LLaMA 3.1 8B vs Phi-3 Medium
Comprehensive comparison of two leading open-source AI models
LLaMA 3.1 8B
ProviderMeta
Parameters8B
KYI Score8.2/10
LicenseLLaMA 3.1 Community License
Phi-3 Medium
ProviderMicrosoft
Parameters14B
KYI Score8.3/10
LicenseMIT
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | LLaMA 3.1 8B | Phi-3 Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Parameters | 8B | 14B |
| KYI Score | 8.2/10 | 8.3/10 |
| Speed | 9/10 | 9/10 |
| Quality | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Cost Efficiency | 10/10 | 10/10 |
| License | LLaMA 3.1 Community License | MIT |
| Context Length | 128K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Pricing | free | free |
Performance Comparison
SpeedHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 8B9/10
Phi-3 Medium9/10
QualityHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 8B7/10
Phi-3 Medium7/10
Cost EffectivenessHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 8B10/10
Phi-3 Medium10/10
LLaMA 3.1 8B Strengths
- ✓Very fast
- ✓Low memory footprint
- ✓Easy to deploy
- ✓Cost-effective
LLaMA 3.1 8B Limitations
- ✗Lower quality than larger models
- ✗Limited reasoning capabilities
Phi-3 Medium Strengths
- ✓Excellent efficiency
- ✓MIT license
- ✓Long context
- ✓Fast
Phi-3 Medium Limitations
- ✗Lower quality than larger models
- ✗Limited capabilities
Best Use Cases
LLaMA 3.1 8B
Mobile appsEdge devicesReal-time chatLocal deployment
Phi-3 Medium
Edge deploymentMobile appsChatbotsCode assistance
Which Should You Choose?
Choose LLaMA 3.1 8B if you need very fast and prioritize low memory footprint.
Choose Phi-3 Medium if you need excellent efficiency and prioritize mit license.