gemma3-4b vs llama3.1-70b on RTX 4090

Compare gemma3-4b and llama3.1-70b running locally on RTX 4090 (24GB VRAM) — tokens/sec, VRAM fit, and quality scores for local inference.

Quick answer: This RTX 4090 comparison shows VRAM fit and quality data for gemma3-4b vs llama3.1-70b, but one or both decode-speed benchmarks are still missing.

Compare a different combination

gemma3-4b
190
tok/s (decode)
Quant Q4_K_M
VRAM required 3GB
Fits on RTX 4090
Quality score 44 / 100
Eval sources
Data Community benchmark
llama3.1-70b
tok/s (decode)
Quant Q4_K_M
VRAM required 42GB
Fits on RTX 4090 ✗ No
Quality score 66 / 100
Eval sources
Data estimate
Improve this GPU comparison
Measured gemma3-4b or llama3.1-70b 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: gemma3-4b or llama3.1-70b?

This RTX 4090 comparison shows VRAM fit and quality data for gemma3-4b vs llama3.1-70b, but one or both decode-speed benchmarks are still missing.

Do both models fit on RTX 4090?

gemma3-4b: ✓. llama3.1-70b: ✗ No. The fit labels use Q4_K_M VRAM estimates and the benchmark data available for this GPU.

How much VRAM do these models need?

gemma3-4b needs about 3GB in Q4_K_M; llama3.1-70b needs about 42GB 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