Schuyler Stacy2026-07-23

Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 詳解:您應該使用哪一個?

比較 Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 的價格、速度、基準測試與使用情境,了解哪個全新的 Google 模型最適合您的 AI 工作負載。

Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 詳解:您應該使用哪一個?

TL;DR

  • Google 於 2026 年 7 月 21 日發布 Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite。兩個模型目前皆已正式推出,而非實驗性預覽版本。
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash 是更強大的通用工作模型,適合程式設計、多模態分析、知識工作與複雜的代理式工作流程。
  • Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 則是速度更快、成本更低的執行模型,適合文件擷取、翻譯、分類、搜尋與高流量子代理任務。
  • 兩個模型皆支援 1M token 上下文視窗、最多 64K 輸出 token、多模態輸入、思考功能、函式呼叫、結構化輸出與搜尋接地。
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash 並非在所有基準測試中都比 Gemini 3.5 Flash 聰明得多。它最大的優勢在於輸出 token 更少、工具呼叫更少、任務完成時間更短,以及輸出價格更低。
  • 使用這兩個模型最有趣的方式,可能不是二選一,而是讓 Gemini 3.6 Flash 擔任主要代理,並讓 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 作為執行層。
  • 兩個模型現在都可透過 GPTProto 使用,享有 Google 列出價格 40% 的折扣。您可以使用一個 GPTProto API 金鑰與 OpenAI 相容端點呼叫 Gemini 3.6 Flash APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite API

Google 發布了兩個全新的可用於正式環境的 Flash 模型,但光看名稱並不能立即了解它們的差異。

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 只是較小的 Gemini 3.6 Flash 嗎?「GA」是否代表另一個模型?Gemini 3.6 Flash 真的比 Gemini 3.5 Flash 更好,還是只是更便宜?

簡單來說,Google 建立了兩個分屬 AI 系統不同層級的模型。Gemini 3.6 Flash 用於做出更困難的決策並協調複雜工作流程;Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 則用於快速且經濟地執行大量較小任務。

本指南將完整介紹 Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite,包括發布日期、價格、規格、使用情境、遷移要求,以及 Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash 和 Kimi K3 的比較。

目錄

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite at a Glance

Google released both models on July 21, 2026. Unlike many recent Gemini launches, neither model entered the API as a temporary preview. Google lists both as stable and generally available for production use.

Specification Gemini 3.6 Flash Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Release date July 21, 2026 July 21, 2026
Availability GA / Stable GA / Stable
Model ID gemini-3.6-flash gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Primary role General-purpose workhorse High-throughput execution model
Default thinking level Medium Minimal
Input context limit 1,048,576 tokens 1,048,576 tokens
Maximum output 65,536 tokens 65,536 tokens
Input types Text, image, video, audio, PDF Text, image, video, audio, PDF
Output type Text Text
Google standard input price $1.50 per 1M tokens $0.30 per 1M tokens
Google standard output price $7.50 per 1M tokens $2.50 per 1M tokens
GPT Proto input price $0.90 per 1M tokens $0.18 per 1M tokens
GPT Proto output price $4.50 per 1M tokens $1.50 per 1M tokens
GPT Proto discount 40% off 40% off
Best suited for Coding, complex agents, knowledge work, spatial and multimodal reasoning Extraction, classification, translation, search, data processing, subagents

Both models have a March 2026 knowledge cutoff, according to their official model cards. For more recent information, developers need to use search grounding or provide current data in the prompt.

What Is Gemini 3.6 Flash?

Gemini 3.6 Flash is Google’s latest general-purpose Flash model for coding, knowledge work, multimodal analysis, and multi-step agentic execution.

It is based on Gemini 3.5 Flash rather than being an entirely separate generation of the Gemini architecture. The main goal of the update is to make Flash more efficient during real work: fewer unnecessary output tokens, fewer reasoning steps, fewer tool calls, and fewer repeated execution loops.

That distinction matters. Gemini 3.6 Flash is not simply trying to produce a higher score on every intelligence benchmark. It is trying to complete the same or better work with less computation and less waiting.

According to Google’s launch announcement, Gemini 3.6 Flash uses approximately 17% fewer output tokens than Gemini 3.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Index. Google also reports that it takes fewer turns and tool calls to complete multi-step workflows.

Official evaluations show improvements in several practical areas:

  • DeepSWE increased from 37% to 49%, suggesting fewer incorrect code edits and execution loops.
  • MLE-Bench increased from 49.7% to 63.9% for machine learning research tasks.
  • OSWorld-Verified increased from 78.4% to 83% for computer-use tasks.
  • GDPval-AA v2 increased from 1349 to 1421 for knowledge-work performance.

