Opus is still best in class for this, but it's worth noting how well Gemini 3.7 does vs a more comparable LLM price wise, which is Grok 4.6: https://html.non.io/neonRamenGrok4.6 . I thought Gemini would blow Grok out of the water (it generally has in the past), but Grok has really caught up.
Other thoughts: I really think Google has fallen behind here. Even as a high speed offering (this build took ~7min, which is pretty good!), it wont be able to claim dominance for long with cerebras announcing the Sol preview today: https://www.cerebras.ai/blog/accelerating-gpt-5-6-sol-ultraf... .
It's not a bad model by any means, but I just don't know what situation I'd reach for 3.7 Flash first for. Google really needs a differentiator, especially given how hard it is to get an API key from them. They can't be high friction and non-pareto.
How are you doing this with Opus. Clearly I’m missing something. I always turn to ChatGPT when I need images because Opus typically refuses. I’ve tried Claude Code and Claude online in the past. I’m pretty sure neither created images for me and I thought this was because Anthropic was focused on code.
I believe they are testing giving it an image, which you can do in Claude code by dragging/dropping into the terminal or copy/pasting, and asking it to build the html equivalent.
I'm curious how much the harness plays into this. I'm somewhat surprised by the gemini and grok results, they seem to have strongly deviated from the original images. I'm thinking maybe the harness has a big effect? It's possible to proxy in different models to claude code, if you're curious you might find it interesting to test!
Ever since the insane discount with GPT-5.6 Luna, not much excites me anymore. I mean just look at the benchmarks, even though Gemini 3.7 Flash performs well on the DeepSWE 1.1, Luna (Max) still performs way better.
They need to release benchmarks against Luna/Terra. Luna is much cheaper which feels like it undercuts the need for Flash.
I've always considered the Flash series of models to be for low-cost, high-volume, mostly text-based use cases (e.g. summarization, parsing, formatting), emphasis on low-cost.
flash-lite is more of their luna tier competitor but even still not quite there yet, but gemini's dominance on multimodal and image understanding i think really gets downplayed on this site when most people think the only think you can do with LLMs is write code
That's been my association as well. I see Flash get brought up a lot in relation to things like OCR and PDF processing frequently, and a lot of other routine multimodal workloads.
Yes, was going to say I use it exclusively for video and audio. The ability to give it a YouTube link through the API and ask questions about it is awesome
The multimodal abilities are great, but if you deal with text only, what is the benefit of using this over DS V4 Flash/Pro? 13-26x cheaper with comparable intelligence, and available across many different inference providers.
I fail to see the usecase where DS V4 Pro is not enough, but Flash 3.7 is - except multimodal.
Luna is similar, and also 8x cheaper. Source: artificialanalysis
The only benefit I can see is the speed, that looks to be outstanding, probably thanks to their TPUs.
for non-coding applications, i think speed is a real differentiator. Im building an app that uses LLMs for some functionality that the user would not have any reason to expect is using AI and therefore having then wait seconds or minutes is just not feasible. latency is a huge upside for me
Anything interacting with the real world seems like latency would be hugely important. Something more asynchronous friendly (like coding) is for obvious reasons over represented here
> 13-26x cheaper with comparable intelligence, and available across many different inference providers.
Well, compared to 2 months ago, it's no longer 100x more expensive for similar levels of quality...
If they continue monthly-ish releases by 3.9 - by Halloween - they should be close to the best in terms of what you get for what you pay for.
In 2 months, they've gone from basically the bottom of the pack to at least being somewhat usable and competitive.
OpenAI and Anthropic release in a month, and change things. OpenAI is claiming to be close to an Astra release - but that seems like a Fable type release - where they're just releasing a better more expensive model, not more cost effective models.
I guess the question then becomes "are you sure you'll do text only?"
I could probably do text only for my workflow (feature development/debugging for web microservices) but sometimes it is easier to just toss a screenshot into the Claude prompt, so that gives it an edge.
If your workflow is 100%, certifiably never ever going to involve an image, then yeah, this isn't going to be huge.
Yeah we use it for auto-triage of incidents, attempts to auto-remediate, and escalation to human. But for actual development, it’s not a viable option for us.
I've blown away by flash 3.6's speed while Opus chugs along for _hours_ on similar tasks. I've gotten into a opus designed -> gemini implemented -> opus reviewed dev cycle recently.
It's funny that they don't mention this at all in the marketing or tech specs when it's obviously the biggest selling point by far. Without this it would be completely irrelevant.
Worth noting that OpenAI just announced that they got the full GPT 5.6 Sol model running on Cerebras at 750 tokens per second. No announcement of the pricing though...
> It's funny that they don't mention this at all in the marketing or tech specs when it's obviously the biggest selling point by far. Without this it would be completely irrelevant.
Good catch! You're right to point that out. My previous marketing copy missed that specific detail. Thank you for bringing it up!
Sol high is almost the same speed if you take into account drastically lower token use. Look at the artificial analysis speed vs token use. Gemini is 7x faster but 5x more tokens. And that's with Sol high being a substantially better model.
Edit: and Sol medium actually has the same AA intelligence score as Gemini 3.7, and has >7x fewer tokens, actually making it faster
is presumes you are doing longer difficult agentic tasks, if youre doing a simple problem in 1 or 2 shots, not really multi turn then theres no comparison.
The "introductory pricing" for this 3.7 Flash model is really weird.
It's scheduled to double in price on December 31, 2026, but who would anticipate still using this model five months from now? Especially since 3.6 Flash came out just three weeks ago!
So it's better than 3.6 Flash, at half the price. I've been pretty excited about Gemini models recently, they just feel so fast after spending most of the day at work waiting for Opus 5.
