Home › Comparison tool › Phi-4 Mini 3.8B vs. Gemma 3 4B

Phi-4 Mini 3.8BvsGemma 3 4B

Complete comparison between Phi-4 Mini 3.8B (3.8B parameters, Microsoft) and Gemma 3 4B (4B, Google). VRAM required by quantization, tokens/second measured on 4 reference GPUs, verdict by use case, license, installation commands. All figures are calculated from the catalog data—no copy-pasting between pages.

In brief

Feature Phi-4 Mini 3.8B Gemma 3 4B
Settings 3.8B 4B
Family Phi Gemma
Author Microsoft Google
Origin US US
License MIT Gemma
Context 128,000 tokens 128,000 tokens
Output February 2025 March 2025

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 Phi-4 Mini 3.8B Gemma 3 4B
Q4_K_M (lightweight) 3 GB 3.5 GB
Q5_K_M (balanced) 3.5 GB 4 GB
Q8 (near-lossless) 5 GB 5 GB
FP16 (max quality) 8 GB 9 GB
CPU-only RAM 6 GB 6 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 Phi-4 Mini 3.8B Gemma 3 4B
RTX 4090 (24 GB) 150 tok/s · FP16 150 tok/s · FP16
RTX 4080 (16 GB) 65 tok/s · FP16 65 tok/s · FP16
RTX 3060 12GB (12 GB) 22 tok/s · FP16 22 tok/s · FP16
Apple M4 Pro (48 GB) (36 GB) 65 tok/s · FP16 65 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
Close match — it depends on the exact use case. The two are equivalent on this criterion; decide based on your VRAM or licensing constraints.
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

Microsoft · 3.8B

Phi-4 Mini 3.8B

3.8B MIT with function calling. MMLU 67.3, HumanEval 74.4. 200k vocabulary, LongRoPE.

  • Native function calling
  • 128k ctx
  • MIT License
  • Anglais-first

Installation

ollama run phi4-mini:3.8b
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

Frequently asked questions

Which model runs best on RTX 4090 (24 GB): Phi-4 Mini 3.8B or Gemma 3 4B?

On an RTX 4090, Phi-4 Mini 3.8B runs at FP16 (~150 tok/s), Gemma 3 4B in FP16 (~150 tok/s). In pure throughput, Gemma 3 4B wins. See the configurator to test your exact GPU.

Which uses the least VRAM?

In Q4_K_M, Phi-4 Mini 3.8B fits in 3 GB versus 3.5 GB for its rival—a 0.5 GB gap, significant if you're targeting an RTX 3060 or an 8 GB 4060 Ti.

Can these models be used in commercial production?

Phi-4 Mini 3.8B is under the MIT license — free for commercial use. Gemma 3 4B 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: Phi-4 Mini 3.8B (3.8B). 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