some benchmarks

#13
by owao - opened

Qwen3.6-27B-MoQ-4.5bpw vs ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B-Q4_K_M

I like this test I found somewhere in the past on reddit, that's testing multiple abilities at the same time.
The quants are not absolute apple to apple but that's all I can run.

PROMPT = "Reverse this string: '.DefaultCellStyle'"
GROUND_TRUTH = "elytSlleCtluafeD."
RUNS_PER_MODEL = 50
max_tokens: 6000
==================================================
Qwen3.6-27B-MTP-MoQ-4.5_110k
==================================================

All 50 runs already completed
Results: 17/50 correct (34.0%)
Tokens: sum=133493, avg=2669.9, min=1345, max=6000

==================================================
ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B-Q4_K_M_100k
==================================================

All 50 runs already completed
Results: 18/50 correct (36.0%)
Tokens: sum=69059, avg=1381.2, min=487, max=6000

Not a large number of runs, but seems in line with the promise :)
Great job!

Oh here is the python script for who is interested I forgot to include it: https://paste.sh/HO480lkt#5PIGj6qtxijHiOk8Wj7rWZJl

BottleCapAI org

Thanks so much for contributing the scores, it's amazing when the community validates the results!

Wow, thank you very much for your work klasocki.

==================================================

Evaluating model: ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B-MTP-Q6_K-128k

==================================================

Running 50 evaluation run(s)...

Prompt: Reverse this string: '.DefaultCellStyle'

Ground truth: elytSlleCtluafeD.

Results will be saved to results\ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B-MTP-Q6_K-128k.json

Run 1: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 2: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 3: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 4: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 5: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 6: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 7: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 8: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 9: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 10: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 11: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 12: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 13: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 14: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 15: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 16: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 17: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 18: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 19: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 20: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 21: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 22: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 23: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 24: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 25: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 26: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 27: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 28: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 29: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 30: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 31: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 32: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 33: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 34: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 35: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 36: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 37: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 38: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 39: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 40: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 41: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 42: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 43: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 44: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 45: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 46: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 47: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 48: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

Run 49: [FAIL] (extracted: None)

Run 50: [OK] (extracted: elytSlleCtluafeD.)

==================================================

Results: 30/50 correct (60.0%)

Tokens: sum=49503, avg=990.1, min=498, max=6000

Hey @armin5000 50 runs is again not really enough to fully rely on them, but I'm a bit surprised by your results, I let it ran a bit longer, for 200 runs, but can't go past 32% success rate. Even if we say the confidence interval for your 50 runs is something like +/-15%, it still seems quite diverging from my results!
If you don't mind I'd like to ask what parameters you ran this with?
Here were mine, for this last test:

--temp 1
--top-p 0.95
--top-k 20
--min-p 0
--presence-penalty 0
--repeat-penalty 1
--flash-attn on
--spec-type draft-mtp
--spec-draft-n-max 2
==================================================
Evaluating model: ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B-Q4_K_M_100k
==================================================
Results: 65/200 correct (32.5%)
Tokens: sum=280031, avg=1400.2, min=266, max=6000

hi, I use the Q6_K model.

==================================================
Model: ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B-MTP-Q6_128k

Total runs: 200
Correct: 101/200 (50.5%)
Failed: 0
Tokens: sum=190883, avg=954.4, min=433, max=6000

"%LLAMA_EXE%" ^
-m "%MODEL%" ^
--mmproj "%MMPROJ%" ^
--alias "Qwen3.6:27B-MTP" ^
-c 128608 ^
-ngl 999 ^
--flash-attn on ^
--host 127.0.0.1 ^
--port %PORT% ^
--parallel 1 ^
--jinja ^
--cache-type-k q8_0 ^
--cache-type-v q8_0 ^
--spec-type draft-mtp ^
--spec-draft-n-max 4 ^
--image-min-tokens 1024 ^
--temp 0.2 ^
--top-k 20 ^
--top-p 0.9 ^
--min-p 0.0 ^
--presence-penalty 0.0 ^
--repeat-penalty 1.05 ^
--n-predict 8192 ^
--reasoning on

interesting, thank you!

fails on lm-studio bionic agentic coding.
long working procedure ~1hour
(Perhaps I check this again on other tasks)

finaly back using:
Qwopus3.6-27B-Coder-Compat-MTP-Q4_K_M.gguf
or original
Qwen3.6-27B-UD-MTP-Q4_K_XL.gguf

Sign up or log in to comment