Best local LLMs for the Intel Arc A370M
Each list assumes the context that task needs, so a model that fits for chat may rank lower for long documents.
General chat at 8K context
- 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 85/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B
- 58Good quality (B) · 58 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 85/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B
- 64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 85/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B
- 62Good quality (B) · 62 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Spark-X2.6 4B
- 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 83/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B
Coding at 32K context
- 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B
- 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B
- 46Fair quality (C) · 46 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Spark-X2.6 4B
- 52Fair quality (C) · 52 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B
- 49Fair quality (C) · 49 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B
Reasoning at 32K context
- 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B
- 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B
- 46Fair quality (C) · 46 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Spark-X2.6 4B
- 43Fair quality (C) · 43 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Qwen3.5 4B
- 42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
Documents (RAG) at 32K context
- 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B
- 52Fair quality (C) · 52 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B
- 49Fair quality (C) · 49 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B
- 51Fair quality (C) · 51 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 80/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. TMax 4B
- 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B
Agents & tools at 64K context
- 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B
- 39Basic quality (D) · 39 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. TMax 2B
- 52Fair quality (C) · 52 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B
- 49Fair quality (C) · 49 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B
- 35Basic quality (D) · 35 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 1B
Reverse engineering at 32K context
- 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B
- 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B
- 52Fair quality (C) · 52 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B
- 49Fair quality (C) · 49 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B
- 51Fair quality (C) · 51 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 75/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. TMax 4B
Estimates come from published hardware specs and our open formulas, not from running the model on your machine. Real speed varies with runtime, drivers and settings. Numbers marked “Measured” come from a linked benchmark.