📡 LLM Pulse|🆕 New on leaderboard: Baidu: ERNIE-Light-DT-1.0 by Baidu — $1.13/M tokensLearn more →1/10

Measurement sources and verification status (14 fields)

Collected third-party figures are not independent tests. A source link and collection date do not establish reproducibility. Exact model version, dataset and test settings may be missing. No independent verification date is supplied.

speed: 80

latency: 0.42

contextWindow: 128000

benchmarkMmlu: 86

benchmarkHumanEval: 80.5

benchmarkMath: 68

benchmarkGpqa: 46.7

reasoningScore: 57

codingScore: 80.5

benchmarkSweBench: 34

aaIntelligenceIndex: 7

aaOutputSpeed: 42

aaLatency: 6.13

aaEndToEndTime: 18.18

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B

meta🔒 Proprietary

Published Artificial Analysis leaderboard evidence.

LLM Stats Scores

57.0

Reasoning

80.5

Coding

🎯

46.7%GPQA Diamond — graduate-level science accuracy

Published benchmark evidence

Task scores are reported independently by each publisher; they are not combined into a hidden quality score.

View HLE source ↗

4.2%

Humanity's Last Exam

34.0%

SWE-bench

Artificial Analysis measurements

Published operational results. Cost per task, speed, and latency are kept separate from provider API prices.

View source ↗

Intelligence

AA Index

Output speed

tokens / second

TTFT

6.13s

AA measured

Response time

18.18s

end to end

Collected 9/23/2026

Quality Score

70.0

Overall (0–100)

Speed

80 c/s

characters/second

Latency (TTFT)

0.42s

to first token

Input Price

—

per 1M tokens

Output Price

—

per 1M tokens

Context Window

128K

tokens

Release Date

2024-07

30-Day Rank History

📊 Benchmark Scores

Reported scores · % accuracy

What do these benchmarks test?

🎯

GPQA Diamond46.7%Below avg

Designed so that even PhD-level human experts average ~65–70%. A score above 80% signals near-expert scientific reasoning that goes far beyond memorisation.

🧠

MMLU86.0%Solid

The classic academic breadth benchmark. Top frontier models now score above 85%, so it best distinguishes mid-tier from strong generalist models.

💻

HumanEval80.5%Solid

Measures whether a model writes functionally correct code — not just plausible-looking syntax. Strong scores (>85%) indicate reliable day-to-day coding assistance.

∑

MATH Benchmark68.0%Solid

Tests multi-step mathematical reasoning under strict correctness. Even a 60% score requires strong chain-of-thought; top reasoning models now exceed 90%.