You can run plenty of models on a $10K machine or even a lot less than that, it all depends how much you want to wait for results. Streaming weights from SSD storage using mmap() is already a reality when running the largest and sparsest models. You can save even more on memory by limiting KV caching at the cost of extra compute, and there may be ways to push RAM savings even higher simply by tweaking the extent to which model activations are recomputed as needed.

I won't need a heater with that running in my room.

I don't even need "open weights" to run on hardware I own.

I am fine renting an H100 (or whatever), as long as I theoretically have access to and own everything running.

I do not want my career to become dependent upon Anthropic.

Honestly, the best thing for "open" might be for us to build open pipes and services and models where we can rent cloud. Large models will outpace small models: LLMs, video models, "world" models, etc.

I'd even be fine time-sharing a running instance of a large model in a large cloud. As long as all the constituent pieces are open where I could (in theory) distill it, run it myself, spin up my own copy, etc.

I do not deny that big models are superior. But I worry about the power the large hyperscalers are getting while we focus on small "open" models that really can't match the big ones.

We should focus on competing with large models, not artisanal homebrew stuff that is irrelevant.

OOM is a pretty terrible benchmark too, though. You can build a DDR4 machine that "technically" loads 256gb models for maybe $1000 used, but then you've got to account for the compute aspect and that's constrained by a number of different variables. A super-sparse model might run great on that DDR4 machine, whereas a 32b model would cause it to chug.

There's just not a good way to visualize the compute needed, with all the nuance that exists. I think that trying to create these abstractions are what leads to people impulse buying resource-constrained hardware and getting frustrated. The autoscalers have a huge advantage in this field that homelabbers will never be able to match.

I've had usable results with qwen3:30b, for what I was doing. There's definitely a knack to breaking the problem down enough for it.

What's interesting to me about this model is how good it allegedly is with no thinking mode. That's my main complaint about qwen3:30b, how verbose its reasoning is. For the size it's astonishing otherwise.

Honestly I've been completely spoiled by Claude Code and Codex CLI against hosted models.

I'm hoping for an experience where I can tell my computer to do a thing - write a code, check for logged errors, find something in a bunch of files - and I get an answer a few moments later.

Setting a task and then coming back to see if it worked an hour later is too much friction for me!

Surely the answer is a very small proxy server between the two?

You are describing distillation, there are better ways to do it, and it was done in the past, Deepseek distilled onto Qwen.

Are you running 120B agentic? I tried using it in a few different setups and it failed hard in every one. It would just give up after a second or two every time.

I wonder if it has to do with the message format, since it should be able to do tool use afaict.

I’ve a 128GB m3 max MacBook Pro. Running the gpt oss model on it via lmstudio once the context gets large enough the fans spin to 100 and it’s unbearable.

Opensource or local models will always heavily lag frontier.

Who pays for a free model? GPU training isn't free!

I remember early on people saying 100B+ models will run on your phone like nowish. They were completely wrong and I don't think it's going to ever really change.

People always will want the fastest, best, easiest setup method.

"Good enough" massively changes when your marketing team is managing k8s clusters with frontier systems in the near future.

Plus a long queue of yet-undiscovered architectural improvements

A lot of manufacturers are bailing on consumer lines to focus on enterprise from what I've read. Not great.

Even without leveling up hardware, 5 years is a loooong time to squeeze the juice out of lower-end model capability. Although in this specific niche we do seem to be leaning on Qwen a lot.

Local models on your laptop will never be as powerful as the ones that take up a rack of datacenter equipment. But there is still a surprising amount of overlap if you are willing to understand and accept the limitations.

what do you run this on if I may ask? lmstudio, ollama, lama? which cli?

Cerebras already has GLM 4.7 in the code plans

Any notes on the problems with MLX caching? I’ve experimented with local models on my MacBook and there’s usually a good speedup from MLX, but I wasn’t aware there’s an issue with prompt caching. Is it from MLX itself or LMstudio/mlx-lm/etc?

I can run nightmedia/qwen3-next-80b-a3b-instruct-mlx at 60-74 tps using LM Studio. What did you try ? What benefit do you get from KV Caching ?

There is (must be - information theory) a size/capacity efficiency frontier. There is no particular reason to think we're anywhere near it right now.

I don't buy this. I've long wondered if the larger models, while exhibiting more useful knowledge, are not more wasteful as we greedily explore the frontier of "bigger is getting us better results, make it bigger". Qwen3-Coder-Next seems to be a point for that thought: we need to spend some time exploring what smaller models are capable of.

Perhaps I'm grossly wrong -- I guess time will tell.

What am I missing here? I thought this model needs 46GB of unified memory for 4-bit quant. Radeon RX 7900 XTX has 24GB of memory right? Hoping to get some insight, thanks in advance!

