有博主晒 DeepSeek V4.1 跑多视角智能体的效果,说分歧视角输出很有意思,想看 V4.1 实际表现可以瞄一眼。
Latest
有人拿没官宣的 DeepSeek V4.1F-1017 做前端,5 分钟出活,还敢说比 Opus 强,看看截图自己判断。
DeepSeek 的 flash 模型指纹变了,疑似悄悄上了 V4.1-Flash-1017,有人说变聪明也更简洁了,可以自己试试对比。
Meta 放了个 816B 的开源权重模型 Muse Spark Open,美国开源第一,1M 上下文还能塞进两台 Mac Studio 自托管,不过跑智能体任务不如 GLM-5.3。
NVIDIA 新一代 Vera Rubin NVL72 的跑分出来了,跑 DeepSeek V4 Pro 每兆瓦吞吐量是上一代的 5.7 倍,还刷出 906 tok/s 的单用户最快速度。
小米 MiMo V2.6 Pro 超过 DeepSeek 登上 Agent Arena 开源第一,单任务才 $0.11,做智能体的可以看看这份榜单。
自己花几万块攒 v100 跑 DeepSeek V4.1 的人发现 Opencode 上直接免费用了,搞编程的可以白嫖试试。
Speed, not raw accuracy, is the headline here: a 55% reduction in total task time against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash suggests latency-sensitive agent pipelines are where this model fits best. Developers building Deep Agents workflows in Python can test it directly through ChatNVIDIA with open weights, making self-hosting or cost comparison against closed APIs straightforward.
用 OpenCode 写代码的可以白嫖 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 了,免费 200K 上下文,要 1M 才需要付费。
Serving efficiency, not raw scale, is where V4.1 Flash wins: it delivers 1.3x to 6.2x the throughput per MW of V4 Pro 0813 across Blackwell hardware while scoring higher on intelligence. Teams running agentic coding workloads can use the AA-AgentPerf data to pick hardware — B300 nodes stay within about 20% of rack-scale GB300 NVL72, so single 8-GPU nodes are viable for this model. As an open-weights release from DeepSeek, it widens cheap self-hosting options for Southeast Asian inference providers competing with rented frontier APIs.
The MI355X's 288GB of HBM3E per GPU gives it an edge on very large models like the 1.6T-parameter DeepSeek V4 Pro, but serving-stack maturity on ROCm remains the bottleneck at higher loads. Teams evaluating accelerator purchases for agentic inference can now compare AMD and NVIDIA on realistic coding-agent workloads rather than synthetic throughput numbers. All results run on ROCm nightly builds of vLLM and SGLang, so scores should improve as the software stack matures.
DeepSeek用V4.1 Flash做了个开源演示应用,在Together AI上能直接体验,感兴趣的朋友可以去试试。
有人发现 DeepSeek V4.1 给自己打分挺高,给同样是自己扮演的子智能体打分却低不少,这个自评偏差挺有意思。
ARC Prize 实测了 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash,ARC-AGI-3 跑出 3.3%,成本不到 1000 美元,目前性价比最好的一份成绩单。
The benchmark penalises behaviours conventional evals ignore, such as oversized diffs, out-of-scope file edits and unhelpful tests, so its ranking offers a different picture of coding ability than SWE-style test suites. Even the best model fails over 40% of tasks, meaning maintainer cleanup is still unavoidable. Teams choosing models by cost-performance should note GPT-6.1 Sol matching Claude Fable 5.1 at under a tenth of the per-task price.
The benchmark's merge-focused grading penalises the messy diffs and unhelpful tests that cheaper evaluations ignore, so leaderboard gaps here reflect real maintainer acceptance rather than raw test-passing. Leading models still fail over 40% of tasks, and nine tasks went unsolved by every model evaluated. Teams choosing coding agents can weigh GPT-6.1 Sol's 49% score at US$0.81 per task against Claude Opus 5.5's 52% at far higher cost, with open-weights options like MiMo-V2.6-Pro at 45% close behind.
LMArena 给出实测数据:Kimi K3 和 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 用不到一成的成本追平了 Claude Fable 5,做 agent 选型前可以看看这份榜单。
有人实测 80 美元在 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 上跑了 3 万多次请求,比 Command Code 还多,写代码跑量的可以看看这笔账。
Cost-aware routing in the agent harness, rather than a single frontier model everywhere, is becoming a practical default for coding agents. Teams building multi-step agents can benchmark cheaper models per task type and keep premium models for escalation only. The DeepSeek V4.1 Flash versus Opus split shows a concrete tiering pattern worth copying.
Claude和DeepSeek两大模型订阅价格对比,帮你算算哪个更划算
This approach offers a lightweight way to update models without full retraining, potentially reducing costs for personalized AI applications. Developers working with large language models could implement this technique for efficient knowledge updates, especially useful for applications requiring frequent factual updates or user-specific customization.
一个人用 ARTEX 加上 DeepSeek、GLM、Grok 和 Claude Code 就能打穿韩国多家银行,CrowdStrike 的报告把工具链讲得很细。
The evaluation suggests routers are judged less on raw cost-performance and more on how quickly they adapt to user feedback, where Jev Router nearly matches Claude Opus 5.5 (High). Teams building multi-model agent pipelines can use these latency and cost figures to decide whether a routing layer beats picking DeepSeek V4.1 Flash directly. The full thread contains additional session-level insights.
LMArena测了Jev Router的实际延迟:中位数6.18秒,比DeepSeek V4.1 Flash的3.64秒慢了一截,P90差距更明显。
Routing adds a decision layer that can match the Pareto frontier yet still lose to simply picking one strong model, because latency and overhead eat the gains. Builders weighing a router against a default model should benchmark the direct path first, as the comparison here shows. The steerability signal is also useful for teams whose workflows depend on following complex instructions.
DeepSeek 的 V4.1 Flash 跑分出来了,ARC-AGI-2 拿下 72.9%,比上一代高了 11.5 分,不过每任务成本贵了两倍多,看你怎么权衡。
Mistral放出Mistral Large 4,1T参数只激活49B,跑分被DeepSeek V4.1 Flash压了一头,10月就开源,可以先试试API。
Reflection AI 开源了 Beam,501B 参数 MoE,作者称推理算力只要 GLM-5.2 的三分之一,Apache 2.0 可商用,不过注意这数字只是估算。
Fireworks 现在能直接微调 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 了,想做编程智能体或工具调用的可以看看,托管训练省不少事。
一条关于 DeepSeek V4.1 的训练观察:没做 dense warmup 也能训练顺利,作者解释了为什么这种设计值得 scale up。
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 的论文在 HF 榜单只有 191 赞,发帖人直接开怼,评论区吵起来了,看看大家怎么说。
一个人开发者晒账单:RSS 翻译全跑 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash,每天不到 1 块钱,想给工具挑便宜模型的可以参考。
用 opencode 的 10 美元套餐算了笔账:MiMo 能跑 3 万次请求,比 DeepSeek 的 2.6 万还多,就是不太稳。想省钱写代码的可以看看怎么选。
在 VS Code 里装个 Cline 插件,Gemini 3.8 Flash、DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 这些模型都能白嫖,写代码零成本,试试看。
OpenCode 把给 DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 的 60 美元用量额度改成永久了,用这个工具薅便宜算力的可以放心续命。