+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads with 21.2% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Overall, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
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.
+
+
+
+
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.
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 6 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:57.8%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Average Score:79.0%(+21.2%)
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:57.8%
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Avg Score:79.0%(+21.2%)
Providers:9