Gemma 3 27B vs Phi-4
Architecture Comparison
SpecGemma 3 27BPhi-4
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters27B14.7B
Active Parameters27B14.7B
Layers6240
Hidden Dimension3,5845,120
Attention Heads3240
KV Heads1610
Context Length131,07216,384
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionGemma 3 27BPhi-4
BF16 Weights54.0 GB29.4 GB
FP8 Weights27.0 GB14.7 GB
INT4 Weights13.5 GB7.3 GB
KV-Cache / Token507904 B204800 B
Activation Estimate1.50 GB1.50 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S2 GPUs1 GPU
Quality Benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BPhi-4
Overall7683
MMLU78.084.8
HumanEval48.067.0
GSM8K85.093.0
MT-Bench82.085.0
Gemma 3 27B
MMLU
78.0
HumanEval
48.0
GSM8K
85.0
MT-Bench
82.0
Phi-4
MMLU
84.8
HumanEval
67.0
GSM8K
93.0
MT-Bench
85.0
Capabilities
FeatureGemma 3 27BPhi-4
Tool Use✓ Yes✓ Yes
Vision✓ Yes✗ No
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✗ No✓ Yes
Multilingual✓ Yes✓ Yes
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes
API Pricing Comparison
Cheapest Output (Gemma 3 27B)
$0.20/M
Input: $0.10/M
Cheapest Output (Phi-4)
$0.14/M
Input: $0.07/M
| Provider | Gemma 3 27B In $/M | Out $/M | Phi-4 In $/M | Out $/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| azure | — | — | $0.07 | $0.14 |
| $0.10 | $0.20 | — | — | |
| together | $0.30 | $0.30 | $0.20 | $0.20 |
Recommendation Summary
- ‣Phi-4 scores higher on overall quality (83 vs 76).
- ‣Phi-4 is cheaper per output token ($0.14/M vs $0.20/M).
- ‣Phi-4 has a smaller memory footprint (29.4 GB vs 54.0 GB BF16), making it easier to deploy on fewer GPUs.
- ‣Gemma 3 27B supports a longer context window (131,072 vs 16,384 tokens).
- ‣Phi-4 is stronger at code generation (HumanEval: 67.0 vs 48.0).
- ‣Phi-4 is better at math reasoning (GSM8K: 93.0 vs 85.0).