Granite 3.3 8B (Non-reasoning)

Blazing speed meets a massive context window.

Granite 3.3 8B (Non-reasoning)

An exceptionally fast, open-weight model from IBM, offering a huge context window and cost-effective inputs, ideal for high-throughput, non-reasoning tasks.

IBM128k ContextOpen License#1 for Speed8B ParametersText Generation

IBM's Granite 3.3 8B (Non-reasoning) is an open-weight large language model that carves out a specific niche in the AI landscape. With 8 billion parameters, it's a mid-sized model, but its standout features are a colossal 128,000-token context window and class-leading generation speed. As its name explicitly states, this is a "non-reasoning" model, meaning it has been fine-tuned for tasks that do not require deep logical inference, complex problem-solving, or nuanced conversational abilities. Instead, it's engineered for high-throughput scenarios like summarization, data extraction, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

The performance profile of Granite 3.3 8B is one of stark contrasts. In our benchmarks, it achieved the #1 rank for speed, delivering an astonishing median output of over 375 tokens per second. This makes it a powerhouse for batch processing jobs where generating large volumes of text quickly is the primary goal. However, this raw throughput is paired with a very high time-to-first-token (TTFT) of over 11 seconds on the benchmarked provider, Replicate. This significant latency makes it a poor choice for real-time, interactive applications. Furthermore, its intelligence score of 15 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is well below the class average of 20, reinforcing that it is not built for tasks requiring intricate understanding or creativity.

The pricing model further accentuates its specialized nature. Input tokens are very affordable at $0.03 per million, ranking it favorably against peers. This encourages its use in applications that need to process, analyze, or summarize vast amounts of text. In contrast, output tokens are priced at $0.25 per million, which is slightly above the average. This cost structure creates a clear financial incentive: use Granite 3.3 8B for tasks that are input-heavy and output-light. Our own evaluation on the Intelligence Index, which involved generating 7.4 million tokens, cost a total of $3.67, providing a tangible sense of its operational cost at scale.

Ultimately, Granite 3.3 8B is a tool built for a purpose. It's not a generalist chatbot or a creative partner. It is an industrial-strength text processor. Developers who can align their use case with the model's strengths—its speed, massive context window, and input-friendly pricing—will find it to be a uniquely powerful and cost-effective solution. Those who need quick-witted interaction, creative generation, or complex reasoning should look elsewhere.

Scoreboard

Intelligence

15 (36 / 55)

Scores below the class average of 20, indicating it's not suited for complex reasoning or nuanced instruction-following.
Output speed

375.2 tokens/s

Ranks #1 out of 55 models, making it exceptionally fast for high-throughput generation tasks.
Input price

0.03 $/1M tokens

Moderately priced inputs, significantly cheaper than the class average of $0.10.
Output price

0.25 $/1M tokens

Slightly more expensive than the class average of $0.20 for outputs.
Verbosity signal

7.4M tokens

Relatively concise, generating fewer tokens than the average of 13M in our tests.
Provider latency

11.17 seconds

High time-to-first-token on the benchmarked provider, a key consideration for interactive use cases.

Technical specifications

Spec Details
Model Owner IBM
Model Variant 3.3 8B (Non-reasoning)
Parameters ~8 Billion
Context Window 128,000 tokens
License Open License (Apache 2.0-based)
Input Modalities Text
Output Modalities Text
Intelligence Index Score 15 / 100
Speed Rank #1 / 55
Input Price Rank #21 / 55
Primary Use Cases High-throughput summarization, data extraction, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)
Not Suited For Complex reasoning, creative writing, chatbot applications, real-time interaction

