MetaLlama-3.1 405BVSMetaLlama-3.3-70B
Our Take
We recommend Llama-3.3-70B for practical local execution on standard developer hardware, or Llama-3.1 405B if you need peak reasoning and have the VRAM (or a cloud API) to host it. While Llama-3.1 405B offers frontier capability, its massive parameter size makes it extremely difficult to host locally. Choose Llama-3.3-70B for standard local setups, or Llama-3.1 405B for peak reasoning.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Model Size: Llama-3.1 405B is a massive 405B parameter model requiring heavy GPU infrastructure, while Llama-3.3-70B is a 70B parameter model.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (human-eval)Winner (+0.6%)
89%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.2%)
50.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
131.07k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (human-eval)
88.4%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
50.5%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
131.07k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Llama-3.1 405B vs Llama-3.3-70B
Llama-3.1 405B is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 89% on human-eval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions) compared to Llama-3.3-70B which scores 88.4%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Llama-3.1 405B and Llama-3.3-70B.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.