Table of Contents
- Model Overview and Specifications
- Performance and Benchmarks
- Context Window and Practical Usage
- Hardware and Deployment Considerations
- Limitations and Biases
- Licensing and Community Reception
- Future Outlook and Recommendations
Model Overview and Specifications
What is the Llama 4 model family and what models are included?
The Llama 4 family is Meta’s latest generation of AI models. The initial release includes two main models:
- Llama 4 Scout: A 109B total parameter model that uses a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 16 experts, activating 17B parameters per token. It features a claimed 10M token context window and fits on a single H100 GPU.
- Llama 4 Maverick: A 400B total parameter model with 128 experts, also activating 17B parameters per token. It has a 1M token context window.
Both models are multimodal, accepting text and image inputs while providing text-only outputs. Their knowledge cutoff is August 2024.
Meta also previewed Llama 4 Behemoth, a much larger model (~2T total parameters, 16 experts with 288B active parameters) still in training, which helped train Scout and Maverick through distillation.
Reasoning: Meta has explicitly mentioned a forthcoming “Llama reasoning model” on a “coming soon” page. This indicates the current release focuses on other aspects (multimodality, general performance, context length) and not on reasoning capabilities.
What is the Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture used in Llama 4?
Llama 4 introduces a significant architectural shift by adopting Mixture-of-Experts (MoE). Instead of activating all parameters for each token:
- The model consists of numerous smaller “expert” sub-networks
- A routing mechanism selects a small subset of experts to process each token
- Only 17B parameters are active per token despite the much larger total parameter count
- This reduces computational cost compared to dense models of similar capability
MoE provides efficiency benefits while maintaining high performance, especially for complex reasoning and multimodal tasks. However, the entire model still needs to be loaded into memory, making MoE models memory-intensive.
How are the Llama 4 models multimodal?
Both Llama 4 Scout and Maverick were designed from the ground up to understand both text and images together as a unified system. Unlike earlier AI models that were first built to understand only text, with vision capabilities added later as a separate component, Llama 4 models integrate vision processing directly into their core architecture. This approach—what Meta calls “early fusion”—means the models can seamlessly process and understand the relationship between text and images from their initial training stages. It’s similar to how humans naturally process information across multiple senses simultaneously rather than handling each sense in isolation. This integrated design allows the models to more effectively handle tasks like interpreting charts, understanding diagrams, and extracting information from images, showing strong performance on image understanding benchmarks like DocVQA and ChartQA. However, they produce text-only outputs and cannot generate images.
Performance and Benchmarks
How do Llama 4 models perform compared to other leading models?
According to Meta’s published benchmarks:
- Llama 4 Scout: Outperforms previous Llama models and competes well against similarly sized models like Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite, Gemma 3 27B, and Mistral 3.1 24B, particularly on multimodal tasks.
- Llama 4 Maverick: Shows strong results against models like Gemini 2.0 Flash, DeepSeek v3.1, and even GPT-4o on several reasoning, knowledge, and multimodal benchmarks. It demonstrates particularly high scores on MMLU Pro and GPQA Diamond.
However, there was confusion around an “experimental chat version” of Maverick that achieved a very high ELO score (1417) on LMArena. Meta clarified this is not the same as the released version, leading to criticism about benchmark transparency.
We tend to monitor the Chatbot Arena leaderboard and based on that ranking Llama 4 seems to be holding its own against the top models. With that said, initial user tests showed mixed performance across different platforms and tasks. Most notably, some external testing (e.g., on the aider coding benchmark) showed Maverick performing poorly (16%), significantly below competitors.
The community consensus is that direct, detailed comparisons between Llama 4 and the very latest models (like Gemini 2.5 Pro or the most recent OpenAI offerings) remain incomplete, and practitioners should perform targeted evaluations specific to their application domains.
Are current benchmarks adequate for evaluating Llama 4’s capabilities?
There’s broad consensus that current benchmarks, especially for vision-language tasks, have significant limitations:
- Many benchmarks test only basic capabilities like OCR or identifying simple image properties
- They often fail to assess deeper visual understanding or complex reasoning about visual data
- There can be a substantial gap between benchmark performance and real-world effectiveness
Practitioners should be cautious about relying solely on published benchmarks and should conduct their own evaluations for specific use cases rather than assuming benchmark superiority translates directly to application performance.
