Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Llama 3.2 90B

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

32.6

Rank #243 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 90B Meta

27.1

Rank #326 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 30.6 to 10.4.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Llama 3.2 90B specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
ProviderIBMMeta
Noometry Index32.627.1
Released—2024-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked129

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 32.9 (#255), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
LMArena Coding1149—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
BALROG—27.3%

Reasoning Too close to call

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 21.0 (#206), Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
EnigmaEval—0.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1138—
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.5

Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.6 (#206), Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—2.6%
LMArena Math1159—
MATH Level 5—39.4%

Knowledge Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.3 (#223), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
GPQA Diamond—41%
LMArena Expert1131—
MMLU—80.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
LMArena Vision—1000
GeoBench—52%

Multilingual Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.2 (#264), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
LMArena Non-English1068—
LMArena Chinese1138—
LMArena Russian1063—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 58.0 (#259), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
LMArena Instruction Following1116—

Long Context Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#239), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
LMArena Longer Query1155—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.3 (#269), Llama 3.2 90B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructLlama 3.2 90B
LMArena Text1127—
LMArena Creative Writing1116—
LMArena Multi-Turn1099—

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Llama 3.2 90B?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Llama 3.2 90B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.

Related comparisons

Go deeper