Created bymario-alka.dePowered bynoob2claw.detricoma.de
Contributed byMario AlkaQwen (Alibaba)

Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct

Performance benchmark · measured on 12.11.2026 15:41

Benchmark-IDrun-20261112-152252-45b8e3
Timebench 3 - Kombi (Prefill + Generation)Dense7.6BRuntime: lmstudio-mlxQuantisierung: MLX 4bit
Generation31,36tok/s
Prefill1.116,55tok/s
Time to First Token2.333,50ms
Total duration110,83s
Concurrency1parallel
Ranking in the field
1244of 1927 systems

Performance benchmark · Primary metric: Generation-Speed (tok/s) · 1× concurrent

This run is better than 35 % of all comparable systems.
Generation 31,4 tok/s
-60 % vs Ø 77,5
Prefill 1.116,6 tok/s
-61 % vs Ø 2.844,6
Time to First Token 2.334 ms
-90 % vs Ø 23.755
Distribution in the field0 – 471 tok/s
Ø 78 Median Dieser Lauf

Wie schlägt sich dieser Benchmark mit anderen Modellen?

How does this benchmark compare on other GPUs?

Same model on different hardware · 1× concurrent · Generation (tok/s)

Hardware

GPU: Keine GPU (CPU-only)
CPU: Apple M6 (unified CPU/GPU SoC, ARM64, AdvSIMD)
RAM: 24 GB
Mainboard: Apple Mac mini

Setup

Runtime: lmstudio-mlx
Quantization: MLX 4bit
Model: Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct

Configuration

benchmark-konfiguration — run-20261112-152252-45b8e3
# LLM-Benchmark Konfiguration # Modell : Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct # Engine : lmstudio-mlx # Run-ID : run-20261112-152252-45b8e3 # GPU : Keine GPU (CPU-only) # CPU : Apple M6 (unified CPU/GPU SoC, ARM64, AdvSIMD) # RAM : 24 GB bench@llm-benchmark:~$ lmstudio-mlx \ --model qwen2.5-coder-7b-instruct
Engine?Die Inferenz-Software, die das Modell ausliefert (z.B. vLLM oder llama.cpp). Sie bestimmt Geschwindigkeit, unterstuetzte Modellformate und welche Parameter ueberhaupt verfuegbar sind.lmstudio-mlx
Kontextlaenge?Maximale Anzahl Tokens (Eingabe + erzeugte Ausgabe zusammen), die das Modell pro Anfrage verarbeiten kann.8192
execution_typelocal

All benchmarks of this model To leaderboard

Anzeige
Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct on various hardware

All published performance runs of this model – each bubble a variant: position = prefill (X) × generation (Y), bubble size = number of runs. Closer to the top right = faster. ★ Marked gold = this benchmark.

GPUby graphics card

32724616481,90,002.8155.6318.446Prefill (tok/s)Generation (tok/s)AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX - 256,7 tok/s Generation, 6.945 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 1.988 ms (3 Laufe)AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTXCPU-only - 31,4 tok/s Generation, 919 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 2.893 ms (2 Laufe) | DIESER LAUF★ CPU-only
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX 256,7 tok/s★ CPU-only 31,4 tok/s this run

CPUby processor

32824616482,00,002.8275.6548.481Prefill (tok/s)Generation (tok/s)Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4657L v2 @ 2.40GHz - 256,7 tok/s Generation, 6.945 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 1.988 ms (3 Laufe)Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU ...Apple M6 (unified CPU/GPU SoC) - 28,2 tok/s Generation, 722 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 3.452 ms (1 Lauf)Apple M6 (unified CPU...Apple M6 (unified CPU/GPU SoC, ARM64, AdvSIMD) - 31,4 tok/s Generation, 1.117 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 2.334 ms (1 Lauf) | DIESER LAUF★ Apple M6 (unified CPU...
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4657L v2 @ 2.40GHz 256,7 tok/s★ Apple M6 (unified CPU/GPU SoC, ARM64, AdvSIMD) 31,4 tok/s this runApple M6 (unified CPU/GPU SoC) 28,2 tok/s

