Best local LLMs for the Intel Celeron J4125 / J4105 NAS (6 GB)

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

  1. 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 74/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B Q4_K_M · 3.2 tok/s · Slow
  2. 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 74/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B Q6_K · 3.3 tok/s · Slow
  3. 52Fair quality (C) · 52 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 72/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B Q3_K_M · 4.6 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 48Fair quality (C) · 48 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 71/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B Q5_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow
  5. 52Fair quality (C) · 52 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 71/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Qwen3.5 4B Q3_K_M · 2.3 tok/s · Very slow (tight fit)

Coding at 32K context

  1. 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 69/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B Q6_K · 3.3 tok/s · Slow
  2. 42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 68/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B Q2_K · 5.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 48Fair quality (C) · 48 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 66/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B Q5_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow
  4. 43Fair quality (C) · 43 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 64/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B Q2_K · 5.8 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 25Basic quality (D) · 25 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 63/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 1B Q2_K · 12.4 tok/s · Runs well

Reasoning at 32K context

  1. 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 69/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B Q6_K · 3.3 tok/s · Slow
  2. 42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 68/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B Q2_K · 5.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 48Fair quality (C) · 48 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 66/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B Q5_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow
  4. 36Basic quality (D) · 36 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 65/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Jamba Reasoning 3B Q3_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow
  5. 43Fair quality (C) · 43 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 64/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B Q2_K · 5.8 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)

Documents (RAG) at 32K context

  1. 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 74/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B Q6_K · 3.3 tok/s · Slow
  2. 48Fair quality (C) · 48 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 71/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B Q5_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow
  3. 43Fair quality (C) · 43 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 69/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B Q2_K · 5.8 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 38Basic quality (D) · 38 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 67/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B Q4_K_M · 5.3 tok/s · Slow
  5. 38Basic quality (D) · 38 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 67/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. TMax 2B Q4_K_M · 4.4 tok/s · Slow

Agents & tools at 64K context

  1. 54Fair quality (C) · 54 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 74/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B Q5_K_M · 3.9 tok/s · Slow
  2. 38Basic quality (D) · 38 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 67/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. TMax 2B Q4_K_M · 4.4 tok/s · Slow
  3. 47Fair quality (C) · 47 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 66/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B Q4_K_M · 4.3 tok/s · Slow
  4. 25Basic quality (D) · 25 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 64/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 1B Q2_K · 12.4 tok/s · Runs well
  5. 43Fair quality (C) · 43 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 64/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B Q2_K · 5.8 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)

Reverse engineering at 32K context

  1. 55Good quality (B) · 55 of 100: how capable the model is at Q6_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 69/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3 1.7B Q6_K · 3.3 tok/s · Slow
  2. 48Fair quality (C) · 48 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 66/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM3-VL 2B Q5_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow
  3. 43Fair quality (C) · 43 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 64/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E2B Q2_K · 5.8 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 42Fair quality (C) · 42 of 100: how capable the model is at Q2_K, whatever it runs on. Match score 63/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B Q2_K · 5.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 38Basic quality (D) · 38 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 62/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B Q4_K_M · 5.3 tok/s · Slow

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.

Was this page helpful?