upvote
Gpt-oss—120b is like 1000 years old in AI years, whereas Qwen 3.8 27b is pretty young. What you’re seeing is that parameters aren’t apples to apples, and at a given parameter level, the new models are much, much better than the ones from a year or two ago. Like, to a comical degree.
reply
Does that not prove my point? Bigger doesn’t automatically mean better. Quality of training data, and model structure, matters as much or more than size
reply
Ah sorry, I should've continued, the bigger recent models are commensurately smarter. If you really want to make the point, then you'd need to show 27b being smarter than similar vintage bigger models. And in that case, there's confounding issues like efficiency, speed due to excessive thinking maybe to make up for the smaller amount of world knowledge baked in (qwen 27b's main issue iirc), etc - they're tuned for different things.
reply
https://artificialanalysis.ai/?models=gpt-5-3-codex%2Cqwen3-...

Shows qwen3.8-27b along side seven larger models of ~similar vintage. Only one scores above 27b.

Many of those are closed models so idk their exact parameter count / active param count, but it hardly matters - i’m sure all of them are far above 100b params

My point is not that bigger is pointless. It’s just clearly not the only road to take to make a model better, which is obvious just from seeing how models of the same size have gotten better over the past few years

reply
Thanks! That's very helpful as a way to discuss.

First off, I'd include Qwen flash-next and GLM 5.3 to show some of the other strong open weight models, and they predictably dominate it, but they're much larger. But, it shows up right next to DSv4 Flash 0731 on the overall index, and that's much larger. It's a great model! But then scroll down and hit Time Per Task, and you'll see that DSv4 Flash takes 3.6 seconds per task to Qwen's 21.1. That's what I meant when I said this:

>speed due to excessive thinking maybe to make up for the smaller amount of world knowledge baked in (qwen 27b's main issue iirc), etc - they're tuned for different things.

It can make up for its shortcomings by iterating a lot longer, and using way more thinking tokens. And that's a great trade if you don't have the vram to run the bigger models, but speed is pretty important for getting things done... And that's why DSv4Flash is great, too, despite being much larger, and scoring similarly on the intelligence index.

reply
Wasnt this known by everyone who cared to pay attention?

It practically became a joke about how a huge amount of the training data for GPT-4 was bottom of the barrel reddit vomit and obvious bot spam. Leading to many bizarre edge cases.

reply
I think we’re in agreement.

I make heavy use of smaller local models on a daily basis (Qwen3-VL for auto-captioning images, Gemma3:27b for some translation work, etc.). Gemma3:27b is a good example of a very capable general purpose multimodal model and has handled almost everything I've thrown at it from sentiment analysis to documentation writing.

I suppose I was drawing a distinction between specialized and general intelligence versus small and large. I don’t think those are necessarily mutually exclusive.

reply
gpt-oss-120b only has 5B active parameters, so its not surprising Qwen3.8 27B outperforms it (Qwen3.8 is also ~13 months newer, which is forever in LLMs)
reply
Fair enough. I’ve barley touched oss-120b, so i didn’t know it was so few active params. For a direct comparison, qwen3.6-35b-a3b is still better at coding than oss-120b.

And Qwen3.8-27b is still better at coding than opus 4.1.

Yes, if you list off models 27b is better than it’s all older models. But that’s my point - newer models are better than older models at the same AND much smaller size. That’s because model size matters less than they say. Training data and model architecture matter more.

reply
No, it’s not the active parameters. Qwen 3.8 Flash has 6B active and it smokes both models.
reply