Code Davinci 001 vs Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1
Code Davinci 001 (2021) and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (2025) compare a coding-specialized model against a standalone API model. Code Davinci 001 ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 ships a 128k-token context window. This page treats the result as workflow and deployment fit, not a universal model winner.
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Davinci 001 is coding-specialized model, while Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Code Davinci 001 | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 |
|---|---|---|
| Product type | Coding-specialized model | Standalone API model |
| Best for | custom coding agents and code generation | general production evaluation |
| Decision fit | Coding | Long context |
| Context window | — | 128k |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Local decision data tags Code Davinci 001 for Coding.
- Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 for Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Code Davinci 001
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
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 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 and Code Davinci 001; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2021-07-01 | 2025-06-01 |
| Context window | — | 128k |
| Parameters | — | 49B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Proprietary | NVIDIA Open Model |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open weights |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use allowed |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Code Davinci 001 | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Code Davinci 001 | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint is close: both models cover the core production surface. That makes context budget, benchmark fit, and provider maturity more important than a simple checklist. If your application depends on one integration detail, verify it against the provider route you plan to use, not just the base model listing.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Code Davinci 001 has no token price sourced yet and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 has no token price sourced yet. 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 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 when provider fit 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 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 open source?
Code Davinci 001 is listed under Proprietary. Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is listed under NVIDIA Open Model. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Where can I run Code Davinci 001 and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1?
Code Davinci 001 is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is available on NVIDIA NIM. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Code Davinci 001 over Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1?
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Davinci 001 is coding-specialized model, while Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive. If your workload also depends on coding workflow support, start with Code Davinci 001; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.
What is the main difference between Code Davinci 001 and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1?
Code Davinci 001 and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 differ most on context, provider coverage, capabilities, or pricing depending on the data currently sourced. Use the specs table first, then validate the model behavior with your own prompts.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-14. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.