MetaLlama-3.1 70BVSMetaLlama-3.3-70B
Our Take
We recommend Llama-3.3-70B as it delivers superior reasoning capabilities without requiring heavier local hosting resources. Choose Llama-3.3-70B for your local setup to get the best performance.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Llama-3.3-70B scored 50.5%, while Llama-3.1 70B scored 46.7% (+3.8% gap).
Coding Performance: Both models were evaluated on the HumanEval benchmark. Llama-3.3-70B scored 88.4%, while Llama-3.1 70B scored 80.5% (+7.9% gap).
Hardware Footprint: Llama-3.3-70B is a 70B parameter model, matching or being smaller than Llama-3.1 70B (70B).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (human-eval)
80.5%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
46.7%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)Winner (+7.9%)
88.4%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+3.8%)
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 70B vs Llama-3.3-70B
Llama-3.3-70B is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 88.4% on human-eval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions) compared to Llama-3.1 70B which scores 80.5%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Llama-3.1 70B 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.