Yes, 3.6 Flash is very fast. I used to get a fair amount of usage of the Gemini Flash models on the free tier. I signed up for their $4.99/month tier (includes 400GB of Google space which was also enticing) and it turns out I only get about 15 to 20 minutes of usage before I get a come-back-in-7-days message. Comically low usage limits on that plan.
I want to like Gemini models but my problem thus far has been a lack of coding chops. They still make mistakes, importantly, without correcting them for things like hallucinated API calls or code that doesn't run but they never bothered building or running. I know a lot of this can be fixed with workflows but it still feels like a failing.
GPT-5.6 or Claude models haven't delivered to me non-running code in ages.
Whenever I have Gemini in the flow, it's fast, but mistake riddled. I have low confidence in the output.
I've had some success with Opus driving Gemini models. It's pointless for GPT family since Sol is cheap enough or can drive terra/luna for arguably better performance, same speed, and better outcome.
As for all of the talk in this thread about modalities. Every SOTA model takes screenshots and verifies work now. Grok-4.6 does this, Luna does it, etc. They can also all work _from_ a screen shot or mockup provided.
I don't think it's a major selling point when every model can do it well and reasonably fast.
That said, eagerly awaiting "pro" and improvements to antigravity.
> Coding and agentic tasks: Significantly higher quality on real-world software engineering and agentic benchmarks, improving issue resolution and reducing failed agent loops.
> Web development and stronger design parity: Generates higher-fidelity desktop and web application code directly from design mocks, with strong gains in design adherence and in auditing existing codebases against mocks to verify 1:1 design parity.
> Promotional pricing: Gemini 3.7 Flash will be available at an introductory price of $0.75/1M input tokens and $3.75/1M output tokens. We’re also applying this new rate to 3.6 Flash. Introductory pricing expires on December 31, 2026; after, $1.50/1M input tokens and $7.50/1M output tokens will apply.
Still no sign of 3.5 Pro. Will have to test it, low expectations given every other model from the Gemini 3 lineage, but one can hope. Just struggle to understand the promotional pricing being temporary for four months. Given this industry, I'd be hard pressed if 3.7 Flash was still in use by end of year, so why not make it the official pricing?
>Given this industry, I'd be hard pressed if 3.7 Flash was still in use by end of year, so why not make it the official pricing
It was probably to placate some kind of general internal pricing/revenue benchmark that doesn't account for new model releases. Politicians do shit like this incessantly and it reeks of bureaucracy.
I suspect it's a bit of a signal to investors etc.
"Hey, we are not in a race to the bottom. This is our usual pricing, but this now is a promotion because we know we're coming from behind and need to entice users."
They're drawing a line in the sand on monetisation and signalling that to everyone, while in reality offering it a deep discount (no idea if profitable or not) knowing that this model will probably be obsolete before then.
Maybe this is just my experience, but have people had trouble with 3.6 Flash just... getting things it has seen in its context correct? I don't know if it's been insanely benchmaxxed or what, but it'll pull information from websites and immediately get it wrong the token after. Or for example (this is something that happened like yesterday) I asked it to compare the uses of A and B in a language I was learning, and the way I typed it was "Please compare how these two are compared differently: A VS B", and then... it proceeded to compare "VS" and "B". I'm not kidding.
Personally whenever I use Gemini I've just been using 3.1 Pro because I've had insane trouble with them getting things incorrect like this. Hopefully they'll fix it soon / they've fixed it with 3.7 Flash.
It's basically a "if we really have to support this for a long time, we want to be compensated for that" pricing strategy. It's about long term maintenance cost being greater _because_ it will be irrelevant.
Has anyone noticed that antigravity has been working really well for the last few weeks. Now with this model it should be working much better. Hope the Google AI Pro Subscription can be used to do some real agentic coding now.
3.7 Flash gets 56 on AA up from 52 for 3.6 Flash. But it seems like this is at the cost of more output tokens per task: 3.6 Flash is 26k, 3.7 Flash is 37k. Due to 3.7 Flash's 2x slashed pricing it's still cheaper per task.
It's on Google AI Studio, which I use for free when I'm not on computers I control.
It did fine on my usual benchmark about configuring old Sparc hardware, maybe output slightly faster than before. Even included something new to check in the firmware.
Like, I understand everything, but by this time I don't give anything about any of those announcements.
Theoretically there is some difference between Fable and Opus or Grok and GPT, but at the end of the day I'd look at the bottom left of my screen and to my amusement find out that for the past 3-4 hours I've been using model ______.
If the results are semi-decent, I'd keep it on, if not - I'd randomly switch the model and try again.
Actual thing that would affect my selection would be a number of unused tokens I have left for a model ____ for this week.
Maybe it's cause I'm using those for programming and log parsing and all of them are decent enough, but other than that - there are no leaps I see.
> * For 3.6 and 3.7 Flash, introductory price expires on December 31, 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, $1.50/1M input tokens and $7.50/1M output tokens will apply.
this is hilarious. it is not 2025 any more, by Jan 2027 there will be at least 3 newer generation of models (from other provider) released already. nobody would use flash 3.7 at that time.
sure we used to cling to gemini models in the past, demanding 2.5 models to continue to serve, but since google betrayed us with those price hike, people already spent their time making their production pipeline less dependent on google since then.
heck, even now I'm not sure I even care if they cut the pricing even lower. there are too many models with cheaper price and similar performance now.
They should call it 'face saving pricing after we realized just how terribly did we mis-price the flash 3.5'
> since google betrayed us with those price hike, people already spent their time making their production pipeline less dependent on google since then.
This is my first hand experience. I spent at least $3000 on gemini-3-flash-preview. And exactly $0 total on (3.5+3.6+3.7)
Maybe the business model is to break even on bleeding edge models while making money on the long tail of usage once systems are tuned for a specific model and running in production.
