llama3.2-3b vs phi-4-14b on Apple M2 Pro

Compare llama3.2-3b and phi-4-14b running locally on Apple M2 Pro (16GB unified) — tokens/sec, VRAM fit, and quality scores for local inference.

Quick answer: llama3.2-3b is faster on Apple M2 Pro in this dataset (82 vs 20 tok/s decode).

Compare a different combination

llama3.2-3b
82
tok/s (decode)
Quant Q4_K_M
VRAM required 2GB
Fits on Apple M2 Pro
Quality score 63 / 100
Eval sources
Data Community benchmark
phi-4-14b
20
tok/s (decode)
Quant Q4_K_M
VRAM required 9GB
Fits on Apple M2 Pro
Quality score 85 / 100
Eval sources
Data estimate
Improve this GPU comparison
Measured llama3.2-3b or phi-4-14b on Apple M2 Pro?

Add a source link or correction so this page can rank with real hardware-specific data instead of estimates.

Contribute GPU comparison data

GPU comparison FAQ

Which is faster on Apple M2 Pro: llama3.2-3b or phi-4-14b?

llama3.2-3b is faster on Apple M2 Pro in this dataset (82 vs 20 tok/s decode).

Do both models fit on Apple M2 Pro?

llama3.2-3b: ✓. phi-4-14b: ✓. The fit labels use Q4_K_M VRAM estimates and the benchmark data available for this GPU.

How much VRAM do these models need?

llama3.2-3b needs about 2GB in Q4_K_M; phi-4-14b needs about 9GB in Q4_K_M.

Why can speed differ by GPU?

Local LLM speed depends on GPU memory bandwidth, backend, quantization, context length, and whether the model fits entirely in VRAM or unified memory.

How can I correct this comparison?

Use the GitHub correction link on this page with your GPU, model, quantization, context length, and measured decode tokens per second.

Last updated: 2026-06-16 Suggest a correction → GitHub