| Saw this post comparing Qwen 3.6 variants on coding primitives, so I wanted to see how local quants stack up against frontier models on a similar dense, single-file coding task. I ran the exact same prompt across local and web-based models accessed through my Perplexity subscription. The prompt "Write a single HTML file with a full-page canvas and no libraries. Simulate a realistic side-view of a moving car as the main subject. Keep the car visible in the foreground while the background landscape scrolls continuously to create the feeling that the car is driving forward. Use layered scenery for depth: nearby ground, roadside elements, trees, poles, and distant hills or mountains should move at different speeds for a natural parallax effect. Animate the wheels spinning realistically and add subtle body motion so the car feels connected to the road. Let the environment pass smoothly behind it, with repeating but varied scenery that makes the movement feel believable. Use cinematic lighting and a cohesive sky, such as sunset, dusk, or daylight, to enhance atmosphere. The overall motion should feel calm, immersive, and realistic, with a seamless looping animation." Models tested Frontier (web-based via Perplexity, tok/s not measured):
Local (Ryzen 5 5600, 24 GB DDR4-3200, RX 5700 XT 8GB):
What I looked for Subjective ranking for this specific task
The local 27B quant delivered more natural motion and layering than some frontier outputs for this specific visual primitive. I was expecting frontier models to do much better — am I missing something? Outputs If anyone wants to run the exact same prompt on their setup — especially other MoE cuts or distills — feel free to share your results. [link] [comments] |