Best local LLMs for the Intel N150 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. 76Great quality (A) · 76 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. K2 Horizon 7B Q4_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  2. 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. Ling 3.0 Tiny (8B-A1.3B) Q4_K_M · 22.4 tok/s · Runs well
  3. 74Great quality (A) · 74 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. SenseNova Loop 9B Preview Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 73Great quality (A) · 73 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 1.5 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 70Great quality (A) · 70 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. TMax 9B Q4_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow

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 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  2. 58Good quality (B) · 58 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. Mellum2.1 Thinking (12B-A2.5B) Q3_K_M · 15.4 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  3. 65Good quality (B) · 65 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 78/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. SenseNova Loop 9B Preview Q3_K_M · 4.2 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 57Good quality (B) · 57 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 Labs Dory 1.0 4B Q3_K_M · 10.2 tok/s · Runs well
  5. 57Good quality (B) · 57 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ling 3.0 Tiny (8B-A1.3B) Q4_K_M · 22.4 tok/s · Runs well

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 81/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  2. 72Great quality (A) · 72 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. Qwen3.5 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 58Good quality (B) · 58 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. Mellum2.1 Thinking (12B-A2.5B) Q3_K_M · 15.4 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  4. 65Good quality (B) · 65 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 78/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. SenseNova Loop 9B Preview Q3_K_M · 4.2 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 57Good quality (B) · 57 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 Labs Dory 1.0 4B Q3_K_M · 10.2 tok/s · Runs well

Documents (RAG) at 32K context

  1. 73Great quality (A) · 73 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 1.5 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  2. 72Great quality (A) · 72 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. Qwen3.5 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 71Great quality (A) · 71 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. Ornith 1.0 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 70Great quality (A) · 70 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. TMax 9B Q4_K_M · 3.5 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  5. 41Fair quality (C) · 41 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 78/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Unlimited OCR 2 (3B-A0.6B) Q4_K_M · 44.5 tok/s · Runs great

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 79/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Mellum2.1 Thinking (12B-A2.5B) Q3_K_M · 15.4 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  2. 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 Q4_K_M · 12.5 tok/s · Runs well
  3. 65Good quality (B) · 65 of 100: how capable the model is at Q3_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 78/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q3_K_M · 4.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 49Fair quality (C) · 49 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. LFM2.5 8B-A1B Q4_K_M · 19.6 tok/s · Runs well (tight fit)
  5. 41Fair quality (C) · 41 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Granite 4.0 H Tiny (7B-A1B) Q4_K_M · 28.4 tok/s · Runs well

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 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ling 3.0 Tiny (8B-A1.3B) Q4_K_M · 22.4 tok/s · Runs well
  2. 74Great quality (A) · 74 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. MiMo V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  3. 73Great quality (A) · 73 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 76/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ornith 1.5 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 tok/s · Slow (tight fit)
  4. 72Great quality (A) · 72 of 100: how capable the model is at Q4_K_M, whatever it runs on. Match score 75/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Qwen3.5 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 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 75/100 (quality, fit, speed and memory use) sets the ranking. Ornith 1.0 9B Q4_K_M · 3.3 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?