Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 Community LicenseDeveloped by Meta · Dense Transformer with GQA · Modalities: Text · Released 2024-12-06
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 60.6/100Architectural & Production Profile
Meta's proven 70B dense open-weight model widely deployed across hardware accelerators (Groq, Cerebras) for ultra-fast text generation.
Cost-optimized on-premise deployments, fast text transformation, structured entity extraction, and enterprise dialogue pipelines.
- Architecture
- Dense Transformer with GQA
- Modalities
- Text
- Max Output Tokens
- 32,768 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $0.165 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groq LPU Inference → | Primary Host | $0.12 | $0.30 | 75ms | 363 tok/s |
| Cerebras CS-3 Wafer-Scale Inference → | Partner Endpoint | $0.12 | $0.30 | 60ms | 577.5 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$0.12/1M in · $0.30/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.030/1M read · $0.12/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (36)
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemini 4 Argon
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (705ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 165 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 93.8% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (235ms faster than Claude 4.5 Sonnet) with 165 vs. 84 tok/s throughput. Claude 4.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 75.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 84.2% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Claude Opus 5.5
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (535ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 165 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 93.2% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 52.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $1.50 for output tokens (2.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (40ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 210 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.8 Flash leads coding evaluations at 68.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 79.2% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs GPT-5
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (195ms faster than GPT-5) with 165 vs. 105 tok/s throughput. GPT-5 leads coding evaluations at 74.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 85.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs GPT-6 Astra
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 98.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (83.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (595ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 165 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. GPT-6 Astra leads coding evaluations at 75.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 96.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 90.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (11.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (375ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 165 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 90.1% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs DeepSeek R1
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 78.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (4.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (1305ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 165 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek R1 leads coding evaluations at 49.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 71.5% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 45.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.22 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.65 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (165ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 165 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 91.3% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs OpenAI o3
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (1005ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 165 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3 leads coding evaluations at 71.7% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 87.7% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Claude 4 Opus
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (775ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 165 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 87.1% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (395ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 165 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 70.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 78.5% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 90.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (275ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 165 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.1 Pro leads coding evaluations at 71.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 82.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Grok 4
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (335ms faster than Grok 4) with 165 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Grok 4 leads coding evaluations at 73.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 86.2% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (10ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 175 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 73.8% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (135ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 165 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 91.7% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.30 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (67ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 265 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads coding evaluations at 55.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 68.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs OpenAI o4-mini
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (535ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 165 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o4-mini leads coding evaluations at 68.1% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 81.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs DeepSeek V3
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 14.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.14 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.28 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (265ms faster than DeepSeek V3) with 165 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads coding evaluations at 42.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 55.6% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct share identical input pricing at $0.12 per 1M tokens ($0.36 vs. $0.30 output). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (30ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 155 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Gemma 4 31B IT leads coding evaluations at 59.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 71.2% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs OpenAI o3-mini
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (805ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 165 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. OpenAI o3-mini leads coding evaluations at 49.3% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 79.7% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (45ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku) with 165 vs. 130 tok/s throughput. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads coding evaluations at 42.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 55.6% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (165ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 165 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding evaluations at 49.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 59.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.30 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (135ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash) with 165 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.0 Flash leads coding evaluations at 51.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 63.6% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (35ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 180 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Flash leads coding evaluations at 58.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 70.5% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 90.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (10.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (555ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 165 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Gemini 2.5 Pro leads coding evaluations at 63.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 74.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct share identical input pricing at $0.12 per 1M tokens ($0.40 vs. $0.30 output). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (55ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 175 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3-Flash leads coding evaluations at 52.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 63.5% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs GLM-5.3
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 65.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $1.00 for output tokens (2.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (15ms faster than GLM-5.3) with 165 vs. 120 tok/s throughput. GLM-5.3 leads coding evaluations at 56.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 67.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs GPT-4o Mini
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (75ms faster than GPT-4o Mini) with 165 vs. 140 tok/s throughput. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads coding evaluations at 42.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 55.6% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs GPT-4o
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (135ms faster than GPT-4o) with 165 vs. 100 tok/s throughput. GPT-4o leads coding evaluations at 48.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 53.6% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (375ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 165 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 92.4% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Grok 3 Mini
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $1.20 for output tokens (2.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (5ms faster than Grok 3 Mini) with 165 vs. 160 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 Mini leads coding evaluations at 54.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 68.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Grok 3
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (475ms faster than Grok 3) with 165 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Grok 3 leads coding evaluations at 65.8% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 84.6% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (235ms faster than Mistral Large 2 (2411)) with 165 vs. 75 tok/s throughput. Mistral Large 2 (2411) leads coding evaluations at 45.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 54.2% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs o1
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (2455ms faster than o1) with 165 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. o1 leads coding evaluations at 48.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 78.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (25ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 140 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 27B leads coding evaluations at 58.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 68.0% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Llama 3.3 70B Instruct cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.030 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 75%.
What are Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct achieves 42.5% on SWE-bench Verified, 88.4% on HumanEval coding, 55.6% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 76.8% on MMLU-Pro, and 77% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 74.6/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct supports a 131,072 token context window (32,768 max output tokens) and operates at 145ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 165 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?
Cost-optimized on-premise deployments, fast text transformation, structured entity extraction, and enterprise dialogue pipelines.