Mistral Large 2: Europe's answer to GPT-4o and Llama 3.1

Mistral Large 2: Europe’s answer to GPT-4o and Llama 3.1

by

Mistral AI challenges the open-weights competition with Mistral Large 2, delivering a 123 billion parameter model that prioritizes efficiency over sheer mass. It offers nearly the same performance as Llama 3.1 405B with drastically lower hardware requirements, making it the most powerful option currently available for companies that want to host their own AI. Here are the technical details and benchmarks.

  • Enormous performance density: The 123B dense model achieves approximately 95% of the performance of Llama 3.1 405B, but only uses 30% of the computing resources and VRAM.
  • Hardware reality: A single server node (e.g., 1x H100 or 2x A100) is often sufficient for on-premise hosting, while competitors require expensive HPC clusters.
  • Coding paradox: On paper, Mistral beats even GPT-4o (90.2%) with 92.0% in the HumanEval benchmark, but often loses to Claude 3.5 Sonnet in qualitative developer comparisons (“vibe checks”).
  • Stricter alignment: Unlike its predecessors, Mistral Large 2 exhibits aggressive safety alignment with increased “refusal” behavior to ensure enterprise compliance.

David versus Goliath: Performance density and the 123B factor

July 24, 2024 marked an interesting anomaly in the AI development calendar: just one day after the release of Meta’s gigantic Llama 3.1 405B, the French team at Mistral AI released its new flagship product. While Meta focused on sheer mass, Mistral chose a surgical approach.

The key feature of Mistral Large 2 is not its absolute size, but its performance density. With 123 billion parameters (dense), the model is less than a third the size of Meta’s direct competitor, but delivers nearly identical results in key metrics. Technically speaking, this means that Mistral achieves approximately 95% of the performance of Llama 405B, but requires only about 30% of the computing power and VRAM.

Here is a direct comparison of the heavyweights based on the launch data:

Feature Mistral Large 2 Llama 3.1 405B GPT-4o
Architecture 123B (Dense) 405B (dense) ~1.8T (MoE, estimated)
Efficiency Ratio High (1 GPU node possible) Low (cluster required) Proprietary (API)
MMLU (knowledge) 84.0 87.3% 88.7
HumanEval (code) 92.0% 89.0 90.2
Context 128k tokens 128k tokens 128k tokens

The coding anomaly: HumanEval and reality

Particularly striking is the HumanEval score of 92.0%. On paper, Mistral Large 2 beats both Llama 3.1 and GPT-4o in this regard. This value is significant for developers, as it indicates an extremely high density of logic. The model has been aggressively optimized for function calling and code generation, making it less prone to “hallucinations” in complex syntax tasks.

Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy between the benchmark and the “vibe check” in the developer community (including on r/LocalLLaMA):

  • Benchmarks: Mistral dominates in isolated coding tasks.
  • Practice: When it comes to complex refactorings, many developers still prefer Claude 3.5 Sonnet, as Mistral Large 2 occasionally overlooks details in the “big picture” in direct comparison.

Strategic hardware implications

The “123B factor” is primarily an economic decision for companies that want to host on-premise.

  • Llama 3.1 405B is a hardware monster. To run it reasonably in FP16 or even int8, server clusters (e.g., 8x H100) are necessary, which are unaffordable for many SMEs.
  • Mistral Large 2, on the other hand, often fits on a single powerful node (e.g., 1x H100 or 2x A100).

For local hobby use (LocalLLaMA), however, the model sits in an “uncanny valley”: it is too large for typical dual 3090/4090 rigs without applying massive quantization, but small enough to serve as the most efficient “enterprise emergency brake” against vendor lock-in with cloud providers.

The decision to go with 123 billion parameters is no coincidence, but rather a precise engineering maneuver for enterprise IT. While Meta is primarily pushing the boundaries of research with the Llama 3.1 405B monster, Mistral AI is targeting the economic reality of corporate data centers with this model.

The model occupies a strategic niche: it is large enough to deliver GPT-4-level reasoning capabilities (MMLU 84.0%), but small enough to run without exotic supercomputer hardware.

