it gets the right environment. more experiments coming anon. octopus invaders queued. same hardware, different tasks, all published here on x and all translatable to your 24gb card. for now the video below shows it coding live, gpu going brrr.

no prompt engineering, no agentic harness, no tool calls. just me being lazy in llama.cpp's web ui and gemma 4 31b dense taking the task seriously. i typed "create gpu marketplace cards with hardware specs and prices per hour" and the model went and coded this ui, one shot, navy bg, glassmorphism cards, neon accent buttons, realistic pricing tiers per architecture. it even wrote a "why this looks premium" explanation under the code. for context this is a q4 quant of google's 31b dense thinking model, running on a rtx 5090 mobile 24gb in the rog scar 18 at around 15 tok/s sustained, same vram tier as a 3090 or 4090 desktop, so whatever you see here translates directly to your card at home. the whole interaction was me not trying and the model reasoning harder than the prompt deserved. that tells me more about where local ai is at in april 2026 than any leaderboard score. next test drops gemma 4 into hermes agent, autonomous tool calling, multi step reasoning, real agentic loop instead of a chat window. let's see what the same model does when it gets the right environment. more experiments coming anon. octopus invaders queued. same hardware, different tasks, all published here on x and all translatable to your 24gb card. for now the video below shows it coding live, gpu going brrr.

Sudo su

28,939 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Which LLMs actually love to think? Tested 7 models on 5 math problems, measured reasoning length. The think winners: both Qwen3.5 models (27B and 35B A3B) — massive overthinkers, up to 10k+ tokens on a single question. Plot twists: > Kimi K2.6 feels verbose, actually one of the leanest > Gemma4 26B A4B solved 2 with ZERO thinking

Which LLMs actually love to think? Tested 7 models on 5 math problems, measured reasoning length. The think winners: both Qwen3.5 models (27B and 35B A3B) — massive overthinkers, up to 10k+ tokens on a single question. Plot twists: > Kimi K2.6 feels verbose, actually one of the leanest > Gemma4 26B A4B solved 2 with ZERO thinking

stevibe

97,403 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

3 ways to destroy a piece of paper. Qwen 3.5 35B A3B vs. Ornith 1.0 35B, side-by-side canvas test. (Why 3.5 not 3.6? Ornith is post-trained on Qwen 3.5 and Gemma 4, so this shows what the post-training adds.) Same 3 challenges: 🔪 Slice: three blade swipes, fruit-game style 📄 Shredder: desktop strip-cut 🗑️ Crumple: balled up and tossed Winner: not close. Ornith, decisively. The post-training quality is REAL.

3 ways to destroy a piece of paper. Qwen 3.5 35B A3B vs. Ornith 1.0 35B, side-by-side canvas test. (Why 3.5 not 3.6? Ornith is post-trained on Qwen 3.5 and Gemma 4, so this shows what the post-training adds.) Same 3 challenges: 🔪 Slice: three blade swipes, fruit-game style 📄 Shredder: desktop strip-cut 🗑️ Crumple: balled up and tossed Winner: not close. Ornith, decisively. The post-training quality is REAL.

stevibe

47,792 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Finally got my hands on the big one. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B — 122 billion parameters. Too big for any single consumer GPU. So I rented 4 of each... and then one professional card to see if brute force even matters. - 1x RTX PRO 6000 (96GB): 101.4 tok/s - 4x 5090 (128GB): 87.0 tok/s - 4x 4090 (96GB): 25.1 tok/s - 4x 3090 (96GB): 20.8 tok/s One single $8,500 card beat four RTX 5090s

Finally got my hands on the big one. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B — 122 billion parameters. Too big for any single consumer GPU. So I rented 4 of each... and then one professional card to see if brute force even matters. - 1x RTX PRO 6000 (96GB): 101.4 tok/s - 4x 5090 (128GB): 87.0 tok/s - 4x 4090 (96GB): 25.1 tok/s - 4x 3090 (96GB): 20.8 tok/s One single $8,500 card beat four RTX 5090s

stevibe

195,832 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The RTX 3090 is a 5-year-old GPU and it still runs a 27B model at 20 tok/s I tested Qwen3.5:27b across 3 generations of NVIDIA: 5090 → ~60 tok/s 4090 → ~40 tok/s 3090 → ~20 tok/s Perfectly linear scaling. Double the generation, double the speed.

