Head-to-Head Model Comparison

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct

Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison

Verificato dal team di ricerca di GetInfoUsUltima verifica: October 2026Politica editoriale
Condividi
Related topics (12)
AI CompareAI BenchmarkToken PricingModel CostModel SpecsSWE-bench CodingModel VersusWhich AI ModelLLM Speed & LatencyReasoning ModelsExtended ThinkingPrompt Caching ROI
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct di NVIDIA e Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct di NVIDIA sono due modelli di IA di riferimento. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct offre una finestra di contesto di 128K token a $0.35/$0.70 per milione di token, mentre Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct mette a disposizione 128K token di contesto a $0.05/$0.15 per milione di token. Di seguito analizziamo benchmark, latenza e costi.

Confronto Diretto (VS)

Cambia e Confronta Qualsiasi Modello

Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.

Profile
Profile
Multi-Model Arena Stack:
5-Model Matrix Workbench
Popular Matchups:
NVIDIA

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Modello Base a Pesi Aperti

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct di NVIDIA è un modello di IA progettato per il self-hosting su infrastruttura privata, il fine-tuning e la piena sovranità dei dati, con finestra di contesto da 128K, velocità di 80 token/s, indice di intelli

Intelligence Index47 / 100
Input Token:

$0.35 / 1M

Output Token:

$0.70 / 1M

Context Window:

128K tokens

SWE-bench Verified:

41.2%

NVIDIA

Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct

Modello Base a Pesi Aperti

Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct di NVIDIA è un modello di IA progettato per il self-hosting su infrastruttura privata, il fine-tuning e la piena sovranità dei dati, con finestra di contesto da 128K, velocità di 160 token/s, indice di intelligenza

Intelligence Index35 / 100
Input Token:

$0.05 / 1M

Output Token:

$0.15 / 1M

Context Window:

128K tokens

SWE-bench Verified:

22%

Differenze Chiave a Colpo d’Occhio

  • Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct is 5.4x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
  • Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct is faster at 160 tok/s vs 80 tok/s.
  • Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct leads on SWE-bench coding (41.2% vs 22.0%).
Need definitions for token pricing, context, or benchmarks?Explore AI Glossary →
FeatureLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNemotron Mini 4B Instruct
Intelligence Index
Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100)
4735
Provider
NVIDIANVIDIA
Input Price
Cost per million input tokens
$0.35 / 1M$0.05 / 1M
Output Price
Cost per million output tokens
$0.70 / 1M$0.15 / 1M
Blended Price
Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M
$0.21 / 1M$0.04 / 1M
Context Window
Maximum input + output tokens
128K tokens~192 A4 pages of text128K tokens~192 A4 pages of text
Max Output Tokens
Per single request
8K4K
Throughput Speed
Tokens generated per second
80 tok/s160 tok/s
SWE-bench Verified
Real-world software engineering
41.2%22%
GPQA Diamond
Graduate-level reasoning
58.5%38%
Cached Input Price
Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens
$0.10 / 1M$0.02 / 1M

Chi vince in ogni categoria?

At-a-glance decision framework
Coding
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
+19.2% SWE-bench lead
Cost
Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct
5.4x cheaper monthly runtime
Speed
Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct
+100% faster generation
Context
Tied
128K tokens window

Punteggi Benchmark Verificati

Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNemotron Mini 4B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified (Autonomous Coding)

Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.

41.2%vs22%
GPQA Diamond (Doctorate-Level Science & Math)

Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.

58.5%vs38%
MMLU-Pro (Multi-task Language Understanding)

Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.

79.2%vs58.5%
LMSYS Chatbot Arena Elo

Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.

1318ptsvs1180pts
Terminal-Bench (Agentic Coding & Terminal Use)

Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.

38%vs20%
AIME (Advanced Math Competition)

American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.

68%vs38%
Long-Context Reasoning

Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.

75%vs58%
Generation Speed (Throughput)

Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.

80 tok/s vs160 tok/s

Latenza e Tempo di Risposta

Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.

Time to First Token (TTFT)Lower is better
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct0.45s
Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct0.25s
Est. End-to-End Response (500 tokens)TTFT + generation time
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct6.70s
Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct3.38s

Simulatore Interattivo dei Costi Token

Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.

