Yeah, I would appreciate if someone could make sense of the pricing differences between these models. How can a provider run DSv4F at lower cost than a 27B dense or 35B A3B model?
replyDoes it come down to utilization and/or specific model tricks and efficiencies (attention, kv cache, etc.)?
DeepInfra prices:
Qwen 3.6 27B: $0.32 in / $3.20 out
Gemma 3 27B: $0.08 in / $0.16 out
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731: $0.08 in / $0.18 out
Qwen 3.6 35B A3B: $0.10 in / $0.95 out
https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3.6-27b
https://openrouter.ai/google/gemma-3-27b-it
DeepSeek V4 Flash is natively FP4 MoE with very compact KV cache. Say 8 GB/s. Qwen 27B is about 60 GB/s at full FP16 precision.
replyIf active weight bandwidth is everything, then wouldn't Qwen 35b a3b (FP8) be roughly half the cost of dsv4f (FP4)?
replydsv4f appears bigger and more memory/computationally expensive to run any way I look at it.
Yeah, it should be basically free. No idea why it is not. I guess KV cache taking up RAM and possibly bad business sense or amortized engineering costs, I honestly do not know.
replyWhere do you see that? From what I can see on Open Router, Qwen 3.6 27B (the closest dense equivalent to Gemma 31) is $0.28/m. Am I missing something?
replydeleted
replyThey're comparing Qwen 3.8 Max to Gemma 31B, fundamental mistake.
replyWhy are you comparing a 2.4 trillion Max model to a 31 billion model?
reply