Llama 3.3 70B vs Llama 3.1 70B

Meta
Llama 3.3 70B

Meta · 70.6B params · Quality: 84

Meta
Llama 3.1 70B

Meta · 70.6B params · Quality: 82

Architecture Comparison

SpecLlama 3.3 70BLlama 3.1 70B
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters70.6B70.6B
Active Parameters70.6B70.6B
Layers8080
Hidden Dimension8,1928,192
Attention Heads6464
KV Heads88
Context Length131,072131,072
Precision (default)BF16BF16

Memory Requirements

PrecisionLlama 3.3 70BLlama 3.1 70B
BF16 Weights141.2 GB141.2 GB
FP8 Weights70.6 GB70.6 GB
INT4 Weights35.3 GB35.3 GB
KV-Cache / Token327680 B327680 B
Activation Estimate2.50 GB2.50 GB

Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)

H100 SXM3 GPUs3 GPUs
L40S4 GPUs4 GPUs

Quality Benchmarks

BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70BLlama 3.1 70B
Overall8482
MMLU86.083.6
HumanEval60.058.5
GSM8K94.093.0
MT-Bench86.085.0

Llama 3.3 70B

MMLU
86.0
HumanEval
60.0
GSM8K
94.0
MT-Bench
86.0

Llama 3.1 70B

MMLU
83.6
HumanEval
58.5
GSM8K
93.0
MT-Bench
85.0

Capabilities

FeatureLlama 3.3 70BLlama 3.1 70B
Tool Use✓ Yes✓ Yes
Vision✗ No✗ No
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✗ No✗ No
Multilingual✓ Yes✓ Yes
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes

API Pricing Comparison

Cheapest Output (Llama 3.3 70B)

$0.79/M

Input: $0.59/M

Cheapest Output (Llama 3.1 70B)

$0.79/M

Input: $0.59/M

ProviderLlama 3.3 70B In $/MOut $/MLlama 3.1 70B In $/MOut $/M
groq$0.59$0.79$0.59$0.79
together$0.88$0.88$0.88$0.88
fireworks$0.90$0.90$0.90$0.90

Recommendation Summary

  • ‣Llama 3.3 70B scores higher on overall quality (84 vs 82).
  • ‣Llama 3.3 70B is stronger at code generation (HumanEval: 60.0 vs 58.5).
  • ‣Llama 3.3 70B is better at math reasoning (GSM8K: 94.0 vs 93.0).
Calculate ROI for Llama 3.3 70B→Calculate ROI for Llama 3.1 70B→

Compare Other Models

Llama 3.3 70B vs DeepSeek R1→Llama 3.3 70B vs DeepSeek V3→Llama 3.3 70B vs Gemma 3 27B→Llama 3.3 70B vs Llama 3.1 405B→Llama 3.3 70B vs Llama 3.1 8B→Llama 3.3 70B vs Phi-4→Llama 3.1 70B vs DeepSeek R1→Llama 3.1 70B vs DeepSeek V3→Llama 3.1 70B vs Gemma 3 27B→Llama 3.1 70B vs Llama 3.1 405B→