+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct leads with 15.6% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Overall, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.1 70B was created as a balanced open-source model, designed to provide strong performance with 70 billion parameters while remaining practical for many deployment scenarios. Built to serve as a versatile foundation for fine-tuning and application development, it combines capability with accessibility in the open-source ecosystem.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B was created as an ultra-compact open-source model, designed to enable on-device and edge deployment scenarios. Built with just 3 billion parameters while retaining instruction-following abilities, it brings Meta's language technology to mobile devices, IoT applications, and resource-constrained environments.
2 months newer
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-07-23
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Input:$0.20
Output:$0.20
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.37 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 5 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Average Score:72.9%(+15.6%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:57.3%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
9 providers
Bedrock
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Cerebras
Throughput: 1204 tok/s
Latency: 0.2ms
DeepInfra
Throughput: 25 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Fireworks
Throughput: 32 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Groq
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Avg Score:72.9%(+15.6%)
Providers:9
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:57.3%
Providers:1