The RTX 3090 is a 5-year-old GPU and it still runs a 27B model at 20 tok/s I tested Qwen3.5:27b across 3 generations of NVIDIA: 5090 → ~60 tok/s 4090 → ~40 tok/s 3090 → ~20 tok/s Perfectly linear scaling. Double the generation, double the speed.

stevibe

142,493 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Laguna S 2.1 running native NVFP4 Picked Blackwell hardware for this side-by-side: 🟢 DGX Spark | 19.44 tok/s | 162ms TTFT 🔵 RTX PRO 6000 | 108.54 tok/s | 266ms TTFT 🟣 4× RTX 5090 (TP4+EP4) | 145.81 tok/s | 521ms TTFT 117.6B MoE (8.5B active), quantized to FP4, on your own box.

Laguna S 2.1 running native NVFP4 Picked Blackwell hardware for this side-by-side: 🟢 DGX Spark | 19.44 tok/s | 162ms TTFT 🔵 RTX PRO 6000 | 108.54 tok/s | 266ms TTFT 🟣 4× RTX 5090 (TP4+EP4) | 145.81 tok/s | 521ms TTFT 117.6B MoE (8.5B active), quantized to FP4, on your own box.

stevibe

23,102 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

look what a single consumer GPU just built. gave Qwen3.5-35B-A3B one prompt: build a cloud GPU marketplace with pricing cards, deploy templates, and a benchmark leaderboard. it planned the layout, wrote the animations, populated the data, and served it. one shot. one HTML file. then i told it to iterate. split the hero, add a floating GPU with neural network animation. glassmorphism on the cards. done. done. done. three rounds, no confusion, no regressions. 4-bit quantized. 19.7 GB. single RTX 3090. full coding agent claude code harness running on localhost. no API calls leaving my machine. no subscription. no rate limits. earlier today i pointed it at my own production website. it curled the HTML, found every broken link, and told me "pretty shell, empty core. would not recommend." then built a better version from scratch. local inference stops being a demo when you actually steer it. the models are there. they understand intent. but you have to meet them halfway with good prompts, clear context, and real project structure. that's the skill gap now. not the models. the steering. more experiments coming. i genuinely cannot stop playing with this thing.

look what a single consumer GPU just built. gave Qwen3.5-35B-A3B one prompt: build a cloud GPU marketplace with pricing cards, deploy templates, and a benchmark leaderboard. it planned the layout, wrote the animations, populated the data, and served it. one shot. one HTML file. then i told it to iterate. split the hero, add a floating GPU with neural network animation. glassmorphism on the cards. done. done. done. three rounds, no confusion, no regressions. 4-bit quantized. 19.7 GB. single RTX 3090. full coding agent claude code harness running on localhost. no API calls leaving my machine. no subscription. no rate limits. earlier today i pointed it at my own production website. it curled the HTML, found every broken link, and told me "pretty shell, empty core. would not recommend." then built a better version from scratch. local inference stops being a demo when you actually steer it. the models are there. they understand intent. but you have to meet them halfway with good prompts, clear context, and real project structure. that's the skill gap now. not the models. the steering. more experiments coming. i genuinely cannot stop playing with this thing.

Sudo su

37,201 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Opus 4.7 first-hour impressions Ran the canvas tree growth test twice. 4.6: nailed the animation both times 4.7: static tree, no growth animation — twice 4.7's thinking is noticeably shorter and faster though (trimmed some 4.6 thinking in the clip for pacing). Not the upgrade direction I expected on this one.

Opus 4.7 first-hour impressions Ran the canvas tree growth test twice. 4.6: nailed the animation both times 4.7: static tree, no growth animation — twice 4.7's thinking is noticeably shorter and faster though (trimmed some 4.6 thinking in the clip for pacing). Not the upgrade direction I expected on this one.

stevibe

488,119 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten