Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs phi-3-medium 14B
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 30.3 to 9.1.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 32.6 | 29.1 |
| Released | — | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding phi-3-medium 14B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 32.9 (#255), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.3 (#198)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 21.0 (#206), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 121.18 |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.6 (#206), phi-3-medium 14B: 25.2 (#249)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1159 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.3 (#223), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#301)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.2 (#264), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 58.0 (#259), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#239), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.3 (#269), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than phi-3-medium 14B?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
phi-3-medium 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.3 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and phi-3-medium 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.