3 ms·
This understates the cost increase. 3.5 Flash also uses more tokens. artificialanalysis.ai shows these difference to run the whole eval, which I think is more r
by __jl__ 5mo ago
This understates the cost increase. 3.5 Flash also uses more tokens. artificialanalysis.ai shows these difference to run the whole eval, which I think is more realistic pricing:
Gemini 2.5 flash (27 score): $172 (1.0x)
Gemini 2.5 pro (35 score): $649 (3.8x)
Gemini 3.0 Flash (46 score): $278 (1.6x)
Gemini 3.5 Flash (55 score): $1,552 (9.0x or 2.4x compared to 2.5 pro)
This is a massive price increase... 5.6x compared to Gemini 3.0 Flash
- xdertz 5mo agothe era of subsidised ai is ending
- ashirviskas 5mo agoGemini 2.0 Flash: $19
- ahknight 5mo ago... and you get what you pay for. Or less.
- ahknight 5mo agoSonnet-level performance at Haiku prices. They know what they have and who the audience is they want.
- joshmlewis 5mo agoIt's interesting they use output tokens as an eval because all tokens are not made equal. Even from model to model (like Opus 4.6 to Opus 4.7) the tokenizer can be different and it's no longer an apples to apples comparison. No one really talks about this but it directly affects stats like usage limits. Certainly comparing models between providers on an apples to apples comparison token wise is not a good test.
- bnug 5mo agoAt these pricing levels, corporations who use the models will need to ensure employees are using them efficiently. I know, where I work, we don't really think about the cost to the company when using copilot chat, but sounds like it could start adding up really fast, especially for poorly defined questions that have to be revised multiple times.