UD stands for "Unsloth-Dynamic" which upcasts important layers to higher bits. Non UD is just standard llama.cpp quants. Both still use our calibration dataset.

Thanks! :) We're early access partners with them!

Wonder where it falls on the Sonnet 3.7/4.0/4.5 continuum.

3.7 was not all that great. 4 was decent for specific things, especially self contained stuff like tests, but couldn't do a good job with more complex work. 4.5 is now excellent at many things.

If it's around the perf of 3.7, that's interesting but not amazing. If it's around 4, that's useful.

I would not go below q8 if comparing to sonnet.

> I experimented with the Q2 and Q4 quants.

Of course you get degraded performance with this.

There have been advances recently (last year) in scaling deep rl by a significant amount, their announcement is in line with a timeline of running enough experiments to figure out how to leverage that in post training.

Importantly, this isn’t just throwing more data at the problem in an unstructured way, afaik companies are getting as many got histories as they can and doing something along the lines of, get an llm to checkpoint pull requests, features etc and convert those into plausible input prompts, then run deep rl with something which passes the acceptance criteria / tests as the reward signal.

Should be possible with optimised models, just drop all "generic" stuff and focus on coding performance.

There's no reason for a coding model to contain all of ao3 and wikipedia =)

It literally always is. HN Thought DeepSeek and every version of Kimi would finally dethrone the bigger models from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. They're literally always wrong and average knowledge of LLMs here is shockingly low.

Are you just exposing mastra cli commands to Claude Code in md context? I’d love you to elaborate on this if you have time.

They can only raise prices as long as people buy their subscriptions / pay for their api. The Chinese labs are closing in on the SOTA models (I would say they are already there) and offer insane cheap prices for their subscriptions. Vote with your wallet.

Works great for these type of MOE models. The ability to have large amounts of VRAM let you run different models in parallel easily, or to have actually useful context sizes. Dense models can get sluggish though. AMD's ROCm support has been a little rough for Stable Diffusion stuff (memory issues leading to application stability problems) but it's worked well with LLMs, as does Vulkan.

I wish AMD would get around to adding NPU support in Linux for it though, it has more potential that could be unlocked.

Prompt preprocessing is slow, the rest is pretty great.

llama.cpp is giving me ~35tok/sec with the unsloth quants (UD-Q4_K_XL, elsewhere in this thread) on my Spark. FWIW my understanding and experience is that llama.cpp seems to give slight better performance for "single user" workloads, but I'm not sure why.

I'm asking it to do some analysis/explain some Rust code in a rather large open source project and it's working nicely. I agree this is a model I could possibly, maybe use locally...

Yes, exactly. The discourse has been so far off the rails now.

The anticompetitive part is setting a much lower price for typical usage of Claude Code vs. typical usage of another CLI dev tool.

from what i remember, i couldnt actually use claude code with the subscription when i subscribed. i could only use it with third party tools.

eventually they added subscription support and that worked better than cline or kilo, but im still not clear what anthropic tools the subscription was actually useful for

The question I pose is this: if they're willing to start building walls this early in the game while they've still got plenty of viable competitors, and are at most 6 months ahead, how will they treat us if they achieve market dominance?

Some people think LLMs are the final frontier. If we just give in and let Anthropic dictate the terms to us we're going to experience unprecedented enshittification. The software freedom fight is more important than ever. My machine is sovereign; Anthropic provides the API, everything I do on my machine is my concern.

I don't get why so much mental gymnastics is done to avoid the fact that locking their lower prices to effectively subsidize their shitty product is the anti competitive behavior.

They simply don't want to compete, they want to force the majority of people that can't spend a lot on tokens to use their inferior product.

Why build a better product if you control the cost?

Society is lacking people that stand up for something. My efforts to consume less is seen as being cheap by my family, which I find so sad. I much prefer donating my money than exchanging superfluous gifts on Christmas.

As I get older I more and more view convenience as the enemy of good. Luckily (or unluckily for some) a lot of the tradeoffs we are asked to make in the name of convenience are increasingly absurd. I have an easier and easier time going without these Faustian bargains.

I'd encourage you to try the -codex family with the highest reasoning.

I can't comment on Opus in CC because I've never bit the bullet and paid the subscription, but I have worked my way up to the $200/month Cursor subscription and the 5.2 codex models blow Opus out of the water in my experience (obviously very subjective).

I arrived at making plans with Opus and then implementing with the OpenAI model. The speed of Opus is much better for planning.

I'm willing to believe that CC/Opus is truly the overall best; I'm only commenting because you mentioned Cursor, where I'm fairly confident it's not. I'm basing my judgement on "how frequently does it do what I want the first time".

