+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads with 3.7% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
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 90B was developed as a flagship-tier open-source model, designed to provide advanced capabilities with 90 billion parameters. Built to serve applications requiring high-quality reasoning and generation, it represents a powerful option within the Llama 3.2 series for demanding tasks.
2 months newer
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-07-23
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Input:$0.20
Output:$0.20($0.35 cheaper)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input:$0.35
Output:$0.40
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 2 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Average Score:62.6%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Average Score:66.3%(+3.7%)
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:62.6%
Providers:9
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Avg Score:66.3%(+3.7%)
Providers:5