Home › Comparison tool › Llama 3.1 8B vs Gemma 2 9B

Llama 3.1 8BvsGemma 2 9B

Complete comparison between Llama 3.1 8B (8B parameters, Meta) and Gemma 2 9B (9B, Google). VRAM required for each quantization, tokens per second measured on 4 reference GPUs, verdict by use case, license, and installation commands. All figures are calculated from the catalog data—no copy-pasting between pages.

In brief

Feature Llama 3.1 8B Gemma 2 9B
Settings 8B 9B
Family Llama Gemma
Author Meta Google
Origin US US
License Llama 3 Community Gemma
Context 131,072 tokens 8,192 tokens
Output July 2024 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 Llama 3.1 8B Gemma 2 9B
Q4_K_M (lightweight) 6 GB 6 GB
Q5_K_M (balanced) 7 GB 7.5 GB
Q8 (near-lossless) 10 GB 11 GB
FP16 (max quality) 18 GB 20 GB
CPU-only RAM 10 GB 12 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 Llama 3.1 8B Gemma 2 9B
RTX 4090 (24 GB) 80 tok/s · FP16 75 tok/s · FP16
RTX 4080 (16 GB) 30 tok/s · Q8 28 tok/s · Q8
RTX 3060 12GB (12 GB) 10 tok/s · Q8 9 tok/s · Q8
Apple M4 Pro (48 GB) (36 GB) 30 tok/s · FP16 28 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.
RAG / long documents
Llama 3.1 8B wins. Larger context window (131,072 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
  • 30-day money-back guarantee

Strengths and weaknesses

Meta · 8B

Llama 3.1 8B

The open-weight benchmark. 128k context, strong across the board.

  • 128k context
  • Excellent quality-to-size ratio
  • Very good at coding and following instructions
  • Meta license <700M MAU
  • Outperformed by Qwen 3 8B on most benchmarks
  • No vision

Installation

ollama run llama3.1:8b
Google · 9B

Gemma 2 9B

Llama 3 quality with a slightly larger footprint.

  • Outperforms Llama 3 8B on several benchmarks
  • License Gemma
  • Good quality-to-size ratio
  • 8192 context only
  • No vision

Installation

ollama run gemma2:9b

Frequently asked questions

Which model runs best on RTX 4090 (24 GB): Llama 3.1 8B or Gemma 2 9B?

On an RTX 4090, Llama 3.1 8B runs at FP16 (~80 tok/s), Gemma 2 9B in FP16 (~75 tok/s). In pure throughput, Llama 3.1 8B wins. See the configurator to test your exact GPU.

Which uses the least VRAM?

Both require the same VRAM in Q4 (6 GB). The choice then comes down to the license or perceived quality.

Can these models be used in commercial production?

Llama 3.1 8B is under Llama 3 Community—check the restrictions, especially the monthly user thresholds. Gemma 2 9B 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: Llama 3.1 8B (8B). More capable: Gemma 2 9B (9B). If you're unsure, run it 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