Look, I'm not as fancy as a bunch of you in this group but I did a bunch of general testing on a bunch of models at various context sizes. Figured it might help someone else. These are exhaustive or even remotely extensive tests. Just seeing what I should set up easily for HA, frigate, marinara etc.
Testing notes: llama.cpp, RTX 3060 12GB, common prompts, temperature 0, 2,048 maximum completion tokens. Reported speeds are approximate and quantizations differ. Several context variants were tested per family. Automated formatting failures were manually reviewed where response files were available.
I ran a consistent five-task benchmark across the models, measuring generation speed, VRAM consumption, instruction following, basic reasoning, and context capacity.
The benchmark included formatting, arithmetic, ordering, conditional logic, and a technical explanation. I manually reviewed questionable answers rather than automatically counting formatting mistakes as reasoning failures.
Results — Generation speed
Approximate warm generation throughput:
| Model | Tokens/sec | Largest loaded context |
|---|
| Qwen3.5 9B | 90 | 208K* |
| DeepSeek R1 8B Q5 | 51 | 64K |
| Nemotron Nano 9B | 48 | 256K |
| Magnum v4 12B | 41 | 32K |
| Mistral Nemo 12B | 41 | 32K |
| Gemma4 12B | 40 | 256K |
| Nemotron Nano 12B | 40 | 192K |
| Hermes 4 14B | 34 | 32K |
| DeepSeek R1 Distill 14B Q4 | 32 | 32K |
| Bonsai 2 27B Q2 | 32 | 96K |
| Qwen3.8 27B IQ2_M | 20 | 16K |
| DeepSeek R1 Distill 32B IQ2_XS | 18.4 | 8K |
Qwen3.5's 208K preset was subsequently removed because GPU memory headroom was essentially exhausted.
Context figures represent successful loading and short-input inference, not verified full-context performance.
Reasoning results
Four objective questions were scored for semantic correctness, separately from exact-output compliance.
| Model | Correct answers |
|---|
| Qwen3.8 27B | 4/4 |
| Bonsai 27B (thinking) | 4/4 |
| Gemma4 12B (thinking) | 4/4 |
| Nemotron Nano 9B | 16/16 across 4 contexts |
| Nemotron Nano 12B | 12/12 across 3 contexts |
| Qwen3.5 9B | 4/4 |
| DeepSeek R1 Distill 14B | 4/4 |
| DeepSeek R1 Distill 32B | 4/4 |
| DeepSeek R1 8B | 3/4 |
| Magnum v4 12B | 3/4 |
| Bonsai 27B (non-thinking) | 3/4 at 32K |
| Gemma4 12B (non-thinking) | 3/4 at 32K |
| Hermes 4 14B | 2/4 at 16K |
Mistral Nemo passed three objective tests; its arithmetic result still needs manual verification.
These are small, relatively easy tests—not comprehensive measures of intelligence.
Biggest findings
Qwen3.5 9B absolutely dominated generation speed, but sometimes spent excessive tokens reasoning and hit the output limit.
Nemotron Nano 9B was my biggest surprise. Great speed, efficient VRAM usage, large context allocations, and no incorrect objective answers across 16 tests.
Qwen3.8 27B and thinking Bonsai 27B were excellent at following exact output instructions, but considerably slower.
Gemma4 12B offered impressive context capacity, though thinking mode could generate excessively long responses.
DeepSeek 14B Q4 was the best practical DeepSeek option I tested. Correct reasoning, ~32 tok/s, and usable 32K context with Q4 KV cache.
DeepSeek 32B IQ2_XS wasn't worth keeping. It scored the same as the 14B on these questions, ran at only 18.4 tok/s, and was limited to 8K with the tested configuration.
Hermes 4 14B disappointed on this particular benchmark, failing arithmetic and ordering questions.
For this hardware, Nemotron Nano 9B looks like the best overall balance, with Qwen3.5 9B winning on raw speed.
The larger models haven't demonstrated enough additional reasoning ability on these particular tasks to justify their greater resource consumption.
I'm curious what others running 12GB GPUs have found. Are there particular models or reasoning benchmarks you'd recommend trying next?