+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads with 5.2% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Overall, Llama 3.3 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 3.3 70B was introduced with refinements to the Llama 3 architecture, designed to incorporate improvements in instruction-following and task performance. Built to continue the evolution of Meta's 70B tier, it provides enhanced quality while maintaining the deployment characteristics valued by the open-source community.
4 months newer
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-07-23
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-12-06
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Input:$0.20
Output:$0.20
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input:$0.20
Output:$0.20
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 5 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Average Score:71.9%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Average Score:77.2%(+5.2%)
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:71.9%
Providers:9
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Avg Score:77.2%(+5.2%)
Providers:9