Phi-4 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B
Architecture Comparison
SpecPhi-4Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters14.7B14.7B
Active Parameters14.7B14.7B
Layers4048
Hidden Dimension5,1205,120
Attention Heads4040
KV Heads108
Context Length16,384131,072
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionPhi-4Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B
BF16 Weights29.4 GB29.4 GB
FP8 Weights14.7 GB14.7 GB
INT4 Weights7.3 GB7.3 GB
KV-Cache / Token204800 B196608 B
Activation Estimate1.50 GB1.20 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S1 GPU1 GPU
Quality Benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B
Overall8350
MMLU84.8N/A
HumanEval67.0N/A
GSM8K93.0N/A
MT-Bench85.0N/A
Phi-4
MMLU
84.8
HumanEval
67.0
GSM8K
93.0
MT-Bench
85.0
Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B
Capabilities
FeaturePhi-4Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B
Tool Use✓ Yes✗ No
Vision✗ No✗ No
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✓ Yes✗ No
Multilingual✓ Yes✗ No
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes
API Pricing Comparison
Cheapest Output (Phi-4)
$0.14/M
Input: $0.07/M
Cheapest Output (Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B)
$0.30/M
Input: $0.30/M
| Provider | Phi-4 In $/M | Out $/M | Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B In $/M | Out $/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| azure | $0.07 | $0.14 | — | — |
| together | $0.20 | $0.20 | $0.30 | $0.30 |
Recommendation Summary
- ‣Phi-4 scores higher on overall quality (83 vs 50).
- ‣Phi-4 is cheaper per output token ($0.14/M vs $0.30/M).
- ‣Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B supports a longer context window (131,072 vs 16,384 tokens).