These are vendor-reported results, so they should not be treated as universal guarantees. However, they support Google’s positioning of Gemini 3.6 Flash as a more reliable model for code migrations, technical diagnostics, document analysis, chart interpretation, and tool-using agents.

The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF files, but it only generates text. It does not directly generate images, videos, or speech.

What Is Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—and What Does GA Mean?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is Google’s fastest and least expensive model in the Gemini 3.5 family. It is optimized for low-latency, high-volume tasks where throughput and API cost matter more than maximum reasoning quality.

The “GA” in Flash-Lite GA means Generally Available. It is an availability status, not part of the model’s name. A GA model is intended for stable production use rather than short-term preview testing.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is based on Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite—not Gemini 3.6 Flash. Therefore, it should not be understood as a compressed version of the new 3.6 model. The two releases come from different upgrade paths:

  • Gemini 3.5 Flash → Gemini 3.6 Flash
  • Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite → Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Google positions Flash-Lite for use cases such as:

  • Document classification and structured extraction
  • Receipt and invoice processing
  • Product attribute extraction
  • Translation and localization
  • Search-result processing
  • High-volume customer-support routing
  • Tabular data processing
  • Repetitive tool calls
  • Parallel subagent execution

Independent testing cited in Google’s announcement measured Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite at approximately 350 output tokens per second. Actual API performance will vary with prompt length, thinking level, server load, tools, and region, but the result illustrates the model’s throughput-focused design.

Flash-Lite is also considerably more capable than its predecessor. Google reports improvements from 31% to 54% on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and from 60.1% to 72.2% on its long-context evaluation.

It can use higher thinking levels for more complicated tasks, but doing so changes its cost and latency profile. If every request requires deep reasoning, Flash-Lite may lose some of the economic advantage that makes it attractive.

What Do “Flash” and “Flash-Lite” Mean in Gemini?

“Flash” is not an official acronym. It is Google’s product label for Gemini models that prioritize speed, efficiency, and scalable inference.

The practical meaning of Flash is:

  • Faster than heavier flagship models
  • Less expensive to run at scale
  • Suitable for interactive applications
  • Still capable of reasoning, coding, and multimodal understanding

Flash-Lite moves further toward the efficiency end of that spectrum. It is designed for workloads with a large number of relatively bounded tasks, such as extracting fields from thousands of documents or translating millions of short content items.

“Lite” does not mean that the model cannot reason or process multimodal inputs. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite still supports thinking, function calling, structured output, search grounding, and a 1M-token context window.

The difference is how Google expects each model to be deployed:

  • Flash: Choose it when the model must understand a complicated goal and decide what to do.
  • Flash-Lite: Choose it when the task is already defined and needs to be completed quickly at scale.

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Gemini 3.5 Flash: What Actually Improved?

Gemini 3.6 Flash is the direct successor to Gemini 3.5 Flash, but “successor” does not mean that every intelligence score has increased.

The most meaningful improvements are efficiency, coding reliability, tool use, and total time per task.

Comparison Gemini 3.6 Flash Gemini 3.5 Flash
Standard input price $1.50/M $1.50/M
Standard output price $7.50/M $9/M
Default thinking level Medium Medium
Context window 1M 1M
Maximum output 64K 64K
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 50 50
Average time per task in launch testing 1.3 minutes 2.7 minutes
Primary advantage Lower token use and faster task completion Established production baseline

In Artificial Analysis testing, both models scored 50 on its Intelligence Index. That makes it difficult to argue that Gemini 3.6 Flash represents a large increase in general intelligence.

However, Gemini 3.6 Flash completed the tested tasks in less than half the average time. Its output price is also approximately 16.7% lower, while the model uses fewer output tokens in many agentic workloads.

For production users, this may be more valuable than a small benchmark increase. A model that reaches a similar answer with fewer tokens, fewer failed tool calls, and fewer correction loops can reduce both the infrastructure cost and the time users spend waiting.

There is little pricing incentive to begin a new deployment on Gemini 3.5 Flash when Gemini 3.6 Flash has the same standard input price and a lower output price. Existing applications, however, should still test migration compatibility instead of changing the model ID without review.

Developers who are not ready to migrate can continue to test Gemini 3.5 Flash on GPT Proto before comparing its real output quality, latency, and token consumption with Gemini 3.6 Flash.

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Pricing

The following prices are Google’s paid Gemini API rates per one million tokens at launch.