Context Window and Practical Usage
How usable is the claimed 10M token context window for Llama 4 Scout?
While impressive on paper, the 10M token context window faces significant practical challenges:
- Hardware requirements: Meta’s documentation indicates running even 1.4M tokens requires 8x H100 GPUs in bf16 precision
- Provider limitations: Initial API providers capped context to much smaller sizes (e.g., 128K, 328K)
- Evaluation gaps: Comprehensive evaluations of recall and reasoning quality across the entire context window are limited, with tests focusing mainly on simple needle-in-a-haystack retrieval
- Performance degradation: Initial user tests on long prompts sometimes yielded poor or broken results
The extended context is likely achieved through architectural improvements like iRoPE (an advancement over RoPE positional encoding), but fully exploiting this capability requires substantial computing resources that may be cost-prohibitive for most AI application teams.
How should practitioners structure prompts for Llama 4-based applications?
Meta recommends customizing prompts to accommodate user intent, such as:
- Supporting casual conversation, emotional expression, or humor without rigidly enforcing formality
- Avoiding overly moralizing or lecturing users
- Allowing flexibility to adopt particular tones or perspectives based on user requests
- Focusing on addressing the actual intent behind queries rather than being unhelpfully neutral
Applications should be designed to respect user autonomy while still implementing appropriate guardrails for the specific context. This represents a shift toward more natural, user-aligned interactions compared to earlier approaches.
One of our favorite tools – BAML – treat prompts as functions and has become popular among developers who build AI applications. It will be interesting to see early reactions to Llama 4 from BAML users.
Hardware and Deployment Considerations
What are the hardware requirements to run Llama 4 models locally?
These models have substantial hardware requirements that put them beyond consumer GPUs:
Llama 4 Scout (109B):
- A 4-bit quantized version requires ~55-60GB VRAM just for weights, plus KV cache overhead
- Can run on a single H100 (80GB) or multiple high-end GPUs
- High-RAM systems like Mac Studios might handle quantized versions (approximately 64GB+ for 3-bit, 96GB+ for 4-bit, 128GB+ for 8-bit)
- Performance on consumer hardware may be limited (e.g., ~47 tokens/sec reported on an M3 Ultra with 4-bit quantization)
Llama 4 Maverick (400B):
- Requires distributed inference across multiple powerful accelerators
- Local deployment is infeasible for individuals and most organizations
The consensus view is that smaller future models (~24B parameters) represent a “sweet spot” balancing performance and resource requirements for typical development environments.
Are GPUs still optimal for running large MoE models like Llama 4?
Not necessarily. There’s growing evidence that traditional GPUs face significant constraints for serving large MoE models:
- GPUs often lack sufficient memory bandwidth for cost-effective inference of large models
- Emerging AI-focused hardware like AMD’s Strix Halo APUs and Apple’s unified-memory Mac Studios may offer better memory integration
- APUs with unified memory architectures could be more cost-effective for inference workloads
This suggests a potential hardware paradigm shift away from traditional GPU-centric deployments toward more specialized AI hardware for efficient LLM inference.
What is the estimated inference cost for Llama 4 models?
Meta estimates that Maverick can be served for $0.19-$0.49 per million tokens (using a blended input/output ratio of 3:1) with distributed inference and optimizations. This is positioned as more cost-effective than GPT-4o ($4.38/Mtok) but higher than some alternatives like Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.17/Mtok).
Initial API pricing from providers like Groq listed Scout at approximately $0.11/$0.34 per million input/output tokens. Actual costs will vary by provider and specific usage patterns.
Limitations and Biases
What are the key limitations of Llama 4 models?
Despite their advancements, Llama 4 models have several important limitations:
- Fundamental LLM constraints: They operate through token prediction rather than genuine reasoning and cannot perform original research or settle controversies requiring empirical evidence
- Vision limitations: While they can process images, their understanding focuses on basic properties, text extraction, and simple identification tasks rather than deeper visual comprehension
- EU AI Act restriction: Meta restricts the use of vision capabilities in the EU due to regulatory concerns
- Training data biases: Like other LLMs, outputs reflect patterns in training data rather than independent reasoning
What biases might exist within the Llama 4 training datasets?