Think of it this way: you are at an enterprise business. You have a workflow implemented a year ago that is working just fine. Swapping out the model for a new one changes behavior in unpredictable ways. Eventually, you'll do it once cost is low enough, but it takes serious labor to validate this, so you'll wait a long enough time for Google to make money.
Prompts can certainly be tuned to a particular model, where updating the model actually results in worse performance. This is perhaps less true today than a year or two ago, but we have seen this on newer models as well. Typically, the less specific the instructions are, the less it's a problem. But sometimes you really need to get into specifics to get good results. Area of work is code porting and translation.
this is becoming less true with every generation of model.
a decent model with a decent harness will determine when the knowledge base is lacking and attempt to fill the holes; thus the good general models can be very easily brought up to speed on niche domains.
Some model are more aggressive by default, some are more verbose by default.
To get the result you want for your specific application, you run experiment with prompts and parameters.
it is partly true, but like I said it is not 2025 anymore. models now get released more often, and still have notable progress so they can safely replace the old models while being faster/cheaper. and thank to chinese models the pricing is pretty much stable and affordable now.
and now we have ai agents to automatic migrate the system with new models. in the past we would need to spend hours to design the prompts, then test the output, then write codes to babysitting it. nowadays any ai agent can do it effortlessly.
I think it's meant to make fun of the fact that Google raised prices on their models and people were upset, and this is Google's way of lowering back the price because by Jan 1st 2027, this model isn't going to be used since people will move on to the latest models.
Personally, I feel like Google blundered on their pricing because while I was using the free version of the Gemini harness, they took away most of the free limits and made people move over to their Anti-Gravity harness for no apparent reason. I was about to splurge for a Pro sub since I already used Google for extra storage but putting up limits like they did made me not want to trust they wouldn't do more price shenanigans. Now their models are behind and it seems like they're scrambling.
Nobody except corporations who built workflows on top of it and don't care about the price because the developer already moved on and nobody wants to touch it.
Does Google believe people want fast models because they have some sort of evidence of that preference? Or are they no longer capable of delivering a Pro model?
I have read that "pro"/"opus"/etc models can actually be worse for everyday coding as they reason "too deeply" and turn over too many stones over-thinking the problem and potentially getting distracted.
This feels absurd to me (my gut is "I want the SMARTEST model I can get!!"), but often I find that my experience of using a flash/sonnet model for every-day workhorse coding they are better.
Its not the same thing, but when I think of that I am reminded of working with some engineers in the past who are incredibly smart and have PhDs (or to put it another way, over-qualified) and they were crap engineers because they'd just not be able to focus on the task and ONLY the task at hand and would get easily distracted by the "why" or "more interesting" things when I just asked them to fix a simple bug or whatever. Again, its not the same thing at all, but it certainly comes to mind when I think of this or experience a pro/opus model suggesting we make huge refactors when a tactical fix is all that is required etc.
Of course, the opus-sized models are great when it comes to huge comprehension/research/debugging efforts where the deeper reasoning is actually useful.
I find Fable completely unbeatable for anything code-related. It's the only frontier model that seems to come with sane defaults.
If it implements something simple like a file export, it just knows that the file should have a meaningful name. Vibecoded feature beats most software's lazy "untitled.png".
So, yes, I want the smartest model even for simple stuff. Maybe especially for simple stuff because the tokens burned will be trivial so the cost doesn't give lower models a comparative advantage.
True, if you have a codebase that works in practice but has dozens of loose ends and poorly defined edge cases than it can chase off into rabbit holes because "oh wait, what if x is undefined instead of null? How is y defined? This outdated package has long known severe security holes and should not be used anymore, do we actually need it?".
Probably both. Having a strong frontier model is necessary not just for the model itself but because it provides a halo effect for your entire line. So if Google could deliver a pro model they would. But I also think Google is targeting the wider market and not picking verticals like Anthropic does. A good enough model is good enough for most generalist tasks, and being fast and cheap is more important to less sophisticated users. Also can't forget Google is at every level of the AI vertical. They're not losing sleep because they're not competitive at the one level in which open weight models come out with the quickness. It reflects poorly on them, and from a marketing perspective its not good but in some ways its actually the least valuable place to be.
If you think about Google and their business/reach, fast and light models suite them the best.
Google probably crunches more tokens daily than the other labs combined, just because basically the entire global population uses Google (sans china) and Google has shoved Gemini into everything.
throughout history, Google has been obsessed with speed as a feature. that was a huge reason people used google search, and then chrome in the first place, and it think its really underestimated by people. Jeff Dean specifcally seems to think about this alot.
That would be concerning if true, since they seem to have made a heavy bet on multi-modal as the way forward.
I wonder if this counts as evidence against that hypothesis? That multi-modal is struggling to keep up with SotA and the best they can offer is competent and fast?
Did the company fix the high friction between any service and their models' API?
I hope so. It seems mind boggling to me that an user needs to surf around different sections (plural) of google cloud console, then this Vertex and do a dozen clicks to issue a simple key.
You can use the Gemini API which is independent of the more complex Vertex AI API. Not sure whether you still have to visit the Google Cloud UI for some things (like billing) though.
At the discounted rates, upgrading from 3 Flash to 3.7 Flash is finally reasonable.
In my evals 3.6 Flash (pre price change) was usually a bit more token efficient than 3 Flash, so I‘m expecting same or even lower cost-per-task on 3.7.
I wasn't aware of this. Seems Google is lagging the big 3 (Anthropic, xAI, OpenAI) when it comes to frontier models for programming and hard problem solving.
I guess Google's betting on consumers being price-elastic (preferring to tradeoff intelligence for significant cost savings)
Well, you do get 1 million tokens and the ability to reason over video natively and many of us are forced to pay for 20usd plan anyway due to google drive 5TB, not to mention notebooklm, so it’s not a nothing burguer, it’s just an almost nothing burguer
Offering a 'temporary introductory discount' until Dec 2026 on an LLM is hilarious. In this market, by Jan 2027 this model will be superseded by 5 different providers offering 10x the performance at half the post-discount price anyway.
Grok, Meta, Gemini and others all released updates to their models within around a month or two from their respective last release and made significant jumps in benchmarks all around the same time. Any guesses as to why that is? Is it just the release season and/or everyone is benchmaxxing?
its essentially the same model being trained continuously 24/7 with the company periodically publishing just a new checkpoint
each new checkpoint can benefit from better reasoning training, RL on specific tasks and more synthetic data
So why do they seem to release around the same time ?
my guess is because they time major releases around quarterly earnings, investor meetings and other important business milestones.
Once one company announces a major update, the others also have an incentive to ship their latest checkpoint rather than look like they r falling behind.
Sure, they are just checkpoints, that much I guess is obvious. The question is why did they not do frequent releases like this before and why are they making significant jumps in benchmarks so fast and all these companies suddenly falling into that pattern? Earning reports are not to come until end of October, that's not it.
I'm really curious about this: the foundational paper behind today's LLMs came from Google, and some of the world's best scientists were at Google. So why are they falling so far behind in the AI race?
The "let's make money by selling/renting out TPUs" faction has won and the "let's make money by training and selling a frontier model" faction has lost.
And it's arguably not crazy, at least if SemiAnalysis's estimates are to be believed:
* 20% of all TPU shipments from Q3 2026 through Q4 2027 are sold to SPVs serving Anthropic ($150B of contracted revenue); vs
* ~$12B ARR for Gemini.
> The "let's make money by selling/renting out TPUs" faction has won and the "let's make money by training and selling a frontier model" faction has lost.
After being stuck with using GPT-5.6 models for the past few weeks, I have renewed faith in Google and everyone but OpenAI. The GPT-5.6 models are quite obviously benchmarkmaxxed to make they seem like they are intelligent but they are quite dumb outside anything that not a benchmarked task.
I also think Google is still the best at fitting the most overall intelligences into their models, but for some reason it seems like the model architecture is just bad.
Here's a image->html test. Gemini has always swung above its weight class for vision work, so I'm always eager to try it with this.
Original images: https://image.non.io/neonRamenDesigns.webp
Gemini 3.7 build: https://html.non.io/neonRamenGemini3.7
Opus 5 build for comparison: https://html.non.io/neonRamen
Opus is still best in class for this, but it's worth noting how well Gemini 3.7 does vs a more comparable LLM price wise, which is Grok 4.6: https://html.non.io/neonRamenGrok4.6 . I thought Gemini would blow Grok out of the water (it generally has in the past), but Grok has really caught up.
Other thoughts: I really think Google has fallen behind here. Even as a high speed offering (this build took ~7min, which is pretty good!), it wont be able to claim dominance for long with cerebras announcing the Sol preview today: https://www.cerebras.ai/blog/accelerating-gpt-5-6-sol-ultraf... .
It's not a bad model by any means, but I just don't know what situation I'd reach for 3.7 Flash first for. Google really needs a differentiator, especially given how hard it is to get an API key from them. They can't be high friction and non-pareto.
How are you doing this with Opus. Clearly I’m missing something. I always turn to ChatGPT when I need images because Opus typically refuses. I’ve tried Claude Code and Claude online in the past. I’m pretty sure neither created images for me and I thought this was because Anthropic was focused on code.
I guess I need to try harder. :)
I believe they are testing giving it an image, which you can do in Claude code by dragging/dropping into the terminal or copy/pasting, and asking it to build the html equivalent.
Images and build step were generated with my own tool (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48995754 - it's why I'm often running these img->html tests).
Opus can't generate images since A\ doesn't have a diffusion model.
I'm curious how much the harness plays into this. I'm somewhat surprised by the gemini and grok results, they seem to have strongly deviated from the original images. I'm thinking maybe the harness has a big effect? It's possible to proxy in different models to claude code, if you're curious you might find it interesting to test!
Harness could be a part of it, but worth noting both the Opus and Gemini 3.7 flash tests were both ran through opencode.
The grok test was ran through the cursor cli agent however.
Ever since the insane discount with GPT-5.6 Luna, not much excites me anymore. I mean just look at the benchmarks, even though Gemini 3.7 Flash performs well on the DeepSWE 1.1, Luna (Max) still performs way better.
https://deepswe.datacurve.ai
> Starting January 1, 2027, $1.50/1M input tokens and $7.50/1M output tokens will apply.
Compare this to Luna which is at $0.2/1M input ($0.02 cached) and $1.2/1M output.
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/models/gpt-5.6-luna
I practically switched to doing everything with Luna or DeepSeek V4 flash. I haven't feel the need for the more expensive models.
They need to release benchmarks against Luna/Terra. Luna is much cheaper which feels like it undercuts the need for Flash.
I've always considered the Flash series of models to be for low-cost, high-volume, mostly text-based use cases (e.g. summarization, parsing, formatting), emphasis on low-cost.
[edit: ah, benchmarks here: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...
more of a Terra than Luna competitor which is an interesting positioning. I feel like differentiation at the mid-tier of models is pretty difficult.]
flash-lite is more of their luna tier competitor but even still not quite there yet, but gemini's dominance on multimodal and image understanding i think really gets downplayed on this site when most people think the only think you can do with LLMs is write code
That's been my association as well. I see Flash get brought up a lot in relation to things like OCR and PDF processing frequently, and a lot of other routine multimodal workloads.
gemini flash is probably the best model for visual tasks right now. they also make it really easy to ingest videos
Yes, was going to say I use it exclusively for video and audio. The ability to give it a YouTube link through the API and ask questions about it is awesome
Ah, multimodal is a great point. I'll need to try that some time.
