Model comparison
Dolly 2.0-12b vs phi-3-medium 14B
phi-3-medium 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Databricks
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Dolly 2.0-12b scores higher in 0 categories and phi-3-medium 14B in 2 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where phi-3-medium 14B leads 36.8 to 23.4.
Side by side
| Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Databricks | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 25.5 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2023-04-11 | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding phi-3-medium 14B leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 23.4 (#332), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 776 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.3 (#316), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 89.67 | 121.23 |
| HellaSwag | 70.8% | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | 61.8% | 81.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 804 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| PIQA | 75.4% | — |
Math Too close to call
Dolly 2.0-12b: 27.3 (#251), phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 871 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: —, phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 39.6% | 91.6% |
| MMLU | 26.2% | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | 39.2% | 87.4% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27.6% |
| BoolQ | 56.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: 17.4 (#296), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 836 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 836 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: 38.7 (#304), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 814 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.2 (#311), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 851 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 864 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 740 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Dolly 2.0-12b better than phi-3-medium 14B?
phi-3-medium 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Dolly 2.0-12b or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
phi-3-medium 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.8 versus 23.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Dolly 2.0-12b and phi-3-medium 14B share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Dolly 2.0-12b has 17 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.