Model comparison

Llama 3-8B vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3-8B Meta

25.5

Rank #344 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3-8B 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 7.8.

Side by side

Llama 3-8B and Trinity Large Thinking specifications
Llama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderMetaArcee AI
Noometry Index25.538.6
Released2024-04-182026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—80K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$0.80
Results tracked3424

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

Category by category

Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 31.0 (#289), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding11521381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%
BigCodeBench Instruct31.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete36.9%—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+54.8%—

Reasoning Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 14.3 (#326), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts11331350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles0%—
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
DTBench43.9%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Adversarial NLI57.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index116.45—
ForecastBench58.6—
WinoGrande75.7%—

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 8.8 (#323), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math11511366
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.9%—
MATH Level 56.1%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 7.8 (#308), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert11131360
GPQA Diamond26.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%
ARC (AI2) Challenge82.8%—
MMLU68.8%—
OpenBookQA82.6%—
TriviaQA67.7%—

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 30.8 (#261), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English10981325
LMArena Chinese10761373
LMArena French11591374
LMArena German11041356
LMArena Japanese9671311
LMArena Korean10041306
LMArena Russian11091337
LMArena Spanish11731357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 58.4 (#260), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following11271334

Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 34.2 (#251), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query11281355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Llama 3-8B: 37.5 (#256), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3-8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text11661340
LMArena Creative Writing11501320
LMArena Multi-Turn11521342

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3-8B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3-8B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 31.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3-8B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3-8B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper