Home › Comparison tool › Gemma 3 4B vs. Gemma 2 2B

Gemma 3 4BvsGemma 2 2B

Complete comparison between Gemma 3 4B (4B parameters, Google) and Gemma 2 2B (2B, Google). VRAM required by quantization, tokens per second measured on 4 reference GPUs, verdict by use case, license, installation commands. All figures are calculated from catalog data—no copy-pasting between pages.

In brief

Feature Gemma 3 4B Gemma 2 2B
Settings 4B 2B
Family Gemma Gemma
Author Google Google
Origin US US
License Gemma Gemma
Context 128,000 tokens 8,192 tokens
Output March 2025 June 2024

Memory footprint

Approximate VRAM required for inference with an average context window. The winner (in green) is the model that uses less — smaller models have the edge.

Quantization Gemma 3 4B Gemma 2 2B
Q4_K_M (lightweight) 3.5 GB 1.8 GB
Q5_K_M (balanced) 4 GB 2.2 GB
Q8 (near-lossless) 5 GB 3.2 GB
FP16 (max quality) 9 GB 5 GB
CPU-only RAM 6 GB 4 GB

Estimated speed (tokens/second)

Estimates based on the best quantization that can fit on each GPU. Actual figures depend on the prompt, context, and engine (llama.cpp, vLLM, MLX). Methodology.

Reference GPU Gemma 3 4B Gemma 2 2B
RTX 4090 (24 GB) 150 tok/s · FP16 200 tok/s · FP16
RTX 4080 (16 GB) 65 tok/s · FP16 100 tok/s · FP16
RTX 3060 12GB (12 GB) 22 tok/s · FP16 35 tok/s · FP16
Apple M4 Pro (48 GB) (36 GB) 65 tok/s · FP16 100 tok/s · FP16

Verdict by use case

For each common use case, we indicate which of the two is better suited based on its tags, size, and specialization.

General chat
Close match — it depends on the exact use case. The two are equivalent on this criterion; decide based on your VRAM or licensing constraints.
Vision / image
Gemma 3 4B wins. Natively supports image inputs.
RAG / long documents
Gemma 3 4B wins. Larger context window (128,000 tokens), suitable for long documents.
Agents & tool use
Close match — it depends on the exact use case. The two are equivalent on this criterion; decide based on your VRAM or licensing constraints.
Lightweight deployment
Close match — it depends on the exact use case. The two are equivalent on this criterion; decide based on your VRAM or licensing constraints.
The Local AI Kit

Your private, free ChatGPT on your machine in 1 hour — LM Studio, Ollama, Open WebUI, your documents, no cloud.

  • Lifetime online access
  • PDF + files
  • Refunded within 30 days

Strengths and weaknesses

Google · 4B

Gemma 3 4B

Compact multimodal model. 140+ languages, 128k ctx, vision, sliding-window attention.

  • Compact multimodal
  • 140 languages
  • 128k ctx
  • Gemma license (not Apache)

Installation

ollama run gemma3:4b
Google · 2B

Gemma 2 2B

Tiny and efficient. Runs on Raspberry Pi 5.

  • Very lightweight (1.8 GB VRAM Q4)
  • Best 2B of 2024
  • Runs on a modest CPU
  • Open Gemma license
  • 8192 context only
  • Limited on complex tasks

Installation

ollama run gemma2:2b

Frequently asked questions

Which model runs best on RTX 4090 (24 GB): Gemma 3 4B or Gemma 2 2B?

On an RTX 4090, Gemma 3 4B runs in FP16 (~150 tok/s), Gemma 2 2B in FP16 (~200 tok/s). In pure throughput, Gemma 2 2B wins. See the configurator to test your exact GPU.

Which uses the least VRAM?

In Q4_K_M, Gemma 2 2B fits in 1.8 GB versus 3.5 GB for its rival—a 1.7 GB gap, significant if you are targeting an RTX 3060 or an 8 GB 4060 Ti.

Can these models be used in commercial production?

Gemma 3 4B is under Gemma — check the restrictions (especially the monthly user thresholds). Gemma 2 2B is under Gemma — also check the terms. For SaaS, prefer Apache 2.0 or MIT.

Which one should you choose in 2026?

Depends on your primary constraint. Smaller / faster: Gemma 2 2B (2B). More capable: Gemma 3 4B (4B). If you're unsure, run the configurator with your GPU and use case — it will decide based on both.

Alternatives to consider

If neither works for you, here are some neighboring models you could explore.

Go further