Model comparison

Llama 2-70B vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-70B Meta

24.4

Rank #349 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 7.4.

Side by side

Llama 2-70B and Trinity Large Thinking specifications
Llama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderMetaArcee AI
Noometry Index24.438.6
Released2023-07-182026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—80K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$0.80
Results tracked3524

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

Category by category

Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding10791381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%

Reasoning Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts10731350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
DTBench41.6%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
BIG-Bench Hard64.9%—
CommonsenseQA 2.050%—
Epoch Capabilities Index113.79—
ForecastBench51.4—
HellaSwag85.3%—
LAMBADA78.9%—
PIQA82.8%—
WinoGrande80.2%—

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math10911366
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250%—
MATH Level 53.3%—
GSM8K69.6%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert10391360
GPQA Diamond26.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%
ARC (AI2) Challenge78.3%—
BoolQ88.6%—
MMLU69.9%—
OpenBookQA60.2%—
TriviaQA87.6%—

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English10451325
LMArena Chinese9951373
LMArena French10901374
LMArena German10411356
LMArena Japanese9271311
LMArena Korean9641306
LMArena Russian10831337
LMArena Spanish11431357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following10711334

Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query10621355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-70BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text11151340
LMArena Creative Writing10751320
LMArena Multi-Turn10881342

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-70B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-70B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper