Llama 3 70B is cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B at $0.59/M vs $2.7/M input tokens.
Sections that transition like Framer. Timing is the whole grade.
Which answer wins?
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Llama 3.1 405B has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. Llama 3 70B costs 3.9x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.59/M tokens | $2.7/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.79/M tokens | $3.1/M tokens |
| Context window | 8K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Parameters | 70B | 405B |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Apr 2024 | Jul 2024 |
| MMLU | 82.0% | 88.6% |
| At 10M a month | $5.90 | $27.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Both are developed by Meta AI but target different use cases. Llama 3 70B has a 8K token context window vs Llama 3.1 405B's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 12 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Llama 3 70B and Llama 3.1 405B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 12 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Llama 3 70B costs $0.59/M input tokens and Llama 3.1 405B costs $2.7/M input tokens. Llama 3 70B is $2.11/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Llama 3 70B and Llama 3.1 405B across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.