Model Comparison
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
vs. Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Meta, NVIDIA
Recommended Pick
NV Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
100.0 value score
15.9 reasoning / $0.10/1M
Lowest Price
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning)
45.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning)
31.2 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B is 3.0x cheaper on input tokens than Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) generates about 1.1x as many tokens per second as Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B.
Reasoning gap
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) leads Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B by 29.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) leads Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B by 26.3 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
Meta
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Me Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B | Top Pick NV Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.10/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.10/1M | $0.75/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.10/1M | $0.41/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Meta | NVIDIA |
| Release Date | Jul 23, 2024 | Mar 11, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 198.0 tok/s | 221.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 531ms | 1056ms |
| Latency | 531ms | 10074ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 68.9 |
| Reasoning Score | 15.9 | 45.1 |
| Intelligence | 11.8 | 36.0 |
| Coding | 4.9 | 31.2 |
| Math | 4.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 25.9% | 80.0% |
| MMLU Pro | 47.6% | — |
| HLE | 5.1% | 19.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 11.6% | — |
| MATH 500 | 51.9% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 4.3% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 7.7% | — |
| SciCode | 13.2% | 36.0% |
| LCR | 15.7% | 60.0% |
| IFBench | 28.6% | 71.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 16.4% | 67.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.8% | 28.8% |
Key Takeaways
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 45.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) reaches a 31.2 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives 
