Gemma 2 2B vs Phi 2
Architecture Comparison
SpecGemma 2 2BPhi 2
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters2.6B2.7B
Active Parameters2.6B2.7B
Layers2632
Hidden Dimension2,3042,560
Attention Heads832
KV Heads432
Context Length8,1922,048
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionGemma 2 2BPhi 2
BF16 Weights5.2 GB5.4 GB
FP8 Weights2.6 GB2.7 GB
INT4 Weights1.3 GB1.4 GB
KV-Cache / Token106496 B327680 B
Activation Estimate0.30 GB0.30 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S1 GPU1 GPU
Quality Benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2 2BPhi 2
Overall4450
MMLU52.2N/A
HumanEval25.0N/A
GSM8K48.0N/A
MT-Bench65.0N/A
Gemma 2 2B
MMLU
52.2
HumanEval
25.0
GSM8K
48.0
MT-Bench
65.0
Phi 2
Capabilities
FeatureGemma 2 2BPhi 2
Tool Use✗ No✗ No
Vision✗ No✗ No
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✗ No✗ No
Multilingual✓ Yes✗ No
Structured Output✓ Yes✗ No
Recommendation Summary
- ‣Phi 2 scores higher on overall quality (50 vs 44).
- ‣Gemma 2 2B has a smaller memory footprint (5.2 GB vs 5.4 GB BF16), making it easier to deploy on fewer GPUs.
- ‣Gemma 2 2B supports a longer context window (8,192 vs 2,048 tokens).