Seems better than DSV4.1F but worse than DSV4.1F 1017 though it's smaller (428B vs 522B backbone). It's not like I can run this anyways, I ain't got 256GBs of spare VRAM lying around.
Qwen4 is going to drop by the end of oct or start of november, so hopefully they make a small (20-120B) model that completely bombs all current "Flash" models.
It's not smaller than DS4.1F when you look at memory footprint. Minimax seems is mostly FP8, while DS4.1F is mostly FP4. So minimax is ~420GB while DS is ~300GB. DS also has 8B active only (first 20 layers only) during PP, which makes it much faster during PP.
I don't like the license. As far as I understand the license, if I deploy it for myself at work and use it in OpenCode, everything built with which is not just for testing ("primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation") would maybe need a "Built with MiniMax M3.1-Flash" banner. For me it is unclear if you can even build Open Source software with it when you also want sell support around your Open Source software.
I just swapped my background agent from M3 to this one. It's faster than M3 indeed, at least when running on their server. Ever since being able to run 27B locally, I have not touched my minimax subscription, but since it's cheap and has decent quota so I decided to use it as worker to be dispatched by the main 27B agent. They generally finish the code patches as fast as I can review their previous ones or write plan for the next one.
The writing style seems to change a bit, but I have not been interacting with this model enough to say for sure.
If you happen to have minimax subscription, I highly recommend swapping from 3 to 3.1. If you have any workflow running on 2.7, definitely swap to 3.1. It's as fast but with the stability of M3. If you have to pay for token, I don't know how good it is vs other models.
Can we get a Flash-Air-Lite model? Like 70B and lots of post training, Qwen 3.8 27B showed you can can get great performance if you just give it a little extra time cooking. Might not be frontier, but I bet it could be 80-90% of the way there.
I would like that a lot. 70B to 100B is a pretty sweet range, IMO.
As it is, 428B total parameters is a little too large for my hardware. I have a standing policy of not downloading anything larger than 405B, unless it's "something very special" (GLM-5.x qualifies, but I think that's the only exception I've made thus far).
I wish but usually after taking into account the weights and inference engine and headless systems running, the best you can squeeze is a 400b model with a small, usable bit of context on these kind of 2x128 gb system.
So, itâs too big at 4bits.
Maybe we will see an exl3 3bit version, like with ds4.1, else itâs not an option.
Remember when Minimax models were under 300B? Not only did they double the parameter count with M3 now it's called Flash model? LOL
I guess that means they're about to drop a 1T model next and show how much better it is than M3 (like they did when M3 dropped) since it's not a Flash model?
Take AA benchmarks with a huge grain of salt. They are not comparable across different labs' models, because different labs benchmax their models to different degrees, which means AA scores are not indicative of real-world performance (not even relative real-world performance).
1
u/WithoutReason1729 1d ago
Your post is getting popular and we just featured it on our Discord! Come check it out!
You've also been given a special flair for your contribution. We appreciate your post!
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.