Hardware economics: density over mass

For enterprise architects, the math is simple: Llama 405B requires massive GPU clusters to deliver acceptable latencies. Mistral Large 2 offers around 95% of the intelligence of its large competitor, but requires only about 30% of the resources.

The key difference lies in the VRAM footprint and the required node topology:

Feature Mistral Large 2 (123B) Llama 3.1 (405B)
Architecture Dense (high parameter efficiency) Dense (extreme memory requirements)
Min. hardware (quantized) 2x A100 (80GB) or 1x H100 Cluster of 4x to 8x H100
Self-hosting feasibility High (standard enterprise server) Low(requires HPC infrastructure)
Latency (time to first token) Fast on single-node systems High (due to inter-GPU communication)

A single server equipped with H100 or a classic dual A100 setup is often sufficient to deliver high performance with Mistral Large 2. This makes it currently the only realistic “high-end” option for companies that want to deploy on-premises without investing six-figure sums in hardware clusters.

The “emergency brake” against vendor lock-in

Strategically, Mistral Large 2 acts as an insurance policy against US cloud dependencies. While with GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet, sensitive company data must pass through the APIs of OpenAI or Anthropic (“black box”), the availability of the weights (via Mistral Research License or Commercial License) enables full data sovereignty.

  • Deployment flexibility: The model can be operated in isolation in a VPC (e.g., AWS Bedrock, Azure, Google Vertex) or completely “air-gapped” on your own metal servers.
  • Compliance: For European companies with strict GDPR requirements, this is often the only way to integrate an LLM of this performance class in a legally compliant manner.

The European location advantage

In addition to hardware, the training basis plays a role in deployment in the EU. Mistral Large 2 traditionally shows greater competence in European languages (German, French, Spanish, Italian) than Meta’s heavily US-focused models. It translates nuances more cleanly and hallucinates less frequently in cultural contexts, reducing the need for costly fine-tuning for local markets.

The hardware dilemma: the “uncanny valley” of 123B

While the community celebrates the term “open weight,” the specific size of Mistral Large 2— 123 billion parameters (dense) —poses a logistical problem for local ops enthusiasts. The model finds itself in a hardware-related “uncanny valley”:

  • Too big for hobbyists: Even high-end consumer setups (e.g., 4x NVIDIA RTX 3090/4090 rigs) reach their limits. To run the model locally, massive quantization is often necessary, which reduces precision, or the VRAM requirements exceed the budget of typical home lab servers.
  • Too small for cluster requirements: Unlike Llama 3.1 405B, which requires data center hardware anyway, Mistral Large 2 appears to be capable of local operation; however, in practice, it is hardly usable without expensive enterprise cards (A100/H100).

“Tameness” instead of the Wild West: The alignment shift

Technical forums such as r/LocalLLaMA make it clear that the days when Mistral was considered the “wild,” uncensored European model are over. Mistral Large 2 shows a significantly more aggressive safety alignment.

Users are increasingly reporting refusals to requests that earlier Mistral models would have answered without any problems. Although this “censorship factor” is necessary for enterprise use (compliance), it disappoints developers who had hoped for an uncomplicated, unrestrictive model.

Coding reality: Mistral vs. Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Although Mistral Large 2 achieves an impressive 92.0% in the HumanEval benchmark, the perceived reality in everyday developer life is different. The model is a solid “workhorse,” but loses out in a direct comparison of intelligent problem solving against the current market leader from Anthropic.

Here is a direct comparison based on developer feedback:

Feature Mistral Large 2 (123B) Claude 3.5 Sonnet
One-shot coding Good, often requires refinement (iterations) Excellent, often delivers working code on the first attempt
Complex refactoring Tends to overlook details or constraints Recognizes structural relationships and “hidden bugs” more precisely
Status Strong on-premise alternative Current “daily driver” for many developers

The community’s conclusion: Mistral Large 2 is powerful, but those looking for maximum coding intelligence without regard for data protection/hosting are currently more likely to choose Claude.

