跳到主内容
精选75Tomasz Tunguz(RSS)产品与增长

本地小模型媲美云端:Qwen 27B 实测对比

Birds Don't Fly Like Planes. Neither Does AI.

原文
推荐理由

给做 AI 产品的读者一个可复现的对比方法:如何用裁判模型盲评本地与云端模型的质量与速度,并理解小模型靠推理弥补记忆的代价。

Your laptop can now run a model as capable as nearly anything in the cloud. I swapped Qwen3.8-27B into my agent & it works brilliantly. This bird flies differently than a plane.

你的笔记本电脑现在可以运行一个能力几乎与云端任何模型相当的模型。我把Qwen3.8-27B换进了我的智能体,它运行得非常好。这只鸟的飞行方式与飞机不同。

This little Qwen model ranks #1 of 135 models, scoring 52 on Artificial Analysis’s Intelligence Index, a point above GLM-5.2, the state-of-the-art open-source model from Z.ai, at 753b parameters.1 A laptop model beats a recognizable, frontier-class cloud peer roughly 28 times its size.

这个小巧的Qwen模型在135个模型中排名第一,在Artificial Analysis的智能指数上得分52,比Z.ai的最先进开源模型GLM-5.2(753b参数)高出一分。1 一个笔记本电脑模型击败了一个可识别的前沿级云端同行,后者大约是它的28倍大小。

How does a bumblebee achieve the same flight as an airliner? Bigger models can store more knowledge, so they can skip straight to an answer, like an expert in many different fields. Smaller models don’t have as much memorized, so they must reason more, almost from first principles, to close that gap.2

大黄蜂如何实现与客机相同的飞行?更大的模型可以存储更多知识,因此它们可以直接跳到答案,就像许多不同领域的专家。较小的模型没有那么多记忆,因此它们必须更多地推理,几乎从第一性原理出发,以弥合这一差距。2

I saw this firsthand when benchmarking the DeepSeek V4 cloud model against two local models. I compared them on the same work, 25 venture-capital tasks (researching startups, summarizing articles, transcribing podcasts), scored by a judge model.3

我在将DeepSeek V4云端模型与两个本地模型进行基准测试时,亲眼看到了这一点。我在相同的工作上对它们进行了比较,包括25项风险投资任务(研究初创公司、总结文章、转录播客),由评判模型打分。3

Qwen3.8-27B is dense : it uses every chapter in the book on every question. Book skimmers DeepSeek & Qwen 3.6 35b (another local model I threw into the test), flips only to the relevant chapters for a question.4

Qwen3.8-27B是密集型的:它在每个问题上都使用书中的每一章。而略读型的DeepSeek和Qwen 3.6 35b(我加入测试的另一个本地模型)只翻到与问题相关的章节。4

modelquality /9tok/savg tokensavg latency
deepseek-v4-flash (plane)8.0137.31591.1s
qwen3.8-27b (bumblebee)8.051.93697.2s
qwen3.6-35b-a3b (hummingbird)7.9113.41,14310.0s
模型质量/9令牌/秒平均令牌数平均延迟
deepseek-v4-flash(飞机)8.0137.31591.1秒
qwen3.8-27b(大黄蜂)8.051.93697.2秒
qwen3.6-35b-a3b(蜂鸟)7.9113.41,14310.0秒

These models provide identically good answers. But the speed varies. The local Qwen 35b shreds at top speed, but needs to think about 7.2x more than the cloud model, crossing the line 9 seconds after DeepSeek. The newest Qwen model is three seconds faster, & the cloud is 6 seconds faster yet.

这些模型提供了同样好的答案。但速度有所不同。本地Qwen 35b以最高速度运行,但需要比云端模型多思考7.2倍,比DeepSeek晚9秒完成。最新的Qwen模型快了3秒,而云端模型又快6秒。

The cloud model jumps to the right answer ; the local models contemplate & debate internally at different rates of speed & accuracy.

云端模型直接跳到正确答案;本地模型则以不同的速度和准确性在内部进行思考和辩论。

For example : on one triage task, the 35B spent 993 tokens to produce six words, “Classification: Scheduling / Action: Respond.” 1000 tokens of deliberation before the response is a hummingbird’s sprint to a honeysuckle. The bumblebee needed 369 thinking tokens, buzzing along at half the speed.

