社区基准：本地Qwen3.8-Flash-Next与Claude Opus 5.5编程对比
Reddit用户deepu105（r/LocalLLaMA）针对LlamaStash路线图中一个真实的Rust功能做了一次控制变量对比，六种模型、工具与推理强度组合各跑两次，共生成12个PR；Flash-Next以约Q4量化在Strix Halo笔记本（Flow Z13）上通过Halogen本地运行，Opus 5.5则通过Claude Code调用。Claude Code配Opus 5.5在xhigh档得分6.94/8（87%），耗时43.5分钟，API成本17.78美元；Claude Code配Flash-Next在medium档得分5.5/8（69%），耗时45.3分钟。作者称Opus代码质量平均82%，Claude Code+Flash-Next为68%，Pi+Flash-Next为66%，差距主要在边界情况、测试和文档上。12次运行全部完成，12个PR全部通过端到端测试；作者也提示两者并非同一量级，因为Flash-Next是在功耗上限70W的笔记本上以量化方式运行的。
Reposting again since original post got removed by Reddit for some reason (I have no idea why)
A few of you pointed out in my last post that comparing Flash-Next and Opus with different harnesses and effort levels wasn't fair. So here is a more controlled comparison.
Same task for every run: a real feature from the LlamaStash roadmap (save llama-server's KV cache before an unload and restore it when the model comes back). Six combinations, each run twice, so 12 PRs. Flash-Next ran locally on my Strix Halo laptop (Flow Z13) via Halogen (~Q4 quant). Opus 5.5, Flash-Next, and Kimi K3 scored every PR on seven review questions plus CI.
| Combination | Score (of 8) | Time | API cost | Tokens (in / cached / out) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code + Opus 5.5, xhigh | 6.94 (87%) | 43.5 min | $17.78 | 507k / 48.3M / 203k |
| Claude Code + Opus 5.5, medium | 6.25 (78%) | 23.4 min | $6.52 | 242k / 13.4M / 95k |
| Claude Code + Flash-Next, medium | 5.5 (69%) | 45.3 min | $0.32 | 445k / 13.5M / 82k |
| Pi + Flash-Next, xhigh | 5.44 (68%) | 63.8 min | $0.67 | 316k / 35.0M / 134k |
| Claude Code + Flash-Next, xhigh | 5.38 (67%) | 49.5 min | $0.39 | 269k / 18.9M / 99k |
| Pi + Flash-Next, medium | 5.06 (63%) | 48.1 min | $0.56 | 242k / 29.1M / 117k |
#Qwen3.8-Flash-Next#Claude Opus 5.5#Claude Code#Pi#Kimi K3#LlamaStash#QwenCloud#Halogen