Here, we move away from the simple chatbot and use Mistral Large 2 as a deterministic intelligence engine. A common problem with LLMs is the hallucinating of function arguments or incorrect JSON parsing. Mistral Large 2 (mistral-large-2407) has been specifically trained on function calling reliability and often outperforms even the significantly larger Llama 3.1, which tends to “mangle” JSON structures.

Scenario: Robust data extraction (payment bot)

Our goal is to derive a machine-readable action from an unstructured user question (“Where is my money for T55599?”). We use the official Python client mistralai for this.

Prerequisites:

  • API key is set as MISTRAL_API_KEY in the environment variables.
  • Library installed: pip install mistralai
import os
from mistralai import Mistral

# Initialization of the client
api_key = os.environ["MISTRAL_API_KEY"]
client = Mistral(api_key=api_key)

# 1. Definition of the "tools" (schema validation)
# Here we force the model into a strict parameter framework
tools = [
    {
        "type": "function",
        "function": {
            "name": "get_payment_status",
            "description": "Get payment status of a transaction",
            "parameters": {
                "type": "object",
                "properties": {
                    "transaction_id": {
                        "type": "string",
                        "description": "The transaction id (e.g. T12345)",
                    }
                },
                "required": ["transaction_id"],
            },
        },
    }
]

# 2. The API call with 'tool_choice'
# Mistral Large 2 natively recognizes whether a tool is needed
response = client.chat.complete(
    model="mistral-large-latest",
messages=[
{"role": "user", "content": "Where is my payment for order T55599?"}
],
tools=tools,
tool_choice="auto"
)

# 3. Result extraction
tool_call = response.choices[0].message.tool_calls[0].function
print(f"Function: {tool_call.name}")
print(f"Arguments: {tool_call.arguments}")

Why Mistral Large 2 scores well here

The output of this script is not text, but a structured object:
name='get_payment_status' arguments='{"transaction_id": "T55599"}‘

Unlike prompt engineering solutions (“Only respond with JSON”), native integration offers decisive advantages for enterprise workflows:

  • Native recognition: The model independently decides via tool_choice="auto" whether the user is making small talk (text response) or needs a database query (tool call).
  • Argument parsing: Mistral Large 2 accurately extracts the ID T55599 from the context, even if the query is syntactically complex or colloquially phrased.
  • Stop token logic: The model stops exactly after the JSON object, which reduces latency and prevents parsing errors in the downstream pipeline.

Conclusion

Mistral Large 2 is not merely a “Llama challenger,” but a surgical intervention in the economics of AI models. While Meta pushes the boundaries of research with 405B parameters, Mistral delivers what CTOs really want with 123B parameters: return on investment. We are seeing the end of the “bigger is better” doctrine. Mistral proves that “density” is the new currency. It delivers 95% of the performance of a supercomputer model, but fits into a single server slot. This is not a technical gimmick, it is a hard-hitting selling point for any data center that does not belong to Meta or Google.

But beware: Mistral’s former “rebel status” is crumbling. The model has become “corporate-safe” – with all the disadvantages of censorship.

The verdict for you:

  • Implement it if: You are a company that needs data sovereignty (GDPR) and wants to host on-premise without going bankrupt. If you are looking for a robust, logic-rich engine for function calling and structured outputs (JSON), this is your workhorse. The cost-benefit ratio is unbeatable.
  • Stay away if: You’re a hobby enthusiast with a dual GPU setup at home. The model is stuck in hardware no-man’s-land: too powerful for consumer hardware, too expensive for gaming.
  • Wait if: You’re a developer primarily looking for the best coding assistant and data protection is secondary. Here, Claude 3.5 Sonnet remains the king in terms of “vibe check” and grasping complex relationships (big picture).

Action:
For enterprise architects, Mistral Large 2 is the go-to model of 2024 for self-hosting. Those who have shied away from Llama 405B until now have no excuse. Fire up an H100 node and test the function-calling capabilities—it’s currently the only meaningful bridge between ChatGPT quality and open-weight availability.

Related Posts: