Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads Llama 3.1 8B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.7 to 6.9, and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs 9.0x less per output token ($0.08 vs $0.72 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 49 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
17.9
Output $/M
$0.08
2
Llama 3.3 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
26.0
Output $/M
$0.72
47
vs boards won of 49 shared

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 9.0x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.72 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
49
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct only
2
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct only
3
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct not benchmarked, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 18.4 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
MMLU: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 56.1% against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 86.3%, 30.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct $0.08 against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.72 per million output tokens, 9.0x apart.
Context window
Both take 131K tokens.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryLlama 3.1 8B InstructBarsLlama 3.3 70B InstructTies
Coding06
Intelligence02
Agentic work03
Reasoning15
Math06
Knowledge06
General119
All shared boards247
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index5.411.9Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)11.6%28.8%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%3.0%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
WeirdML1.7%14.4%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: coding11951268Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: software and IT11951273Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.97.7Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities Index116.5127.3Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom16.4%26.6%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BALROG15.1%23.0%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)25.8%31.9%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)25.9%49.8%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%3.6%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)27.0%47.4%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SimpleBenchNot measured19.9%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts11751257Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: expert11441225Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English11961277Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Math Index4.37.7Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)4.3%7.7%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME1.7%5.1%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MATH level 522.9%41.6%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
GSM8K82.4%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math11791267Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: mathematical work11801267Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)47.6%71.3%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MMLU56.1%86.3%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: science11931284Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare11821275Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: legal and government12061284Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: business and finance11661243Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index119
General benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
IFBench28.6%47.1%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)18.0%15.7%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
DTBench50.9%59.5%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMCA5.4%17.5%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured33.3%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
PIQA81.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text11871274Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: instruction following11591242Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: creative writing11541250Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: English12181303Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: non-English11481236Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Chinese11511217Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: German11441251Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Japanese10611150Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Korean10531142Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: French11781282Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Spanish11691269Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Russian11581252Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1259Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn11721280Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: longer queries11811255Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: writing and language11621255Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: entertainment and media11451241Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0027Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.025Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.011Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.097Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MakerMeta LlamaMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 23, 2024December 6, 2024
Context window131K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.05$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.08$0.72
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.1 8B Instruct better than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 9.0x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.72 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.08 per million output tokens; Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs $0.45 and $0.72. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Neither: both take 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct comparison based on?

49 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next