They compared against 5.6-terra on the model card: https://deepmind.google/models/model-cards/gemini-3-7-flash/
Matched roughly with Sol on DeepSwe cost per task.
Luna way cheaper. DeepSeek used to be, but I think it's somewhere on Sol's curve after the price hike.
Why is Gemini represented by points on this cost-quality plane, while competitor's models are represented by curves?
The multimodal abilities are great, but if you deal with text only, what is the benefit of using this over DS V4 Flash/Pro? 13-26x cheaper with comparable intelligence, and available across many different inference providers.
I fail to see the usecase where DS V4 Pro is not enough, but Flash 3.7 is - except multimodal.
Luna is similar, and also 8x cheaper. Source: artificialanalysis
The only benefit I can see is the speed, that looks to be outstanding, probably thanks to their TPUs.
for non-coding applications, i think speed is a real differentiator. Im building an app that uses LLMs for some functionality that the user would not have any reason to expect is using AI and therefore having then wait seconds or minutes is just not feasible. latency is a huge upside for me
Anything interacting with the real world seems like latency would be hugely important. Something more asynchronous friendly (like coding) is for obvious reasons over represented here
> 13-26x cheaper with comparable intelligence, and available across many different inference providers.
Well, compared to 2 months ago, it's no longer 100x more expensive for similar levels of quality...
If they continue monthly-ish releases by 3.9 - by Halloween - they should be close to the best in terms of what you get for what you pay for.
In 2 months, they've gone from basically the bottom of the pack to at least being somewhat usable and competitive.
OpenAI and Anthropic release in a month, and change things. OpenAI is claiming to be close to an Astra release - but that seems like a Fable type release - where they're just releasing a better more expensive model, not more cost effective models.
From my own testing, Gemini 3.5/3.6 Flash is better than DS v4 Flash/Pro on text ability.
I guess the question then becomes "are you sure you'll do text only?"
I could probably do text only for my workflow (feature development/debugging for web microservices) but sometimes it is easier to just toss a screenshot into the Claude prompt, so that gives it an edge.
If your workflow is 100%, certifiably never ever going to involve an image, then yeah, this isn't going to be huge.
> over DS V4 Flash/Pro? 13-26x cheaper with comparable intelligence, and available across many different inference providers.
That's why DS4 already had a huge price hike announcement.
The inference providers did not raise the prices no?
Deepseek as a company can just increase prices for the crazily cheap cache they have, that's their only lever.
I guess the demand is just too high... But even after the price hike, ds is still much cheaper?
Gemini Flash is one of the best "good-enough" models. I use this type of model daily, for automation and quick development iteration loops.
Unfortunately, it's often not strong enough for heavy refactoring and long running development loops.
Yeah we use it for auto-triage of incidents, attempts to auto-remediate, and escalation to human. But for actual development, it’s not a viable option for us.
'Tis a good workhouse, indeed. I hope they give us a 4.0 Pro that can use Flash subagents soon.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-3-7-flash
The selling point for gemini continues to be speed and particularly end-to-end response time.
I've blown away by flash 3.6's speed while Opus chugs along for _hours_ on similar tasks. I've gotten into a opus designed -> gemini implemented -> opus reviewed dev cycle recently.
It's funny that they don't mention this at all in the marketing or tech specs when it's obviously the biggest selling point by far. Without this it would be completely irrelevant.
Worth noting that OpenAI just announced that they got the full GPT 5.6 Sol model running on Cerebras at 750 tokens per second. No announcement of the pricing though...
> It's funny that they don't mention this at all in the marketing or tech specs when it's obviously the biggest selling point by far. Without this it would be completely irrelevant.
Good catch! You're right to point that out. My previous marketing copy missed that specific detail. Thank you for bringing it up!
It's like the Intel Optane of AI
Sol high is almost the same speed if you take into account drastically lower token use. Look at the artificial analysis speed vs token use. Gemini is 7x faster but 5x more tokens. And that's with Sol high being a substantially better model.
Edit: and Sol medium actually has the same AA intelligence score as Gemini 3.7, and has >7x fewer tokens, actually making it faster
is presumes you are doing longer difficult agentic tasks, if youre doing a simple problem in 1 or 2 shots, not really multi turn then theres no comparison.
What's the typical response time for Gemini compared to other models?
On my benchmark where AIs generate ~20 different 3D models about 1/2 the time of Opus and 1/3 of the time of Kimi K3 and 2/3 of time of sonnet.
The "introductory pricing" for this 3.7 Flash model is really weird.
It's scheduled to double in price on December 31, 2026, but who would anticipate still using this model five months from now? Especially since 3.6 Flash came out just three weeks ago!
(An ambitious pelican, let down by a flawed bicycle: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...)
It's not weird if you're in marketing.
Actual announcement: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...
So it's better than 3.6 Flash, at half the price. I've been pretty excited about Gemini models recently, they just feel so fast after spending most of the day at work waiting for Opus 5.
Yes, 3.6 Flash is very fast. I used to get a fair amount of usage of the Gemini Flash models on the free tier. I signed up for their $4.99/month tier (includes 400GB of Google space which was also enticing) and it turns out I only get about 15 to 20 minutes of usage before I get a come-back-in-7-days message. Comically low usage limits on that plan.
> So it's better than 3.6 Flash, at half the price.
I think its the same price..
I want to like Gemini models but my problem thus far has been a lack of coding chops. They still make mistakes, importantly, without correcting them for things like hallucinated API calls or code that doesn't run but they never bothered building or running. I know a lot of this can be fixed with workflows but it still feels like a failing.
GPT-5.6 or Claude models haven't delivered to me non-running code in ages.
Whenever I have Gemini in the flow, it's fast, but mistake riddled. I have low confidence in the output.
I've had some success with Opus driving Gemini models. It's pointless for GPT family since Sol is cheap enough or can drive terra/luna for arguably better performance, same speed, and better outcome.
