Model comparison

Llama 2-70B vs Llama 3.1-70B

Llama 3.1-70B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-70B Meta

24.4

Rank #349 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 1 category and Llama 3.1-70B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Llama 3.1-70B leads 24.2 to 7.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 3.3% for Llama 2-70B and 36.7% for Llama 3.1-70B.

Side by side

Llama 2-70B and Llama 3.1-70B specifications
Llama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
ProviderMetaMeta
Noometry Index24.429.6
Released2023-07-182024-07-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—128K
Max output—4K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.40
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked3535

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

Category by category

Coding Llama 2-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286), Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Coding10791260
WeirdML—9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—46.1%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.8%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 2-70B: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
TheAgentCompany—6.9%
BALROG—27.9%

Reasoning Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325), Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts10731241
DTBench41.6%60%
Epoch Capabilities Index113.79125.92
LMCA—14.8%
BIG-Bench Hard64.9%—
CommonsenseQA 2.050%—
ForecastBench51.4—
HellaSwag85.3%—
LAMBADA78.9%—
PIQA82.8%—
WinoGrande80.2%—

Math Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326), Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250%3.6%
LMArena Math10911252
MATH Level 53.3%36.7%
Omni-MATH—21%
GSM8K69.6%—

Knowledge Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310), Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
GPQA Diamond26.3%44.2%
LMArena Expert10391209
MMLU69.9%80.1%
MMLU-Pro—65.3%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
ARC (AI2) Challenge78.3%—
BoolQ88.6%—
OpenBookQA60.2%—
TriviaQA87.6%—

Multilingual Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274), Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Non-English10451219
LMArena Chinese9951215
LMArena French10901261
LMArena German10411222
LMArena Japanese9271132
LMArena Korean9641140
LMArena Russian10831234
LMArena Spanish11431253

Instruction Following Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278), Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Instruction Following10711231
IFEval—82.1%

Long Context Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270), Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Longer Query10621241

Writing & Preference Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279), Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Text11151261
LMArena Creative Writing10751232
LMArena Multi-Turn10881256
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—784
WildBench—75.8%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-70B better than Llama 3.1-70B?

Llama 3.1-70B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-70B or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?

Llama 2-70B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.4 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Llama 3.1-70B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper