Mistral Nemo 12B vs Phi-4
Architecture Comparison
SpecMistral Nemo 12BPhi-4
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters12B14.7B
Active Parameters12B14.7B
Layers4040
Hidden Dimension5,1205,120
Attention Heads3240
KV Heads810
Context Length131,07216,384
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionMistral Nemo 12BPhi-4
BF16 Weights24.0 GB29.4 GB
FP8 Weights12.0 GB14.7 GB
INT4 Weights6.0 GB7.3 GB
KV-Cache / Token163840 B204800 B
Activation Estimate1.50 GB1.50 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S1 GPU1 GPU
Quality Benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Nemo 12BPhi-4
Overall6283
MMLU68.084.8
HumanEval38.067.0
GSM8K65.093.0
MT-Bench75.085.0
Mistral Nemo 12B
MMLU
68.0
HumanEval
38.0
GSM8K
65.0
MT-Bench
75.0
Phi-4
MMLU
84.8
HumanEval
67.0
GSM8K
93.0
MT-Bench
85.0
Capabilities
FeatureMistral Nemo 12BPhi-4
Tool Use✓ Yes✓ Yes
Vision✗ No✗ No
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✗ No✓ Yes
Multilingual✓ Yes✓ Yes
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes
API Pricing Comparison
Cheapest Output (Mistral Nemo 12B)
$0.13/M
Input: $0.13/M
Cheapest Output (Phi-4)
$0.14/M
Input: $0.07/M
| Provider | Mistral Nemo 12B In $/M | Out $/M | Phi-4 In $/M | Out $/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deepinfra | $0.13 | $0.13 | — | — |
| azure | — | — | $0.07 | $0.14 |
| together | $0.18 | $0.18 | $0.20 | $0.20 |
Recommendation Summary
- ‣Phi-4 scores higher on overall quality (83 vs 62).
- ‣Mistral Nemo 12B is cheaper per output token ($0.13/M vs $0.14/M).
- ‣Mistral Nemo 12B has a smaller memory footprint (24.0 GB vs 29.4 GB BF16), making it easier to deploy on fewer GPUs.
- ‣Mistral Nemo 12B supports a longer context window (131,072 vs 16,384 tokens).
- ‣Phi-4 is stronger at code generation (HumanEval: 67.0 vs 38.0).
- ‣Phi-4 is better at math reasoning (GSM8K: 93.0 vs 65.0).