As for all of the talk in this thread about modalities. Every SOTA model takes screenshots and verifies work now. Grok-4.6 does this, Luna does it, etc. They can also all work _from_ a screen shot or mockup provided.
I don't think it's a major selling point when every model can do it well and reasonably fast.
That said, eagerly awaiting "pro" and improvements to antigravity.
> What's new in Gemini 3.7 Flash [0]
> Coding and agentic tasks: Significantly higher quality on real-world software engineering and agentic benchmarks, improving issue resolution and reducing failed agent loops.
> Web development and stronger design parity: Generates higher-fidelity desktop and web application code directly from design mocks, with strong gains in design adherence and in auditing existing codebases against mocks to verify 1:1 design parity.
> Promotional pricing: Gemini 3.7 Flash will be available at an introductory price of $0.75/1M input tokens and $3.75/1M output tokens. We’re also applying this new rate to 3.6 Flash. Introductory pricing expires on December 31, 2026; after, $1.50/1M input tokens and $7.50/1M output tokens will apply.
Still no sign of 3.5 Pro. Will have to test it, low expectations given every other model from the Gemini 3 lineage, but one can hope. Just struggle to understand the promotional pricing being temporary for four months. Given this industry, I'd be hard pressed if 3.7 Flash was still in use by end of year, so why not make it the official pricing?
[0] https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/latest-model
>Given this industry, I'd be hard pressed if 3.7 Flash was still in use by end of year, so why not make it the official pricing
It was probably to placate some kind of general internal pricing/revenue benchmark that doesn't account for new model releases. Politicians do shit like this incessantly and it reeks of bureaucracy.
I suspect it's a bit of a signal to investors etc.
"Hey, we are not in a race to the bottom. This is our usual pricing, but this now is a promotion because we know we're coming from behind and need to entice users."
They're drawing a line in the sand on monetisation and signalling that to everyone, while in reality offering it a deep discount (no idea if profitable or not) knowing that this model will probably be obsolete before then.
Maybe this is just my experience, but have people had trouble with 3.6 Flash just... getting things it has seen in its context correct? I don't know if it's been insanely benchmaxxed or what, but it'll pull information from websites and immediately get it wrong the token after. Or for example (this is something that happened like yesterday) I asked it to compare the uses of A and B in a language I was learning, and the way I typed it was "Please compare how these two are compared differently: A VS B", and then... it proceeded to compare "VS" and "B". I'm not kidding.
Personally whenever I use Gemini I've just been using 3.1 Pro because I've had insane trouble with them getting things incorrect like this. Hopefully they'll fix it soon / they've fixed it with 3.7 Flash.
> 3.7 Flash is available through the end of the year at an introductory price of $0.75/1M input tokens and $3.75/1M output tokens.
> Introductory pricing expires on December 31, 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, $1.50/1M input tokens and $7.50/1M output tokens will apply.
Clearly this model will be irrelevant by Jan. 2027, why would Google even bother to say this?
It's basically a "if we really have to support this for a long time, we want to be compensated for that" pricing strategy. It's about long term maintenance cost being greater _because_ it will be irrelevant.
Its probably just a corporate symptom, weird stuff like this happens in messy large orgs.
Maybe they know something we don't. What if all frontier lab do this? Maybe this is actual cost of running these llm.
Has anyone noticed that antigravity has been working really well for the last few weeks. Now with this model it should be working much better. Hope the Google AI Pro Subscription can be used to do some real agentic coding now.
3.7 Flash gets 56 on AA up from 52 for 3.6 Flash. But it seems like this is at the cost of more output tokens per task: 3.6 Flash is 26k, 3.7 Flash is 37k. Due to 3.7 Flash's 2x slashed pricing it's still cheaper per task.
It's on Google AI Studio, which I use for free when I'm not on computers I control.
It did fine on my usual benchmark about configuring old Sparc hardware, maybe output slightly faster than before. Even included something new to check in the firmware.
Like, I understand everything, but by this time I don't give anything about any of those announcements.
Theoretically there is some difference between Fable and Opus or Grok and GPT, but at the end of the day I'd look at the bottom left of my screen and to my amusement find out that for the past 3-4 hours I've been using model ______.
If the results are semi-decent, I'd keep it on, if not - I'd randomly switch the model and try again.
Actual thing that would affect my selection would be a number of unused tokens I have left for a model ____ for this week.
Maybe it's cause I'm using those for programming and log parsing and all of them are decent enough, but other than that - there are no leaps I see.
For those looking for the full benchmark figures and technical overview, Google's primary announcement post is here: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...
> * For 3.6 and 3.7 Flash, introductory price expires on December 31, 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, $1.50/1M input tokens and $7.50/1M output tokens will apply.
this is hilarious. it is not 2025 any more, by Jan 2027 there will be at least 3 newer generation of models (from other provider) released already. nobody would use flash 3.7 at that time.
sure we used to cling to gemini models in the past, demanding 2.5 models to continue to serve, but since google betrayed us with those price hike, people already spent their time making their production pipeline less dependent on google since then.
heck, even now I'm not sure I even care if they cut the pricing even lower. there are too many models with cheaper price and similar performance now.
> introductory price
They should call it 'face saving pricing after we realized just how terribly did we mis-price the flash 3.5'
> since google betrayed us with those price hike, people already spent their time making their production pipeline less dependent on google since then.
This is my first hand experience. I spent at least $3000 on gemini-3-flash-preview. And exactly $0 total on (3.5+3.6+3.7)
gemini-3-flash-preview is legit amazing and cheap. That's why i spent over 10k on it.
Maybe the business model is to break even on bleeding edge models while making money on the long tail of usage once systems are tuned for a specific model and running in production.
How can system be tuned for a specific model? Model is fungible, often one model strictly greater on both quality and price.