The Llama 4 models likely inherit biases from their training data, which for earlier Llama versions included heavy reliance on academic literature, mainstream media, and sources like Reddit. This dataset composition risks reinforcing ideological, stylistic, or cultural biases in generated outputs.
Practitioners should remain aware of these potential biases and consider implementing fine-tuning, context-specific mitigation strategies, or carefully curated datasets for sensitive applications.
Licensing and Community Reception
Is Llama 4 truly “open source”?
No. Like previous Llama releases, it uses a custom “open weights” license that allows inspection, download, and modification but includes significant restrictions:
- Commercial use by entities with more than 700 million monthly active users requires explicit permission from Meta, which “Meta may grant in its sole discretion”
- Mandates specific branding requirements, including prominently displaying “Built with Llama” on websites, user interfaces, or documentation, and starting any derivative model names with “Llama”
- Requires adherence to Meta’s Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits certain applications of the technology
- Includes intellectual property provisions where Meta retains ownership of the original materials, while licensees own their modifications
The license also contains standard disclaimers of warranty and limitations of liability, with California governing law for disputes.
This contrasts with truly permissive licenses like MIT used by some competitors such as DeepSeek.
How has the Llama 4 release been received by the community?
The reception has been mixed, with several criticisms:
- The unusual weekend release timing suggested a rushed or “panicked” response to competition
- The shift away from smaller, accessible models that defined earlier Llama success
- The high memory requirements pricing out home users and academics
- The restrictive license compared to some competitors
- Confusion about the LMArena ELO score and discrepancies between experimental and released versions
- Initial performance disappointments reported via some API providers
Some community members feel Meta is losing touch with the open-weight ecosystem it previously cultivated, potentially prioritizing its own platform needs over broad, unrestricted open access.
Future Outlook and Recommendations
What future developments are anticipated for the Llama 4 series?
There is strong expectation that Meta will follow the pattern of previous releases by introducing:
- Smaller models (~3B parameters suitable for phones)
- Mid-size models (~24B parameters) that can run on high-end laptops with 64GB+ RAM
- Dedicated reasoning model (referenced by Meta but not yet released)
- Iterative improvements to the current Scout and Maverick models
These developments would significantly benefit practitioners by improving accessibility, cost-efficiency, and application-specific capabilities.
Is self-hosting of LLMs expected to increase with models like Llama 4?
Yes, self-hosting is widely predicted to surge in popularity within the next year, driven by:
- Advances in AI-specific hardware (e.g., AMD Strix Halo, Apple Mac Studio)
- Growing preference for privacy, data control, and reduced dependency on external API providers
- Continuing improvements in open model availability and performance
While the current Llama 4 models may be too large for most self-hosting scenarios, smaller future variants and the broader trend toward more efficient models position self-hosting as an increasingly viable strategy for many organizations.
What practical recommendations should AI practitioners consider when exploring Llama 4?
The consensus recommendations include:
- Benchmark skepticism: Don’t rely solely on published benchmarks; conduct your own evaluations for specific applications, especially for vision-related tasks
- Hardware planning: For self-hosting, consider upcoming APUs over traditional GPUs given memory bandwidth requirements, or evaluate cloud API options
- License review: Carefully examine the terms before deploying in production
- Context window realism: Be realistic about the usability of the claimed context lengths given hardware constraints
- Await smaller variants: If resource constraints are a concern, consider waiting for potentially smaller Llama 4 variants that might better balance performance and deployment practicality
- Bias awareness: Implement strategies to mitigate potential biases stemming from training data composition
For most application development teams, starting with API access to evaluate capabilities for specific use cases is likely the most practical approach until smaller, more accessible versions become available.
Support our work by subscribing to our newsletter🎁
Related Content
- Gemma 3: What You Need To Know
- DeepSeek: What You Need to Know
- Diving into Nvidia Dynamo: AI Inference at Scale
- AI Deep Research Tools: Landscape, Future, and Comparison
- Faster Iteration, Lower Costs: BAML’s Impact on AI Projects
- Inside China’s AI Ecosystem: ByteDance, Alibaba, and the World Beyond DeepSeek
- AI Foundation Models : What’s Next for 2025 and Beyond