gemma3-12b vs llama3.1-8b on RTX 4090

Compare gemma3-12b and llama3.1-8b running locally on RTX 4090 (24GB VRAM) — tokens/sec, VRAM fit, and quality scores for local inference.

Quick answer: llama3.1-8b is faster on RTX 4090 in this dataset (148 vs 95 tok/s decode).

Compare a different combination

gemma3-12b
95
tok/s (decode)
Quant Q4_K_M
VRAM required 7.5GB
Fits on RTX 4090
Quality score 61 / 100
Eval sources
Data Community benchmark
llama3.1-8b Faster
148
tok/s (decode)
Quant Q4_K_M
VRAM required 5GB
Fits on RTX 4090
Quality score 48 / 100
Eval sources
Data Community benchmark
Improve this GPU comparison
Measured gemma3-12b or llama3.1-8b on RTX 4090?

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 RTX 4090: gemma3-12b or llama3.1-8b?

llama3.1-8b is faster on RTX 4090 in this dataset (148 vs 95 tok/s decode).

Do both models fit on RTX 4090?

gemma3-12b: ✓. llama3.1-8b: ✓. The fit labels use Q4_K_M VRAM estimates and the benchmark data available for this GPU.

How much VRAM do these models need?

gemma3-12b needs about 7.5GB in Q4_K_M; llama3.1-8b needs about 5GB 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