Think of it this way: you are at an enterprise business. You have a workflow implemented a year ago that is working just fine. Swapping out the model for a new one changes behavior in unpredictable ways. Eventually, you'll do it once cost is low enough, but it takes serious labor to validate this, so you'll wait a long enough time for Google to make money.
Prompts can certainly be tuned to a particular model, where updating the model actually results in worse performance. This is perhaps less true today than a year or two ago, but we have seen this on newer models as well. Typically, the less specific the instructions are, the less it's a problem. But sometimes you really need to get into specifics to get good results. Area of work is code porting and translation.
Models are not fungible, if you're building certain types of products on them.
this is becoming less true with every generation of model.
a decent model with a decent harness will determine when the knowledge base is lacking and attempt to fill the holes; thus the good general models can be very easily brought up to speed on niche domains.
Ugh? It is not just the knowledge
Some model are more aggressive by default, some are more verbose by default. To get the result you want for your specific application, you run experiment with prompts and parameters.
You're thinking like an engineer.
Think like a regulator.
The business model is to replace the entire human economy.
it is partly true, but like I said it is not 2025 anymore. models now get released more often, and still have notable progress so they can safely replace the old models while being faster/cheaper. and thank to chinese models the pricing is pretty much stable and affordable now.
and now we have ai agents to automatic migrate the system with new models. in the past we would need to spend hours to design the prompts, then test the output, then write codes to babysitting it. nowadays any ai agent can do it effortlessly.
This is added specifically so you migrate out of those as fast as next models will be available.
I think it's just to signal that prices will go up in the future.
Isn't it a good thing to know about price hikes in advance? If I were building a product around it, I would certainly care.
I think it's meant to make fun of the fact that Google raised prices on their models and people were upset, and this is Google's way of lowering back the price because by Jan 1st 2027, this model isn't going to be used since people will move on to the latest models.
Personally, I feel like Google blundered on their pricing because while I was using the free version of the Gemini harness, they took away most of the free limits and made people move over to their Anti-Gravity harness for no apparent reason. I was about to splurge for a Pro sub since I already used Google for extra storage but putting up limits like they did made me not want to trust they wouldn't do more price shenanigans. Now their models are behind and it seems like they're scrambling.
Nobody except corporations who built workflows on top of it and don't care about the price because the developer already moved on and nobody wants to touch it.
What? Jan 2027 is just about four months away. People surely still use models from four months ago today.
I think this is a play to get around EU regulation about false sales.
Does Google believe people want fast models because they have some sort of evidence of that preference? Or are they no longer capable of delivering a Pro model?
I have read that "pro"/"opus"/etc models can actually be worse for everyday coding as they reason "too deeply" and turn over too many stones over-thinking the problem and potentially getting distracted.
This feels absurd to me (my gut is "I want the SMARTEST model I can get!!"), but often I find that my experience of using a flash/sonnet model for every-day workhorse coding they are better.
Its not the same thing, but when I think of that I am reminded of working with some engineers in the past who are incredibly smart and have PhDs (or to put it another way, over-qualified) and they were crap engineers because they'd just not be able to focus on the task and ONLY the task at hand and would get easily distracted by the "why" or "more interesting" things when I just asked them to fix a simple bug or whatever. Again, its not the same thing at all, but it certainly comes to mind when I think of this or experience a pro/opus model suggesting we make huge refactors when a tactical fix is all that is required etc.
Of course, the opus-sized models are great when it comes to huge comprehension/research/debugging efforts where the deeper reasoning is actually useful.
I find Fable completely unbeatable for anything code-related. It's the only frontier model that seems to come with sane defaults.
If it implements something simple like a file export, it just knows that the file should have a meaningful name. Vibecoded feature beats most software's lazy "untitled.png".
So, yes, I want the smartest model even for simple stuff. Maybe especially for simple stuff because the tokens burned will be trivial so the cost doesn't give lower models a comparative advantage.
That does not match my own experience, which is why I wonder if Google has evidence of that.
Consistently, lower intelligence models provide worse results in my own work. But I don't have evals on my side, just vibes.
True, if you have a codebase that works in practice but has dozens of loose ends and poorly defined edge cases than it can chase off into rabbit holes because "oh wait, what if x is undefined instead of null? How is y defined? This outdated package has long known severe security holes and should not be used anymore, do we actually need it?".
Probably both. Having a strong frontier model is necessary not just for the model itself but because it provides a halo effect for your entire line. So if Google could deliver a pro model they would. But I also think Google is targeting the wider market and not picking verticals like Anthropic does. A good enough model is good enough for most generalist tasks, and being fast and cheap is more important to less sophisticated users. Also can't forget Google is at every level of the AI vertical. They're not losing sleep because they're not competitive at the one level in which open weight models come out with the quickness. It reflects poorly on them, and from a marketing perspective its not good but in some ways its actually the least valuable place to be.
If you think about Google and their business/reach, fast and light models suite them the best.
Google probably crunches more tokens daily than the other labs combined, just because basically the entire global population uses Google (sans china) and Google has shoved Gemini into everything.
throughout history, Google has been obsessed with speed as a feature. that was a huge reason people used google search, and then chrome in the first place, and it think its really underestimated by people. Jeff Dean specifcally seems to think about this alot.
All the leaks say their latest attempt at a Pro model was not competitive.
That would be concerning if true, since they seem to have made a heavy bet on multi-modal as the way forward.
I wonder if this counts as evidence against that hypothesis? That multi-modal is struggling to keep up with SotA and the best they can offer is competent and fast?
Especially not competitive at software engineering.
Reposting my comment from the other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49288847
They compare it to 5.6 Terra, however https://cognition.com/frontiercode puts Terra at about 1/2 the price
Also have to compare to the recent Grok 4.6 release, which appears to straight up be better AND cheaper
Hard to understand why anyone would choose 3.7 Flash under these conditions.. is Deepmind still a frontier lab?