例如:在一个分诊任务中,35B花费了993个令牌来生成六个词,“分类:日程安排 / 行动:回复。” 在回复前进行1000个令牌的思考,是蜂鸟冲刺到金银花。大黄蜂需要369个思考令牌,以一半的速度嗡嗡前行。

Local models can achieve the same result as cloud models, but they’ll take a different flight path to get there.

本地模型可以达到与云端模型相同的结果,但它们会采取不同的飞行路径来达到那里。

  • Artificial Analysis ranks the incumbent here, Qwen3.8-27B, #1 of 135 models on the Intelligence Index, scoring 52, a point above GLM-5.2’s 51, a 753b-parameter frontier model Z.ai shipped two months earlier. The same page ranks it #23 of 135 on output tokens per task, 160M weighted tokens against a class median of 43M. Intelligence rank & verbosity rank move independently, & that’s the trade this whole post is about. ↩︎
  • The imitation-gap explanation. Smaller models produce fluent chain-of-thought that’s more likely to drift logically inconsistent, because they have a sparser map of nearby correct examples to draw on once forced off the direct path to an answer. See Chain of Thought in Large Language Models: Elicited Reasoning or Constrained Imitation? I covered the general shape of this tradeoff, trading inference-time compute for capability, in When Models Learn. ↩︎
  • Method. 25 venture-capital tasks (researching startups, summarizing articles, transcribing podcasts) drawn from my own agent queue. A separate judge model, deepseek-v4-pro, scored outputs blind on completeness, accuracy & conciseness, 3 points each for 9 total. max_tokens was 4096 for every run. Both local models were served through Ollama on the same MLX runtime, so the comparison isn’t confounded by runtime differences. I established the judge’s noise floor by re-scoring identical outputs, which returned a mean absolute difference of 0.16. ↩︎
  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is a 35b parameter model with 3b active parameters per token, a sparse mixture-of-experts architecture, 256 total experts with 8 routed & 1 shared active per token. Per Qwen’s model card on Hugging Face & vLLM’s model recipe. ↩︎
  • Artificial Analysis 将现任模型 Qwen3.8-27B 在智能指数上排名为 135 个模型中的第 1 名,得分 52,比 GLM-5.2 的 51 分高出一分,后者是 Z.ai 两个月前发布的 753b 参数前沿模型。同一页面将其在每任务输出 token 数上排名为 135 个模型中的第 23 名,加权 token 数为 160M,而类别中位数为 43M。智能排名与冗长排名独立变动,而这正是本文讨论的核心权衡。 ↩︎
  • 模仿差距的解释。较小的模型产生流畅的思维链,但更可能逻辑不一致地漂移,因为一旦被迫偏离直接答案路径,它们可借鉴的邻近正确示例映射较为稀疏。参见《大型语言模型中的思维链:引发推理还是受限模仿?》我在《当模型学习时》中概述了这一权衡的一般形态,即以推理时计算换取能力。 ↩︎
  • 方法。25 个风险投资任务(研究初创公司、总结文章、转录播客)取自于我自己的代理队列。一个独立的评判模型 deepseek-v4-pro 对输出进行盲评,评分标准为完整性、准确性和简洁性,每项 3 分,总计 9 分。每次运行的 max_tokens 均为 4096。两个本地模型均通过 Ollama 在相同的 MLX 运行时上提供服务,因此比较不受运行时差异的干扰。我通过重新评分相同输出来确定评判模型的噪声底限,结果平均绝对差异为 0.16。 ↩︎
  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 是一个 35b 参数模型,每个 token 有 3b 活跃参数,采用稀疏混合专家架构,共有 256 个专家,每个 token 有 8 个路由专家和 1 个共享专家活跃。根据 Qwen 在 Hugging Face 上的模型卡和 vLLM 的模型配方。 ↩︎

更进一步:量化金融体系

看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径,把它变成能交付的工程能力

进入量化体系 →

相似阅读

另一事件,读法相近