Nemotron Research Reasoning vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Nemotron Research Reasoning by NVIDIA and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B by NVIDIA represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, Nemotron Research Reasoning holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, Nemotron Research Reasoning is more economical per million generated tokens. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, both models provide an identical memory horizon with 128K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
بدّل وقارن بين أي نموذجين
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Nemotron Research Reasoning
نموذج مفتوح الأوزاننموذج Nemotron Research Reasoning المقدم من NVIDIA يوفر نافذة سياق تصل إلى 128K رمز، بتكلفة $0 لكل مليون رمز إدخال و$0 لكل مليون رمز إخراج، ومصمم للبرمجة والاستدلال وتطبيقات الأعمال.
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
128K tokens
48.5%
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B
نموذج مفتوح الأوزاننموذج Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B المقدم من NVIDIA يوفر نافذة سياق تصل إلى 128K رمز، بتكلفة $0.8 لكل مليون رمز إدخال و$2.4 لكل مليون رمز إخراج، ومصمم للبرمجة والاستدلال وتطبيقات الأعمال.
$0.80 / 1M
$2.40 / 1M
128K tokens
52.8%
أهم الفروقات في لمحة
- Nemotron Research Reasoning is 1.0x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B is faster at 60 tok/s vs 45 tok/s.
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B leads on SWE-bench coding (52.8% vs 48.5%).
| Feature | Nemotron Research Reasoning | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 68 | 54 |
Provider | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.80 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $2.40 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.00 / 1M | $0.54 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 128K tokens~192 A4 pages of text | 128K tokens~192 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 16K | 16K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 45 tok/s | 60 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 48.5% | 52.8% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 62% | 66% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.20 / 1M |
من يتفوق في كل مجال؟
At-a-glance decision frameworkنتائج الاختبارات المعيارية الموثقة
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
زمن الاستجابة والسرعة
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
محاكي تكلفة الرموز التفاعلي
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Nemotron Research Reasoning · Strengths & Key Advantages
- بنية Research-Grade Dense Transformer متطورة من NVIDIA مع سعة سياق تبلغ 128K رمز
- كفاءة عالية في التكلفة ($0/1M إدخال و$0/1M إخراج) وسرعة استجابة ممتازة
- أداء قوي في اختبارات البرمجة، الاستدلال المنطقي، ودعم اللغات المتعددة
Considerations & Trade-offs
- يتطلب إدارة دقيقة لاستهلاك الرموز عند استخدام نافذة السياق الكاملة
- قد يحتاج إلى ضبط دقيق للتعليمات (Prompt Engineering) في المهام التخصصية المعقدة
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B · Strengths & Key Advantages
- بنية High-Throughput Aligned Frontier MoE متطورة من NVIDIA مع سعة سياق تبلغ 128K رمز
- كفاءة عالية في التكلفة ($0.8/1M إدخال و$2.4/1M إخراج) وسرعة استجابة ممتازة
- أداء قوي في اختبارات البرمجة، الاستدلال المنطقي، ودعم اللغات المتعددة
Considerations & Trade-offs
- يتطلب إدارة دقيقة لاستهلاك الرموز عند استخدام نافذة السياق الكاملة
- قد يحتاج إلى ضبط دقيق للتعليمات (Prompt Engineering) في المهام التخصصية المعقدة
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Nemotron Research Reasoning | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.00 | $0.65 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 18K | 42K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 12K | 20K |
المواصفات التقنية
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Nemotron Research Reasoning | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | nemotron-research-reasoning | llama-3-1-nemotron-ultra-253b |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2025-08 | 2025-04 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | July 2025 | December 2024 |
| Architecture | Research-Grade Dense Transformer | High-Throughput Aligned Frontier MoE |
| Parameters | 70B | 253B |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) | Flat rate ($0.8/1M in) across full 128K window |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) | Cached input at $0.2/1M tokens |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 43 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 151 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 157 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 544 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text | text |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Nemotron Research Reasoning vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B: إجابات سريعة (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Nemotron Research Reasoning or Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?
Nemotron Research Reasoning is more intelligent. It scores 68 compared with 54 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B is faster, generating 60 tokens per second compared with 45 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Nemotron Research Reasoning is cheaper at $0.00 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.54 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Nemotron Research Reasoning has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.52s compared with 0.60s.
الحكم النهائي
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Nemotron Research Reasoning if your priority is Scientific research, complex data analysis, and academic reasoning workflows. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B if your workflow prioritizes Enterprise datacenter intelligence, automated code migrations, and mission-critical reasoning. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
الأسئلة الشائعة (FAQ)
How does Nemotron Research Reasoning compare to Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Nemotron Research Reasoning costs $0.00 per 1M input tokens and $0.00 per 1M output tokens, whereas Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B costs $0.80 input and $2.40 output. Overall, Nemotron Research Reasoning is the more cost-effective model for high-volume API pipelines. Both models support prompt caching discounts of up to 90% for repeated prompt prefixes.
Which model has a larger context window: Nemotron Research Reasoning or Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?+
Both Nemotron Research Reasoning and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B offer an identical context window of 128K tokens (~96k words). Both architectures provide equal capacity for large document ingestion, multi-file codebases, and extended multi-turn conversation histories.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Nemotron Research Reasoning or Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?+
Nemotron Research Reasoning scores 48.5% on SWE-bench Verified while Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B scores 52.8%. For autonomous software engineering and multi-file debugging, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B holds the verified benchmark lead.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Nemotron Research Reasoning and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?+
Nemotron Research Reasoning features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Nemotron Research Reasoning and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B?+
Nemotron Research Reasoning generates approximately 45 tokens per second, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B delivers 60 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Nemotron Research Reasoning and Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to Nemotron Research Reasoning to save operational costs, and dynamically escalate complex architectural queries or reasoning tasks to Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B. This tiered routing pattern cuts overall API bills by up to 70%.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- GLM-4.5V vs Nemotron Research Reasoning: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparisonمقارنة
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B vs DeepSeek-R1-0528: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparisonمقارنة
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B vs Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparisonمقارنة
- Nemotron Nano 9B v2 vs Nemotron Research Reasoning: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparisonمقارنة
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparisonمقارنة
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparisonمقارنة
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
المصادر الرسمية: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs