Model and integration · Local deployment, vision and tasks

Nemotron 3.5: what else does a local agent need?

What work do Super VL and Bolt suit? Original figures, memory recipes and speed comparisons explain what the “24GB” name leaves out of a full runtime budget.

NVIDIA released Nemotron 3.5 Super VL and Bolt 74B-A9B on October 15. One is the larger multimodal model; the other compresses it for local agents. We checked the original report, model cards and independent leaderboard on October 20 Beijing time. This is source analysis, without downloading weights, installing runtimes or testing hardware.

In this articleContents4

中文

Start with the work: files, pages and tools

Consider an expense document containing a table: an agent must read it, extract fields, apply rules and pass a result to a tool. Super VL combines text, image and video understanding: 120B parameters, 12B active, up to 1M context. It outputs text, rather than generating video.

Bolt is compressed from Super VL to 74B parameters and 9B active, followed by low-bit quantization and recovery training. Super VL also has a DGX Spark NVFP4 route, while Bolt targets sharing local resources with other applications. Model, format, runtime and hardware all matter.

Sources and further reading

中文

Why does a “24GB model” list 28GB and 32GB recipes?

The model name is not a complete machine budget. The GGUF card also supplies a vision projector and a separate LiLiCorr drafter. Context state, concurrency and other applications require room. Its 28GB and 32GB recipes each use one concurrent sequence at different context lengths; “24GB” does not validate every 24GB GPU.

Bolt’s up-to-256K window is shared by prompts, visual inputs, history, tool results and generated output. Super VL’s BF16 examples use four H100s or two GB200s; its NVFP4 card separately lists DGX Spark and H200 routes. Context, speed and memory belong to a complete configuration.

Bolt GGUF recipes read October 20; official configurations, not local installation results.
RecipeContext and concurrencyHardware listed in the card
28GB65,536 tokens; one sequenceRTX Spark 64GB or discrete GPU 32GB+
32GB262,144 tokens; one sequenceRTX Spark 128GB or discrete GPU 48GB+
NVIDIA original figure: Super VL is compressed and retrained into Bolt, then quantized with IQ2. Benchmark changes accompany lower target deployment memory.
Uncropped NVIDIA figure. The left-hand average uses the vendor’s selected tests, not our AA Intelligence Index. The right retains individual changes. The horizontal axis is target deployment memory, not total computer requirements. · Open full-size image
Sources and further reading

中文

Faster on which machine, doing what?

NVIDIA’s local comparison uses one 128GB Surface Laptop Ultra with Windows and llama.cpp. Bolt reaches about 84 tokens/s on SPEED-Bench-Coding and 601 seconds on AgentPerf Local trace replay; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B records about 97 tokens/s and 454 seconds. Bolt is not fastest in that table. Replay time is not your project’s delivery time.

On the October 20 AA table, Super VL scores 26 and Bolt 21, with no separate effort label. This index, the vendor’s selected averages, tool-task success and decoding speed answer different questions. They do not combine into “best local model.” Compare complete outputs with the same material and tools.

Sources and further reading

中文

Choose one small job before moving it onto a computer

A useful comparison could use the same permitted receipts or documents, requiring identical fields, missing-value handling and source references. Inspect errors, waiting and resource use. This is an editorial suggestion, not a test we ran. Local weights do not make a workflow offline when it still calls web or external tools.

Qwen3.8 Flash Next FP4-Local is another quantized deployment route, rather than a new Qwen capability generation. Its card describes roughly 96GiB on disk, DGX Spark and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell validation, and specific community vLLM containers. “FP4,” “Local” and disk size do not establish ordinary-laptop compatibility.

For occasional work, comparing an existing service’s output and total cost may be easier than purchasing hardware. Decide which material must stay local, the necessary context and task volume before choosing a backend. Check the current model card for download terms and deployment recipes.

Sources and further reading