Best local LLMs for the Intel Core 3 304 / Core 5 320 NAS (12 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 84/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ling 3.0 Tiny (8B-A1.3B) Q4_K_M · 32.8 tok/s · Runs great
  2. 76Great quality (A) · 76 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 83/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. K2 Horizon 7B Q4_K_M · 5.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 66Good quality (B) · 66 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B Q4_K_M · 10.7 tok/s · Runs well
  4. 74Great quality (A) · 74 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. SenseNova Loop 9B Preview Q4_K_M · 5.0 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 74Great quality (A) · 74 of 100: how capable the model is at Q5_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ornith 1.5 9B Q5_K_M · 4.1 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)

Coding at 32K context

  1. 74Great quality (A) · 74 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q4_K_M · 5.1 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  2. 64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B Q4_K_M · 12.1 tok/s · Runs well
  3. 58Good quality (B) · 58 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Mellum2.1 Thinking (12B-A2.5B) Q3_K_M · 23.0 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  4. 62Good quality (B) · 62 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 80/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Spark-X2.6 4B Q4_K_M · 11.7 tok/s · Runs well
  5. 65Good quality (B) · 65 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. SenseNova Loop 9B Preview Q3_K_M · 6.4 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)

Reasoning at 32K context

  1. 74Great quality (A) · 74 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q4_K_M · 5.1 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  2. 64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B Q4_K_M · 12.1 tok/s · Runs well
  3. 58Good quality (B) · 58 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Mellum2.1 Thinking (12B-A2.5B) Q3_K_M · 23.0 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  4. 72Great quality (A) · 72 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Qwen3.5 9B Q4_K_M · 5.0 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 62Good quality (B) · 62 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 80/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Spark-X2.6 4B Q4_K_M · 11.7 tok/s · Runs well

Documents (RAG) at 32K context

  1. 66Good quality (B) · 66 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B Q4_K_M · 10.7 tok/s · Runs well
  2. 73Great quality (A) · 73 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 82/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M · 5.0 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Gemma 4 E4B Q4_K_M · 10.7 tok/s · Runs well
  4. 72Great quality (A) · 72 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Qwen3.5 9B Q4_K_M · 5.0 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 71Great quality (A) · 71 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ornith 1.0 9B Q4_K_M · 5.0 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)

Agents & tools at 64K context

  1. 58Good quality (B) · 58 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Mellum2.1 Thinking (12B-A2.5B) Q3_K_M · 23.0 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  2. 66Good quality (B) · 66 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B Q4_K_M · 10.7 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  3. 62Good quality (B) · 62 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Spark-X2.6 4B Q4_K_M · 11.7 tok/s · Runs well
  4. 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiniCPM5 2B Q4_K_M · 19.1 tok/s · Runs well
  5. 65Good quality (B) · 65 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q3_K_M · 6.6 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)

Reverse engineering at 32K context

  1. 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. Ling 3.0 Tiny (8B-A1.3B) Q4_K_M · 32.8 tok/s · Runs great
  2. 74Great quality (A) · 74 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q4_K_M · 5.1 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 66Good quality (B) · 66 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B Q4_K_M · 10.7 tok/s · Runs well
  4. 64Good quality (B) · 64 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B Q4_K_M · 12.1 tok/s · Runs well
  5. 73Great quality (A) · 73 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 77/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M · 5.0 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)

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?