Gemini Flash 3.6 High was about 10x faster than Luna xhigh for the work that I tested it for, and it got similar results.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49288847 (35 points, 8 comments)
Did the company fix the high friction between any service and their models' API?
I hope so. It seems mind boggling to me that an user needs to surf around different sections (plural) of google cloud console, then this Vertex and do a dozen clicks to issue a simple key.
You can use the Gemini API which is independent of the more complex Vertex AI API. Not sure whether you still have to visit the Google Cloud UI for some things (like billing) though.
what a week - lets see it draw a weird animal doing a weird thing on a bicycle
Shouldn't it be drawing the whole Silmarillion now?
no that's in Flash 3.8 Pro
When are we getting another pro model from Gemini? Or are they simply focusing on the niche of fast but moderately capable models?
At the discounted rates, upgrading from 3 Flash to 3.7 Flash is finally reasonable.
In my evals 3.6 Flash (pre price change) was usually a bit more token efficient than 3 Flash, so I‘m expecting same or even lower cost-per-task on 3.7.
Maybe a play by Google to deprecate 3 Flash soon.
How does it compare to Opus 5.0 and Fable 5 for coding? E.g. in Cursor or OpenCode?
It is not a competitor to those it competes with Sonnet.
Google's Opus competitor is 3.1 Pro Preview which is essentially obsolete (competed with Opus 4.6). They do not have a Fable/Sol competitor.
I wasn't aware of this. Seems Google is lagging the big 3 (Anthropic, xAI, OpenAI) when it comes to frontier models for programming and hard problem solving.
I guess Google's betting on consumers being price-elastic (preferring to tradeoff intelligence for significant cost savings)
Thats a unique definition of Big 3
Well, you do get 1 million tokens and the ability to reason over video natively and many of us are forced to pay for 20usd plan anyway due to google drive 5TB, not to mention notebooklm, so it’s not a nothing burguer, it’s just an almost nothing burguer
Offering a 'temporary introductory discount' until Dec 2026 on an LLM is hilarious. In this market, by Jan 2027 this model will be superseded by 5 different providers offering 10x the performance at half the post-discount price anyway.
Model card: https://deepmind.google/models/model-cards/gemini-3-7-flash/
Somewhere in the same neighborhood as GPT 5.6 Tera and Sonnet 5, depending on the bench.
So, again with a Flash model. Why are they so afraid to put out an actual SOTA frontier high intelligence model?
We still don't have a 3.5 Pro, and along comes 3.7 Flash?!
Is that he model that supposed to be Pro, but then they changed their mind?
No, relabelling a Pro model as Flash would make no economic sense (the Pro series is larger than Flash and more expensive to serve).
In August of 2026, Gemini became self-aware, and began producing increasingly crappy flash versions of itself...
Glad to see that the company with the most data is releasing the most amount of models. Some things do make sense
For almost every section in the model card there is the message: Gemini 3.7 Flash is based on Gemini 3.6 Flash.
Same training dataset, same software, same hardware, same architecture...
I'm wondering what they changed actually for the model to be more powerful if the benchmark results are real and relevant.
Maybe just tweak settings or the reasoning prompts and called it a new version of their model?
I'm only interested in the state-of-the-art model by each provider.
For Google, this is still gemini-3.1-pro-preview, right?
> For Google, this is still gemini-3.1-pro-preview, right?
Flash is better than Pro for now.
This is all a naming quirk because Google can’t commit
Path A: Deprecated, do not dare use
Path B: Beta, do not rely
Google once again seems to have fallen into the pit of its own bureaucracy, even OpenAI looks competent by comparison.
strong improvement over 3.6 flash
but luna is hard to beat @ capability / cost
Grok, Meta, Gemini and others all released updates to their models within around a month or two from their respective last release and made significant jumps in benchmarks all around the same time. Any guesses as to why that is? Is it just the release season and/or everyone is benchmaxxing?
its essentially the same model being trained continuously 24/7 with the company periodically publishing just a new checkpoint
each new checkpoint can benefit from better reasoning training, RL on specific tasks and more synthetic data
So why do they seem to release around the same time ? my guess is because they time major releases around quarterly earnings, investor meetings and other important business milestones. Once one company announces a major update, the others also have an incentive to ship their latest checkpoint rather than look like they r falling behind.
Sure, they are just checkpoints, that much I guess is obvious. The question is why did they not do frequent releases like this before and why are they making significant jumps in benchmarks so fast and all these companies suddenly falling into that pattern? Earning reports are not to come until end of October, that's not it.
I'm really curious about this: the foundational paper behind today's LLMs came from Google, and some of the world's best scientists were at Google. So why are they falling so far behind in the AI race?
The "let's make money by selling/renting out TPUs" faction has won and the "let's make money by training and selling a frontier model" faction has lost.
And it's arguably not crazy, at least if SemiAnalysis's estimates are to be believed:
https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/gemini-is-cooked-but-g...Because they compete for the same scarce resource, the result is a resource crunch for the group that's lost: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-05-18/inside-ai-...
> The "let's make money by selling/renting out TPUs" faction has won and the "let's make money by training and selling a frontier model" faction has lost.
Citation needed.
also, why can't a massive company do two things?
Another failed 3.5 pro run branded as 3.7 flash. It's getting sad.
Small young start-ups have to be frugal.
After being stuck with using GPT-5.6 models for the past few weeks, I have renewed faith in Google and everyone but OpenAI. The GPT-5.6 models are quite obviously benchmarkmaxxed to make they seem like they are intelligent but they are quite dumb outside anything that not a benchmarked task.
I also think Google is still the best at fitting the most overall intelligences into their models, but for some reason it seems like the model architecture is just bad.