Llama 3.1 vs Llama 3: Which is Better?

Meta's Llama 3.1 70B and Llama 3 70B: A Detailed Comparison

Meta recently released Llama 3.1, including the 70B parameter model, alongside larger and smaller variants. This upgrade follows the Llama 3 release just three months prior. While Llama 3.1 405B boasts superior performance compared to GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus in various benchmarks, its slower generation speed and high TTFT (Time to First Token) might limit its practicality for many applications. This makes the Llama 3.1 70B a compelling alternative for developers seeking production-ready or self-hosted models. But how does it stack up against its predecessor, Llama 3 70B?

This analysis compares Llama 3.1 70B and Llama 3 70B, examining performance, efficiency, and suitability for different use cases to help you choose the right model.

Key Differences at a Glance:

Feature	Llama 3.1 70B	Llama 3 70B
Parameters	70 Billion	70 Billion
Pricing	$0.9/1M tokens	$0.9/1M tokens
Context Window	128K	8K
Max Output Tokens	4096	2048
Knowledge Cutoff	Dec 2023	Dec 2023

Llama 3.1 70B's Enhancements:

The most significant improvements in Llama 3.1 70B are its expanded context window (128K vs. 8K) and doubled maximum output tokens (4096 vs. 2048). This dramatically increases its ability to handle complex, long-form tasks.

Benchmark Performance:

Benchmark	Llama 3.1 70B	Llama 3 70B
MMLU	86	82
GSM8K	95.1	93
MATH	68	50.4
HumanEval	80.5	81.7

Llama 3.1 70B generally outperforms Llama 3 70B, especially in mathematical reasoning (MATH). However, HumanEval shows a slight decrease in coding performance.

Speed and Efficiency:

Testing on Keywords AI's model playground revealed significant speed differences:

• Latency: Llama 3 70B (4.75s) is considerably faster than Llama 3.1 70B (13.85s).
• TTFT: Llama 3 70B (0.32s) shows a substantial advantage over Llama 3.1 70B (0.60s).
• Throughput: Llama 3 70B (114 tokens/second) more than doubles the throughput of Llama 3.1 70B (50 tokens/second).

These results highlight Llama 3 70B's superiority in real-time applications.

Performance Across Tasks (Keywords AI Testing):

• Coding: Both models performed well, but Llama 3 70B often produced more concise and readable code.
• Document Processing: Both achieved high accuracy, but Llama 3 70B was much faster, limited only by its smaller context window (8-10 pages). Llama 3.1 70B handled longer documents effectively, albeit slower.
• Logical Reasoning: Llama 3.1 70B significantly outperformed Llama 3 70B.

Model Recommendations:

• Llama 3.1 70B: Ideal for long-form content, complex document analysis, and tasks requiring extensive context. Not suitable for time-sensitive applications.
• Llama 3 70B: Best for real-time interactions, quick responses, efficient coding, and shorter documents. Not ideal for very long documents or complex reasoning.

Choosing the Right Model:

Keywords AI offers a platform to easily test and compare numerous LLMs, including Llama 3.1 and Llama 3. This allows for direct performance comparison before committing to a specific model. [Image of Keywords AI comparison tool would go here]

Conclusion:

The optimal choice depends entirely on your specific application requirements. Prioritize Llama 3.1 70B for complex tasks needing a large context window, and Llama 3 70B for speed and efficiency in real-time or simpler applications. Utilize platforms like Keywords AI to effectively evaluate both models before making your decision.

The above is the detailed content of Llama 3.1 vs Llama 3: Which is Better?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!