What stands out beyond the scoreboard

Where this model wins
  • Blazing Throughput: At over 375 tokens per second, it's the fastest model in its class, perfect for batch processing and generating large volumes of text quickly.
  • Massive Context Handling: A 128k context window allows it to process and reference vast amounts of information, making it a strong candidate for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) on large documents.
  • Cost-Effective for Input-Heavy Tasks: With a very low input token price, it's economical for tasks that involve analyzing or summarizing large texts with relatively short outputs.
  • Predictable and Concise: Its lower verbosity score means it tends to be more direct and less chatty, which is an advantage for structured data extraction or summarization where brevity is key.
  • Open and Enterprise-Backed: As an open-weight model from a major enterprise like IBM, it offers a degree of transparency, flexibility, and implied stability not always found in community-driven models.
Where costs sneak up
  • High Output Costs: The output token price is over 8 times higher than the input price. Workloads that generate lengthy responses will see costs escalate quickly, negating the benefit of cheap inputs.
  • Painful Latency: A time-to-first-token exceeding 11 seconds makes it completely unsuitable for any real-time or interactive application where users expect an immediate response.
  • Not a Thinker: Its low intelligence score means it will struggle with tasks requiring reasoning, nuance, or complex instruction-following. Using it for the wrong job will lead to poor results and wasted spend.
  • The "Non-Reasoning" Caveat: This model is explicitly tuned away from reasoning. Attempting to use it for chatbot-style interactions or multi-step problem-solving will be an exercise in frustration and yield poor quality.
  • Infrastructure Overheads: The high latency suggests a slow cold-start time. For applications needing frequent, intermittent access, this could lead to higher infrastructure costs to keep instances warm or significant delays for users.

Provider pick

Currently, our benchmark data for Granite 3.3 8B is available from Replicate. This makes it the de facto choice for developers looking to get started quickly with a managed API. The selection of a provider for this model is less about a competitive landscape and more about understanding the specific performance profile offered by the available implementation.

Your choice, therefore, is less about which provider to use and more about which use case is appropriate for the performance characteristics observed on Replicate.

Priority Pick Why Tradeoff to accept
Raw Speed Replicate It delivers the #1 ranked output speed in our benchmarks, making it the go-to for maximum throughput in batch jobs. Extremely high latency (TTFT) means it's for non-interactive tasks only.
Large Document Analysis Replicate Combines the model's 128k context window with a low input price, ideal for processing extensive texts. High cost for detailed, lengthy output summaries.
Simplicity & Quick Start Replicate As the primary provider with a public API for this model in our tests, it's the easiest and fastest way to integrate Granite 3.3 8B. Lack of competitive pricing or performance options from other vendors.
Cost Control Replicate (with caution) The low input price is attractive, but requires careful management of output length to avoid high costs. Requires application-level logic (e.g., `max_tokens`) to keep outputs concise.

Note: Performance metrics like latency and throughput are specific to the provider's infrastructure and implementation. As more providers adopt Granite 3.3 8B, these figures may vary. The current analysis is based solely on data from Replicate.

Real workloads cost table

To understand Granite 3.3 8B's practical costs, let's model a few real-world scenarios. These estimates are based on Replicate's pricing of $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.25 per 1M output tokens. Notice how the cost balance shifts dramatically depending on the ratio of input to output, which is the key to using this model effectively.

Scenario Input Output What it represents Estimated cost
Batch Summarization 100 articles, 2,000 tokens each (200k total) 100 summaries, 150 tokens each (15k total) A core RAG or content summarization task, playing to the model's strengths. ~$0.01
Data Extraction from a Report One 50,000-token financial report 500 tokens of structured JSON data Analyzing a large document for specific information, a key use case for the large context window. ~$0.002
Reformatting 1,000 User Comments 1,000 comments, 100 tokens each (100k total) 1,000 formatted comments, 120 tokens each (120k total) A bulk processing task where output is slightly larger than input. ~$0.033
Daily News Briefing Service 500k tokens of news feeds 10k tokens of summarized briefings A recurring, input-heavy automated task perfect for this model's cost structure. ~$0.018 per day
Generating Long-Form Content (Anti-Pattern) A 500-token prompt A 4,000-token article A task that misuses the model's pricing, leading to higher costs due to expensive outputs. ~$0.001 per article

The takeaway is clear: Granite 3.3 8B is exceptionally cheap for tasks that 'read' a lot and 'write' a little. The cost for analyzing hundreds of thousands of tokens is often less than a cent. However, as soon as the task requires generating significant amounts of text, the higher output price becomes the dominant factor in the total cost. Successful implementation depends entirely on fitting the workload to this cost model.

How to control cost (a practical playbook)

Managing costs for Granite 3.3 8B is all about controlling the output. Its unique pricing structure—cheap inputs, expensive outputs—creates specific opportunities for optimization and potential pitfalls. Ignoring this dynamic is the fastest way to an unexpectedly high bill. Here are several strategies to ensure you're using the model efficiently.

Enforce Strict Output Limits

This is the most critical cost control measure. The model's output is over 8x more expensive than its input. Never let it generate text unbounded.

  • Always use the max_tokens parameter (or equivalent) in your API calls to set a hard ceiling on generation length.
  • For summarization, specify the desired length (e.g., "Summarize in 100 words"). For data extraction, request only the specific fields you need.
  • If you don't control the output length, you are not controlling your costs.
Prioritize Input-Heavy Workloads

Design your applications around the model's strengths. The ideal task for Granite 3.3 8B has a high input-to-output token ratio.

  • Good examples: Summarizing long reports, classifying documents, extracting key entities from large texts, answering questions based on a provided 100k-token document.
  • Bad examples: Writing long articles from a short prompt, creating chatbot dialogue, brainstorming creative ideas.
Chain Models for Complex Tasks

Don't force Granite 3.3 8B to do what it's not good at. For tasks that require both large-context processing and nuanced reasoning, use a multi-step, multi-model approach.

  • Step 1: Use Granite 3.3 8B to first read a massive document (e.g., 100k tokens) and extract the most relevant sections or create a dense summary. This leverages its large context and cheap input pricing.
  • Step 2: Feed the much smaller, refined text from Step 1 into a more intelligent (and expensive) model like GPT-4 or Claude 3 Opus for the final reasoning, analysis, or user-facing response.
Account for Latency Costs

While not a direct token cost, the high TTFT has financial implications. An 11-second wait is unacceptable for users in a real-time app, leading to abandonment. For backend tasks, it can tie up resources.

  • Use this model for asynchronous, batch-processing jobs where a delay of a few seconds to start is acceptable.
  • If you need faster response times, you may need to pay for provisioned concurrency or a 'warm' instance, adding a fixed infrastructure cost that should be factored into your total expense.

FAQ

What is Granite 3.3 8B (Non-reasoning)?

It is an 8-billion parameter, open-weight large language model developed by IBM. It is specifically designed for high-throughput, non-reasoning tasks, featuring a very large 128,000-token context window and extremely fast text generation speeds.

What does "Non-reasoning" actually mean?

It means the model has been intentionally fine-tuned to excel at tasks that don't require complex logic, multi-step problem solving, or deep semantic understanding. It's good at pattern matching, summarization, and information retrieval (finding facts in a text). It is not good at math, writing code, or having a nuanced conversation.

Who should use this model?

Developers and businesses that need to process large volumes of text quickly and affordably. Ideal use cases include:

  • Batch-summarizing articles, research papers, or legal documents.
  • Running Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) over extensive knowledge bases.
  • Extracting structured data (like names, dates, or figures) from unstructured text.
  • Classifying or tagging large datasets of text.
Why is the speed so high but the latency also high?

This is a common performance profile for certain model architectures and serving infrastructures. The high latency (Time To First Token) of 11+ seconds likely reflects a 'cold start' problem, where the model takes a long time to load into memory and prepare for inference. However, once it's running, the model is highly optimized to generate subsequent tokens very rapidly (high throughput). This makes it great for long, continuous generation jobs but poor for short, interactive queries.

How does the 128k context window help?

A 128,000-token context window allows the model to 'read' and reference a very large amount of text in a single prompt—equivalent to a 200-page book. This is invaluable for tasks where context is everything, such as asking detailed questions about a long annual report or summarizing an entire book, without having to split the text into smaller chunks.

Is this model a good choice for a customer service chatbot?

No, it is a very poor choice for a chatbot. Its low intelligence score means it will struggle with conversational nuance, and its 11-second latency would create a frustratingly slow user experience. A chatbot requires low latency and strong reasoning/conversational skills, which are the primary weaknesses of this model.


Subscribe