100K / day
10K500K1M
30K / day
5K150K300K
50% cached
0% (Cold)50%90% (Warm)
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct Monthly API Bill
$1.30 / month
$0.35/1M in · $0.7/1M out
Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct Monthly API Bill
$0.24 / month
$0.05/1M in · $0.15/1M out
Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct saves approximately $1.06 / month (82%) under this workload.5.4x Savings

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct · Strengths & Key Advantages

  • Finestra di contesto da 128K con capacità massima di output fino a 8K token (SWE-bench Verified 41.2% · GPQA Diamond 58.5%)
  • Throughput elevato di 80 token/secondo con latenza al primo token (TTFT) di soli 450 ms
  • Pesi aperti (70B) pronti per il self-hosting locale o su cloud privato tramite vLLM, SGLang o Ollama
Considerations & Trade-offs
  • Richiede server GPU dedicati con sufficiente memoria VRAM per l’esecuzione locale a piena precisione
  • Nelle dimostrazioni scientifiche più estreme, i modelli di ragionamento pesante dedicati offrono maggiore profondità

Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct · Strengths & Key Advantages

  • Finestra di contesto da 128K con capacità massima di output fino a 4K token (SWE-bench Verified 22% · GPQA Diamond 38%)
  • Throughput elevato di 160 token/secondo con latenza al primo token (TTFT) di soli 250 ms
  • Pesi aperti (4B) pronti per il self-hosting locale o su cloud privato tramite vLLM, SGLang o Ollama
Considerations & Trade-offs
  • Richiede server GPU dedicati con sufficiente memoria VRAM per l’esecuzione locale a piena precisione
  • Nelle dimostrazioni scientifiche più estreme, i modelli di ragionamento pesante dedicati offrono maggiore profondità

Token Use & Task Economics

Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.

MetricLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNemotron Mini 4B Instruct
Cost per Task
Estimated USD to finish one task
$0.28$0.03
Output Tokens / Task
Tokens generated per task
32K15K
Reasoning Tokens / Task
Thinking tokens burned per task
0K0K

Specifiche Tecniche

Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.

FeatureLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNemotron Mini 4B Instruct
Official API Model ID (SDK)llama-3-1-nemotron-70bnemotron-mini-4b
API ProtocolOpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGIOpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI
Release Date2025-042024-08
Knowledge CutoffDecember 2024June 2024
ArchitectureRLHF Aligned Llama 3.1 DerivativePruned and Distilled Compact Transformer
Parameters70B4B
Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM)Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed CloudUnlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud
Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K)Flat rate ($0.35/1M in) across full 128K windowFlat rate ($0.05/1M in) across full 128K window
Prompt Cache Policy & TTLCached input at $0.1/1M tokensCached input at $0.02/1M tokens
Computer Use / GUI AgentAPI / 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 CallingNative MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON SchemaNative MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema
Web Search Grounding & SandboxSupported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox toolsSupported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools
Official Fine-Tuning SupportFull 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 BillingText BPE (~4 chars/token)Text BPE (~4 chars/token)
Quantization & Min GPU VRAMBF16 / 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) · 2 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 9 GB VRAM (Native BF16)
Safety & Frontier ClassificationOpen-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 Control100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control
Input Modalitiestexttext
Output Modalitiestexttext

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct: Risposte Rapide (FAQ)

Which is more intelligent, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct or Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is more intelligent. It scores 47 compared with 35 on the composite Intelligence Index.

Which model is faster?

Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct is faster, generating 160 tokens per second compared with 80 tokens per second.

Which model is cheaper to run?

Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct is cheaper at $0.04 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.21 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).

Which model has lower latency?

Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.25s compared with 0.45s.

Verdetto

Sia Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (Ideale per il self-hosting su infrastruttura privata, il fine-tuning e la piena sovranità dei dati, sistemi RAG aziendali e integrazioni API scalabili.) sia Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct (Ideale per il self-hosting su infrastruttura privata, il fine-tuning e la piena sovranità dei dati, sistemi RAG aziendali e integrazioni API scalabili.) eccellono in produzione: Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct guida nei benchmark di ragionamento e programmazione, Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct garantisce una generazione più rapida e Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct offre il miglior rapporto qualità-prezzo per carichi API elevati.

Domande Frequenti (FAQ)

Quale modello è migliore per coding e ragionamento, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct o Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct?+

Nell’indice di intelligenza composito e nei benchmark di programmazione prevale Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct. Consulta i punteggi SWE-bench e GPQA qui sopra per tutti i dettagli.

Qual è la differenza di prezzo API tra Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct e Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct?+

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct costa $0.35 / $0.70 per milione di token di input/output, mentre Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct costa $0.05 / $0.15. Nel costo combinato, Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct risulta più economico.

Quale modello ha la finestra di contesto più ampia e la velocità maggiore?+

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct supporta 128K token di contesto contro 128K token di Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct, mentre Nemotron Mini 4B Instruct offre una velocità di generazione superiore.

AI Terminology & Guide
Explore Glossary →

Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.

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.

Fonti ufficiali: Documentazione API ufficiale di NVIDIA e NVIDIA, schede di sistema e benchmark indipendenti (2026).