> Claude Opus 4.5 by far is the most capable development model.

At the moment I have a personal Claude Max subscription and ChatGPT Enterprise for Codex at work. Using both, I feel pretty definitively that gpt-5.2-codex is strictly superior to Opus 4.5. When I use Opus 4.5 I’m still constantly dealing with it cutting corners, misinterpreting my intentions and stopping when it isn’t actually done. When I switched to Codex for work a few months ago all of those problems went away.

I got the personal subscription this month to try out Gas Town and see how Opus 4.5 does on various tasks, and there are definitely features of CC that I miss with Codex CLI (I can’t believe they still don’t have hooks), but I’ve cancelled the subscription and won’t renew it at the end of this month unless they drop a model that really brings them up to where gpt-5.2-codex is at.

It feels very close to a trade-off point.

I agree with all posts in the chain: Opus is good, Anthropic have burned good will, I would like to use other models...but Opus is too good.

What I find most frustrating is that I am not sure if it is even actual model quality that is the blocker with other models. Gemini just goes off the rails sometimes with strange bugs like writing random text continuously and burning output tokens, Grok seems to have system prompts that result in odd behaviour...no bugs just doing weird things, Gemini Flash models seem to output massive quantities of text for no reason...it is often feels like very stupid things.

Also, there are huge issues with adopting some of these open models in terms of IP. Third parties are running these models and you are just sending them all your code...with a code of conduct promise from OpenRouter?

I also don't think there needs to be a huge improvement in models. Opus feels somewhat close to the reasonable limit: useful, still outputs nonsense, misses things sometimes...there are open models that can reach the same 95th percentile but the median is just the model outputting complete nonsense and trying to wipe your file system.

The day for open models will come but it still feels so close and so far.

I buy the theory that Claude Code is engineered to use things like token caching efficiently, and their Claude Max plans were designed with those optimizations in mind.

If people start using the Claude Max plans with other agent harnesses that don't use the same kinds of optimizations the economics may no longer have worked out.

(But I also buy that they're going for horizontal control of the stack here and banning other agent harnesses was a competitive move to support that.)

Nah, their "moat" is CC, they are afraid that as other folks build effective coding agent, they are are going lose market share.

In what way would it be abused? The usage limits apply all the same, they aren't client side, and hitting that limit is within the terms of the agreement with Anthropic.

Taking umbrage as if it matters how I use the compute I'm paying for via the harness they want me to use it within as long as I'm just doing personal tasks I want to do for myself, not trying to power an apps API with it seems such a waste of their time to be focusing on and only causes brand perception damage with their customers.

Could have just turned a blind eye.

How do I "abuse" a token? I pass it to their API, the request executes, a response is returned, I get billed for it. That should be the end of the conversation.

(Edit due to rate-limiting: I see, thanks -- I wasn't aware there was more than one token type.)

The loss of access shows the kind of power they'll have in the future. It's just a taste of what's to come.

If a company is going to automate our jobs, we shouldn't be giving them money and data to do so. They're using us to put ourselves out of work, and they're not giving us the keys.

I'm fine with non-local, open weights models. Not everything has to run on a local GPU, but it has to be something we can own.

I'd like a large, non-local Qwen3-Coder that I can launch in a RunPod or similar instance. I think on-demand non-local cloud compute can serve as a middle ground.

I control it with ssh and sometimes tmux (but termux+wireguard lead to a surprisingly generally stable connection). Why did you need more than that?

How did this work? The ban, I mean. Did you just wake up to find out an email and that your creds no longer worked? Were you doing things to sub-process out to the Claude Code CLI or something else?

There is weaponized malaise employed by these frontier model providers and I feel like that dark-pattern, what you pointed out, and others are employed to rate-limit certain subscriptions.

They did ship that feature, it's called "&" / teleport from web. They also have an iOS app.

Likewise curious to hear how it goes! 80B seems too big for a 5090, I'd be surprised if it runs well un-quantized.

Interested to hear how this goes!

OpenCode

They had a public spat with Opencode

Cause they make the best coding model.

It's that simple. Everyone else is trying to compete in other ways and Anthropic are pushing for dominate the market.

They'll eventually lose their performance edge and suddenly they will back to being cute and fluffy

I've cancelled a clause sub, but still have one.

Probably because the alternatives are OpenAI, Google, Meta. Not throwing shade at those companies but it's not hard to win the hearts of developers when that's your competition.

Thanks, I’ll try out Codex to bridge until local models get to the level I need.

Because OpenAI is on the back foot at the moment, they need the retention

On the other hand I feel like 5.2 gets progressively dumbed down. It used to work well, but now initial few prompts go in right direction and then it goes off the rails reminding me more of a GPT-3.5.

I wonder what they are up to.

The enemy of done is perfect, etc. what is the point of comments like this?

That's great, yes. We all draw the line somewhere, subjectively. We all pretend we follow logic and reason and lets all be more honest and truthfully share how we as humans are emotionally driven not logically driven.

It's like this old adage "Our brains are poor masters and great slaves". We are basically just wanting to survive and we've trained ourselves to follow the orders of our old corporate slave masters who are now failing us, and we are unfortunately out of fear paying and supporting anticompetitive behavior and our internal dissonance is stopping us from changing it (along with fear of survival and missing out and so forth).

The global marketing by the slave master class isn't helping. We can draw a line however arbitrary we'd like though and its still better and more helpful than complaining "you drew a line arbitrarily" and not actually doing any of the hard courageous work of drawing lines of any kind in the first place.

I wasn’t only referring to their new model, I meant their blogpost and the research behind their progress, its always a joyride to read.

I didn’t know it was this serious with the vocabulary, I’ll be more cautious in the future.

Not everyone on hn is a native english speaker...

Thanks for the pointers!

one more thing, that guide says:

> You can choose UD-Q4_K_XL or other quantized versions.

I see eight different 4-bit quants (I assume that is the size I want?).. how to pick which one to use?

    IQ4_XS
    Q4_K_S
    Q4_1
    IQ4_NL
    MXFP4_MOE
    Q4_0
    Q4_K_M
    Q4_K_XL

Ah, a spread of the individual tests makes plenty of sense! Many thanks (same goes to the other comments).

If this is genuinely better than K2.5 even at a third the speed then my openrouter credits are going to go unused.

Much appreciated, but I mean more around "what do the error bars in the figure represent" than what the turn scaling itself is.

And it's worth pointing out that Claude Code now dispatches "subagents" from Opus->Sonnet and Opus->Haiku ... all the time, depending on the problem.

Running this thing locally on my Spark with 4-bit quant I'm getting 30-35 tokens/sec in opencode but it doesn't feel any "stupider" than Haiku, that's for sure. Haiku can be dumb as a post. This thing is smarter than that.

It feels somewhere around Sonnet 4 level, and I am finding it genuinely useful at 4-bit even. Though I have paid subscriptions elsewhere, so I doubt I'll actually use it much.

I could see configuration OpenCode somehow to use paid Kimi 2.5 or Gemini for the planning/analysis & compaction, and this for the task execution. It seems entirely competent.

It's interesting how people can be so into LLMs but dont, at the end of the day, understand they're just passing "well formatted" text to a text processor and everything else is build around encoding/decoding it into familiar or novel interfaces & the rest.

The instability of the tooling outside of the LLM is what keeps me from building anything on the cloud, because you're attaching your knowledge and work flow to a tool that can both change dramatically based on context, cache, and model changes and can arbitrarily raise prices as "adaptable whales" push the cost up.

Its akin to learning everything about beanie babies in the early 1990's and right when you think you understand the value proposition, suddenly they're all worthless.

Thank you for your advice have a good evening

When Alibaba succeeds at producing a GPT-5.2-equivalent model, they won't be releasing the weights. They'll only offer API access, like for the previous models in the Qwen Max series.

Don't forget that they want to make money in the end. They release small models for free because the publicity is worth more than they could charge for them, but they won't just give away models that are good enough that people would pay significant amounts of money to use them.

I think it depends on what you use it for. Coding, where time is money? You probably want the Good Shit, but also want decent open weights models to keep prices sane rather than sama’s 20k/month nonsense. Something like a basic sentiment analysis? You can get good results out of a 30b MoE that runs at good pace on a midrange laptop. Researching things online with many sources and decent results I’d expect to be doable locally by the end of 2026 if you have 128GB ram, although it’ll take a while to resolve.

It feels like the gap between open weight and closed weight models is closing though.

If an open weights model is released that’s as capable at coding as Opus 4.5, then there’s very little reason not to offload the actual writing of code to open weight subagents running locally and stick strictly to planning with Opus 5. Could get you masses more usage out of your plan (or cut down on API costs).

I'm going in the opposite direction: with each new model, the more I try to optimize my existing workflows by breaking the tasks down so that I can delegate tasks to the less powerful models and only rely on the newer ones if the results are not acceptable.

I used to say that Sonnet 4.5 was all I would ever need, but now I exclusively use Opus...

> Based on my experience with frontier models, once you get a taste of the latest and greatest it's very hard to go back to a less capable model, even if that less capable model would have been SOTA 9 months ago.

That's the tyranny of comfort. Same for high end car, living in a big place, etc.

There's a good work around though: just don't try the luxury in the first place so you can stay happy with the 9 months delay.

You're replying to a bot, fyi :)