7 ms·

3.5 Flash was more expensive than 3.1 Pro to run the Artifical Analysis test suite. $1551 for 3.5 Flash [0] vs $892 for 3.1 Pro [1]. That's 74% more cost while

by eis 4mo ago

3.5 Flash was more expensive than 3.1 Pro to run the Artifical Analysis test suite. $1551 for 3.5 Flash [0] vs $892 for 3.1 Pro [1]. That's 74% more cost while ranking lower. It's 2.5x as fast but I don't think the bang for the buck is there anymore like it was with 3.0 Flash. I'm a bit bummed out to be honest. I did not expect such a huge (3x) price increase from 3.0 Flash and I bet many people will not just blindly upgrade as the value proposition is widely different. One interesting point to note is that Google marked the model as Stable in contrast to nearly everything else being perpetually set as Preview. [0] https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-5-flash [1] https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-1-pro-preview

ls_stats 4mo ago
>3.5 Flash was more expensive than 3.1 Pro to run the Artifical Analysis test suite That's everything I needed to know.
ekojs 4mo ago
Seems like the only good thing about 3.5 Flash is its speed. Not cost-competitive or benchmark-leading by any means.
mijoharas 4mo ago
That's what I came here to check. Last model release they only put it into preview[0] at first. Does that mean this model is production ready? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47076484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47076484
pingou 4mo ago
How do they calculate that? 3.1 has 57M output tokens from Intelligence Index, 3.5 Flash has 73M, so not a lot more, and 3.5 is a bit cheaper, I don't get how 3.5 can be 74% more expensive.
- knollimar 4mo ago
  Only speculation but cache maybe?
hedora 4mo ago
Ouch. That's going in completely the wrong direction. How many people complain that we have too much low quality AI output for humans to read, let alone evaluate vs. how many people are complaining that they want higher quality, more trustworthy output?

by eis 4mo ago

ls_stats 4mo ago

>3.5 Flash was more expensive than 3.1 Pro to run the Artifical Analysis test suite That's everything I needed to know.

ekojs 4mo ago

Seems like the only good thing about 3.5 Flash is its speed. Not cost-competitive or benchmark-leading by any means.

mijoharas 4mo ago

That's what I came here to check. Last model release they only put it into preview[0] at first. Does that mean this model is production ready? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47076484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47076484

pingou 4mo ago

How do they calculate that? 3.1 has 57M output tokens from Intelligence Index, 3.5 Flash has 73M, so not a lot more, and 3.5 is a bit cheaper, I don't get how 3.5 can be 74% more expensive.

knollimar 4mo ago
Only speculation but cache maybe?

hedora 4mo ago

Ouch. That's going in completely the wrong direction. How many people complain that we have too much low quality AI output for humans to read, let alone evaluate vs. how many people are complaining that they want higher quality, more trustworthy output?