Code Davinci 001 vs Llama 3.2 90B Vision
Code Davinci 001 (2021) and Llama 3.2 90B Vision (2024) are agentic coding models from OpenAI and AI at Meta. Code Davinci 001 ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Llama 3.2 90B Vision ships a 128K-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.
Llama 3.2 90B Vision is safer overall; choose Code Davinci 001 when coding workflow support matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Code Davinci 001 | Llama 3.2 90B Vision |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Coding | RAG, Long context, and Vision |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Cheapest output | - | $1.8/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Local decision data tags Code Davinci 001 for Coding.
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision uniquely exposes Vision and Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Llama 3.2 90B Vision for RAG, Long context, and Vision.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Code Davinci 001
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Llama 3.2 90B Vision
$1,530
Cheapest tracked route: AWS Bedrock
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Code Davinci 001 and Llama 3.2 90B Vision; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision adds Vision and Structured outputs in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama 3.2 90B Vision and Code Davinci 001; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision and Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2021-07-01 | 2024-09-25 |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Parameters | — | 88.8B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Proprietary | Open Source |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2024-03 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Code Davinci 001 | Llama 3.2 90B Vision |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | $1.35/1M tokens |
| Output price | - | $1.8/1M tokens |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Code Davinci 001 | Llama 3.2 90B Vision |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | Yes |
| Code execution | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Llama 3.2 90B Vision and structured outputs: Llama 3.2 90B Vision. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Code Davinci 001 has no token price sourced yet and Llama 3.2 90B Vision has $1.35/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Code Davinci 001 when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Llama 3.2 90B Vision when vision-heavy evaluation and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Is Code Davinci 001 or Llama 3.2 90B Vision open source?
Code Davinci 001 is listed under Proprietary. Llama 3.2 90B Vision is listed under Open Source. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Code Davinci 001 or Llama 3.2 90B Vision?
Llama 3.2 90B Vision has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for structured outputs, Code Davinci 001 or Llama 3.2 90B Vision?
Llama 3.2 90B Vision has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Code Davinci 001 and Llama 3.2 90B Vision?
Code Davinci 001 is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Llama 3.2 90B Vision is available on AWS Bedrock. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Code Davinci 001 over Llama 3.2 90B Vision?
Llama 3.2 90B Vision is safer overall; choose Code Davinci 001 when coding workflow support matters. If your workload also depends on coding workflow support, start with Code Davinci 001; if it depends on vision-heavy evaluation, run the same evaluation with Llama 3.2 90B Vision.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.