Phi-4 vs Gemma 3 27B
Architecture Comparison
SpecPhi-4Gemma 3 27B
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters14.7B27B
Active Parameters14.7B27B
Layers4062
Hidden Dimension5,1203,584
Attention Heads4032
KV Heads1016
Context Length16,384131,072
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionPhi-4Gemma 3 27B
BF16 Weights29.4 GB54.0 GB
FP8 Weights14.7 GB27.0 GB
INT4 Weights7.3 GB13.5 GB
KV-Cache / Token204800 B507904 B
Activation Estimate1.50 GB1.50 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S1 GPU2 GPUs
Quality Benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Gemma 3 27B
Overall8376
MMLU84.878.0
HumanEval67.048.0
GSM8K93.085.0
MT-Bench85.082.0
Phi-4
MMLU
84.8
HumanEval
67.0
GSM8K
93.0
MT-Bench
85.0
Gemma 3 27B
MMLU
78.0
HumanEval
48.0
GSM8K
85.0
MT-Bench
82.0
Capabilities
FeaturePhi-4Gemma 3 27B
Tool Use✓ Yes✓ Yes
Vision✗ No✓ Yes
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✓ Yes✗ No
Multilingual✓ Yes✓ Yes
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes
API Pricing Comparison
Cheapest Output (Phi-4)
$0.14/M
Input: $0.07/M
Cheapest Output (Gemma 3 27B)
$0.20/M
Input: $0.10/M
| Provider | Phi-4 In $/M | Out $/M | Gemma 3 27B In $/M | Out $/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| azure | $0.07 | $0.14 | — | — |
| together | $0.20 | $0.20 | $0.30 | $0.30 |
| — | — | $0.10 | $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).