upvote
reply
Given that it apparently defaults to 'xhigh', this is probably the answer.

Granted, it's still much lower tokens/s than you'll get out of many MoE models.

Edit: Even set to medium or low there's still a lot of second guessing, less consistency, lower 'acceptable response' rate, and slower/more token churn vs gemma4:26b-a3b. I think gemma4 is just a better 'general purpose' model.

reply
Thank you, this is exactly what I needed.
reply
Use 3.6 27b as a daily driver for months with charmbracelet crush. Gemma 26b-A3b is not even remotely comparable in terms of coding for me. YMMV depending on how you work, what harness you use, etc I suppose.
reply
gemma4 can't hold a candle to 3.6
reply
You can add a thinking budget thats not much effort in llamacpp. You can align the cut off message with your agent instructions.

What you describe is a engineering harness problem.

If you, and i mean the royal you, actually read tge thinking traces you can see and figure out where its stuck

This means an effective harness would observe when the model is overthinking and step in with reasonable redirection, like increasing logging.

Llamacpp can set reasoning budget and message per reauest, so it can be dynamic.

Your complaint is "skill issue" based and will be resolved by people who do something ither than vibe code react demos.

reply