Meta Releases Llama 4: 400B Mixture-of-Experts Model Runs on 2x RTX 4090s at Q4
TL;DR
Meta released Llama 4, a 400-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts (MoE) model that achieves GPT-4o-class performance while being sparse enough to run on two RTX 4090s at Q4 quantization. Unlike Llama 3.3's dense 70B/405B architecture, Llama 4 uses 16 experts with 2 active per token, meaning inference cost is closer to a 100B dense model — but with the quality of a 400B model.
Architecture
Llama 4 marks a fundamental architectural shift from Meta:
| Specification | Llama 3.3 405B | Llama 4 400B | |---|---|---| | Architecture | Dense | MoE (16 experts, 2 active) | | Total parameters | 405B | 400B | | Active parameters | 405B | ~100B | | Layers | 126 | 96 | | Hidden dim | 16,384 | 12,288 | | Attention heads | 128 | 96 | | Vocabulary | 128,000 | 160,000 | | Context length | 131,072 | 262,144 | | Training data | 15T tokens | 28T tokens |
Local Inference Requirements
At Q4_K_M quantization:
| Configuration | VRAM needed | Tok/s (estimated) | |---|---|---| | 2x RTX 4090 (48 GB total) | ~110 GB | ~8–12 tok/s | | 2x RTX 3090 (48 GB total) | ~110 GB | ~5–8 tok/s | | Mac Studio 192 GB | ~110 GB | ~6–10 tok/s | | AMD Ryzen AI Max 192 GB | ~110 GB | ~4–7 tok/s | | 4x RTX 4090 (96 GB total) | ~110 GB | ~15–20 tok/s |
The sparse MoE architecture makes this surprisingly practical on multi-GPU consumer hardware.
Performance Benchmarks
Meta reports Llama 4 matches or exceeds GPT-4o on most benchmarks:
| Benchmark | Llama 4 400B | GPT-4o | Llama 3.3 405B | |---|---|---|---| | MMLU | 89.2 | 88.7 | 88.1 | | HumanEval | 84.6 | 83.1 | 81.2 | | GSM-8K | 93.1 | 92.0 | 91.5 | | MATH | 76.8 | 76.6 | 73.4 | | MT-Bench | 8.82 | 8.76 | 8.57 |
What Changed from Llama 3.3
- MoE architecture reduces per-token compute by 75% while keeping model quality
- Grouped Query Attention (GQA) with 8 key-value heads for faster decoding
- Multi-token prediction was NOT included (contrary to earlier rumors)
- 256K context with YaRN scaling — double Llama 3.3
- Vision encoder included natively (80B active with vision)
- Improved tokenizer with 160K vocabulary for multilingual performance
Licensing and Availability
- License: Llama 4 Community License (similar to Llama 3.3 — acceptable for most commercial use)
- Hugging Face: Available now
- Ollama: Supported on release day
- LM Studio: Supported within 48 hours of release
- vLLM: Day-one support via S3MIO kernel
FAQ
Can I run Llama 4 on a single GPU?
No — even at Q4 it needs ~110 GB of memory. You need at minimum dual 4090s/3090s or a unified memory system like the AMD Ryzen AI Max or Mac Studio.
Is Llama 4 actually better than GPT-4o?
On benchmarks, yes — marginally. In real-world use, early reports suggest comparable quality with fewer refusals. The open-weight nature means you can fine-tune and customize it, which is the real advantage.
Will Llama 4 replace Llama 3.3?
For most users, yes — but Llama 3.3 70B and 405B remain excellent models with a proven track record. Llama 3.3 70B is still the best option for single-GPU setups.
Why This Matters for AI GPU Buyers and Local LLM Teams
For local AI builders, hardware news only matters when it changes what you can actually run, how much VRAM headroom you get, and whether the price-to-performance ratio improves enough to justify an upgrade. This page translates the headline into practical consequences for people deploying coding copilots, private RAG stacks, image generation pipelines, or edge inference nodes.
Practical Takeaways
- - Treat vendor claims as a starting point, not a deployment decision on their own.
- - The most valuable updates are the ones that lower cost, improve privacy, or remove operational friction.
- - Always map product news back to your own workload, budget, and tolerance for ecosystem immaturity.
Questions Smart Buyers Should Ask Next
- - Does this change the best GPU for local LLM workloads in its price band?
- - Will the extra VRAM or bandwidth unlock a model size or context window I could not run before?
- - Is this news actionable now, or should buyers wait for pricing, driver maturity, and benchmark validation?