Phi 3.5 Vision vs Llama 3.2 11B Vision
Architecture Comparison
SpecPhi 3.5 VisionLlama 3.2 11B Vision
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters4.2B11B
Active Parameters4.2B11B
Layers3240
Hidden Dimension3,0724,096
Attention Heads3232
KV Heads328
Context Length131,072131,072
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionPhi 3.5 VisionLlama 3.2 11B Vision
BF16 Weights8.4 GB22.0 GB
FP8 Weights4.2 GB11.0 GB
INT4 Weights2.1 GB5.5 GB
KV-Cache / Token393216 B163840 B
Activation Estimate0.50 GB1.00 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S1 GPU1 GPU
Capabilities
FeaturePhi 3.5 VisionLlama 3.2 11B Vision
Tool Use✗ No✓ Yes
Vision✓ Yes✓ Yes
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✗ No✗ No
Multilingual✗ No✓ Yes
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes
API Pricing Comparison
Cheapest Output (Phi 3.5 Vision)
N/A
Cheapest Output (Llama 3.2 11B Vision)
$0.18/M
Input: $0.18/M
| Provider | Phi 3.5 Vision In $/M | Out $/M | Llama 3.2 11B Vision In $/M | Out $/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| together | — | — | $0.18 | $0.18 |
| fireworks | — | — | $0.20 | $0.20 |
Recommendation Summary
- ‣Phi 3.5 Vision has a smaller memory footprint (8.4 GB vs 22.0 GB BF16), making it easier to deploy on fewer GPUs.
Compare Other Models
Phi 3.5 Vision vs DeepSeek R1→Phi 3.5 Vision vs DeepSeek V3→Phi 3.5 Vision vs Gemma 3 27B→Phi 3.5 Vision vs Llama 3.1 405B→Phi 3.5 Vision vs Llama 3.1 70B→Phi 3.5 Vision vs Llama 3.1 8B→Llama 3.2 11B Vision vs DeepSeek R1→Llama 3.2 11B Vision vs DeepSeek V3→Llama 3.2 11B Vision vs Gemma 3 27B→Llama 3.2 11B Vision vs Llama 3.1 405B→