llama-3.1-70b-instruct vs llama-3.3-70b-versatile

Capability for the money

llama-3.3-70b-versatile is 1.6× cheaper than llama-3.1-70b-instruct and scores higher on following instructions (IFBench), tool use (τ²-bench) and hard reasoning (GPQA Diamond) — there is no case for paying more here.

1. Following instructions

   extraction, classification, sticking to a format

   IFBench
   llama-3.1-70b-instruct34.4%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile47.1%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile +12.7

2. Coding

   writing and fixing code

   LiveCodeBench
   llama-3.1-70b-instruct23.2%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile28.8%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile +5.6

3. Tool use

   multi-step agent work against real tools

   τ²-bench
   llama-3.1-70b-instruct15.2%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile26.6%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile +11.4

4. Hard reasoning

   graduate-level science and multi-step analysis

   GPQA Diamond
   llama-3.1-70b-instruct40.9%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile49.8%

   llama-3.3-70b-versatile +8.9

Averaged over the benchmarks both models sat, llama-3.3-70b-versatile returns 59.5 points of pass rate per dollar of blended price against 28.4 — the ratio that decides whether the dearer model earns its rate.

Each figure is a pass rate: the share of that test set the model answered correctly, measured by a third party rather than self-reported by the lab. Rows are different tests of different difficulty, so compare a model against the other model, not one row against the next. And a benchmark is not your workload — it narrows the shortlist, it does not pick for you.