MBby mainboard

32724616481,90,002.8155.6318.446Prefill (tok/s)Generation (tok/s)Dell Inc. PowerEdge R820 - 256,7 tok/s Generation, 6.945 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 1.988 ms (3 Laufe)Dell Inc. PowerEdge R...Apple Mac mini - 31,4 tok/s Generation, 919 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 2.893 ms (2 Laufe) | DIESER LAUF★ Apple Mac mini
Dell Inc. PowerEdge R820 256,7 tok/s★ Apple Mac mini 31,4 tok/s this run

ENGby engine

32824616482,00,002.8275.6548.481Prefill (tok/s)Generation (tok/s)llama.cpp - 256,7 tok/s Generation, 6.945 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 1.988 ms (3 Laufe)llama.cppOllama - 28,2 tok/s Generation, 722 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 3.452 ms (1 Lauf)Ollamalmstudio-mlx - 31,4 tok/s Generation, 1.117 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 2.334 ms (1 Lauf) | DIESER LAUF★ lmstudio-mlx
llama.cpp 256,7 tok/s★ lmstudio-mlx 31,4 tok/s this runOllama 28,2 tok/s

DRVby driver

2822702572442314.2624.4444.6254.807Prefill (tok/s)Generation (tok/s)unbekannt - 256,7 tok/s Generation, 4.535 tok/s Prefill, TTFT 2.350 ms (5 Laufe)unbekannt
unbekannt 256,7 tok/s
💰 Economics

Economics of this run

Operating cost, TCO and comparison with the next-best runs of the same model at identical concurrency (1× concurrent). Methodology →

⚙️ ConfigurationAll metrics and charts below follow these settings – based on a 24-month runtime.Save to URLReset
⚡ Electricity price EUR/kWh
⚙️ System utilization 100 %
🔌 Idle 0 W
⚡ TDP 10 W
☁️ External LLM (API)
Electricity0.30 EUR/kWh
Avg power (incl. idle)0 W missing
Avg cost / hour–
Electricity / 1M tokens–
Token / kWh–
Acquisition (system)– partial price
Electricity (2 years)–
TCO (2 years)–
Output tokens (2 years)1.98B
☁️ External LLM (API) – comparison
External LLM cost (2 years)–
Savings vs. external (2 years)–
No power draw measured – values estimated from GPU TDP + CPU (idle + 15 %) + board.

All values above and the charts below take the configured system utilization into account: at X% the system generates only X% of the time, the rest it idles (0 W). Cost per hour drops (more idle), cost per token rises.

Cost over 2 years – electricity only

Cost over 2 years – incl. acquisition (TCO)

Speed vs. tokens per euro

Euro per 1M tokens

Comparison vs. API – economics per benchmark

Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-InstructKeine GPU (CPU-only)Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct2x AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTXQwen2.5-Coder-7B-InstructKeine GPU (CPU-only)
Electricity cost (24 mo.)–––
Acquisition cost–––
Total cost (TCO)–––
Generated tokens (24 mo.)–––
Token price via API–––
Break-even point (days)–––
Result (savings / extra cost)–––

Comparison with up to 3 next-best runs of this model at the same concurrency (at least one on different hardware). Power = GPU TDP + CPU (idle + 15 %) + board (estimated), acquisition = full system (GPU + CPU + board + RAM + PSU), prices = stored market prices.

Contributed by

Mario Alka Administrator

@marioalka

Ich bin Unternehmer, Softwareentwickler und KI-Enthusiast. Seit vielen Jahren entwickle ich Unternehmenssoftware und beschäftige mich inzwischen fast täglich mit lokalen LLMs, KI-Agenten und leistungsfähiger KI-Hardware.

Mit LLM-Benchmark.de möchte ich eine Plattform schaffen, auf der Modelle, GPUs und Agenten objektiv und reproduzierbar miteinander verglichen werden.