Model comparison

Gemma 2B vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2B Google

29.6

Rank #307 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads 48.4 to 24.0.

Side by side

Gemma 2B and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct specifications
Gemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
ProviderGoogleNVIDIA
Noometry Index29.637.6
Released2024-02-212024-12-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked2314

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 35.9 (#216)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Coding10101272
BigCodeBench Instruct—38.7%
BigCodeBench Complete—48.2%
HumanEval+20.7%—
MBPP+34.1%—

Reasoning Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 25.0 (#152)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts9891266
BIG-Bench Hard35.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index94.2—
HellaSwag71.4%—
PIQA77.3%—
WinoGrande65.4%—

Math Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 35.5 (#182)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Math10091271
GSM8K17.7%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 34.1 (#199)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Expert—1242
ARC (AI2) Challenge42.1%—
BoolQ69.4%—
MMLU42.3%—
TriviaQA53.2%—

Multilingual Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 40.5 (#217)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Non-English9581245
LMArena Chinese9861263
LMArena Russian9371227

Instruction Following Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 65.9 (#213)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following9701252

Long Context Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 37.6 (#215)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query9811238

Writing & Preference Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct: 48.4 (#203)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct
LMArena Text10021283
LMArena Creative Writing9871269
LMArena Multi-Turn9451275

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2B better than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2B or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct better for coding?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70b Instruct has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper