llama3.2-3b vs qwen2.5-7b on RTX 3080
Compare llama3.2-3b and qwen2.5-7b running locally on RTX 3080 (10GB VRAM) — tokens/sec, VRAM fit, and quality scores for local inference.
Compare a different combination
| Quant | Q4_K_M |
| VRAM required | 2GB |
| Fits on RTX 3080 | ✓ |
| Quality score | 63 / 100 |
| Eval sources | MMLU · IFEval · GSM8K · ARC-C · HellaSwag |
| Data | Community benchmark |
| Quant | Q4_K_M |
| VRAM required | 4.7GB |
| Fits on RTX 3080 | ✓ |
| Quality score | 56 / 100 |
| Eval sources | MMLU-Pro · IFEval · BBH · LiveCodeBench |
| Data | Community benchmark |
Add a source link or correction so this page can rank with real hardware-specific data instead of estimates.
Contribute GPU comparison dataGPU comparison FAQ
Which is faster on RTX 3080: llama3.2-3b or qwen2.5-7b?
llama3.2-3b is faster on RTX 3080 in this dataset (95 vs 65 tok/s decode).
Do both models fit on RTX 3080?
llama3.2-3b: ✓. qwen2.5-7b: ✓. 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; qwen2.5-7b needs about 4.7GB 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.