+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads with 6.4% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Overall, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is a language model developed by Meta. The model shows competitive results across 15 benchmarks. It excels particularly in NIH/Multi-needle (84.7%), ARC-C (78.6%), GSM8k (77.7%). It supports a 256K token context window for handling large documents. The model is available through 1 API provider. Released in 2024, it represents Meta's latest advancement in AI technology.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is a language model developed by Meta. It achieves strong performance with an average score of 79.9% across 9 benchmarks. It excels particularly in IFEval (92.1%), MGSM (91.1%), HumanEval (88.4%). It supports a 256K token context window for handling large documents. The model is available through 9 API providers. Released in 2024, it represents Meta's latest advancement in AI technology.
2 months newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-12-06
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.37 cheaper)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input:$0.20
Output:$0.20
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 18 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:46.3%(+6.4%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Average Score:39.9%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
Throughput: 171.5 tok/s
Latency: 0.24ms
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:46.3%(+6.4%)
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Avg Score:39.9%
Providers:9