Model Standard Input Standard Output Batch Input Batch Output
Gemini 3.6 Flash $1.50 $7.50 $0.75 $3.75
Gemini 3.5 Flash $1.50 $9.00 $0.75 $4.50
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite $0.30 $2.50 $0.15 $1.25
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite* $0.25 $1.50 $0.125 $0.75

*Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite charges a higher input rate for audio. Refer to the current Gemini API pricing page before deploying a production workload.

A Simple Cost Example

Suppose a workload consumes 100 million input tokens and generates 20 million output tokens.

Ignoring caching, grounding, and storage fees, the standard Google API cost would be:

  • Gemini 3.6 Flash: $150 input + $150 output = $300
  • Gemini 3.5 Flash: $150 input + $180 output = $330
  • Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: $30 input + $50 output = $80

This illustrates the large sticker-price difference between Flash and Flash-Lite. However, fixed token calculations do not tell the entire story.

A cheaper model can become expensive if it requires more retries, produces longer reasoning traces, or fails to complete a task. Similarly, a model with a higher token rate may have a lower cost per completed task if it uses fewer turns and tools.

That is why Gemini 3.6 Flash’s token efficiency matters. If it produces approximately 17% fewer output tokens while also charging 16.7% less for each output token, the savings on the output portion of some workloads can be substantially greater than the price-table difference alone suggests.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite presents the opposite lesson. It is the least expensive model in the 3.5 family, but it is not cheaper than 3.1 Flash-Lite for every token type. Its text, image, and video input price increased from $0.25 to $0.30 per million tokens, while output increased from $1.50 to $2.50.

Developers are paying more than they did for 3.1 Flash-Lite, but they are receiving much better reasoning, agentic performance, and throughput.

GPT Proto Pricing: Access Both Models at 40% Off

Both models are also available through GPT Proto at 40% below Google’s listed standard token rates.

Model Google Input GPT Proto Input Google Output GPT Proto Output
Gemini 3.6 Flash $1.50/M $0.90/M $7.50/M $4.50/M
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite $0.30/M $0.18/M $2.50/M $1.50/M

At these rates, the same workload of 100 million input tokens and 20 million output tokens would cost approximately:

  • Gemini 3.6 Flash on GPT Proto: $90 input + $90 output = $180
  • Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite on GPT Proto: $18 input + $30 output = $48

The same workload would cost approximately $300 and $80 respectively at Google’s standard listed rates.

GPT Proto uses pay-as-you-go billing, so developers do not need a separate subscription for each model. The same API key and account balance can also be used across GPT Proto’s collection of 200+ text, image, video, and audio models.

You can check the current rates on the Gemini 3.6 Flash API page and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite API page.

Which Gemini Flash Model Should You Choose?

The best model depends on whether your bottleneck is task complexity or execution volume.

Workload Recommended model Why
Large codebase changes Gemini 3.6 Flash Better planning and fewer unwanted edits
Multi-step coding agent Gemini 3.6 Flash Stronger tool use and execution loops
Chart and document analysis Gemini 3.6 Flash Better multimodal and spatial reasoning
Complex business research Gemini 3.6 Flash Stronger knowledge-work performance
Document classification Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Lower cost and higher throughput
Receipt or invoice extraction Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Designed for structured document processing
Large-scale translation Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Fast, multimodal, and inexpensive
Search-result processing Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Suitable for parallel high-volume execution
Simple subagent tasks Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Low-cost execution with adjustable thinking
Agent orchestration Both Flash plans; Flash-Lite executes

The More Interesting Answer: Use Both

Imagine an e-commerce platform that needs to extract product information from thousands of listings, PDFs, images, and supplier documents.

Gemini 3.6 Flash could:

  1. Inspect several representative documents.
  2. Design the extraction schema.
  3. Decide which sources are reliable.
  4. Identify ambiguous or conflicting product information.
  5. Review exceptions that require deeper reasoning.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite could then run in parallel to:

  1. Read every product document.
  2. Extract brand, material, size, price, and availability.
  3. Translate product descriptions.
  4. Return structured JSON.
  5. Flag unusual records for the main agent.

This architecture avoids paying 3.6 Flash rates for every repetitive extraction while still using the stronger model where its reasoning matters.

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Kimi K3

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Kimi K3 were released within days of each other, but they optimize for different things.

Kimi K3 is Moonshot AI’s 2.8-trillion-parameter flagship model for long-horizon coding, reasoning, and end-to-end knowledge work. Gemini 3.6 Flash emphasizes speed, token efficiency, multimodal workflows, and integration with Google’s tools.

The following figures come from the same Artificial Analysis comparison, making them more useful than comparing unrelated vendor benchmark tables.

Comparison Gemini 3.6 Flash Kimi K3
Intelligence Index 50 57
Observed output speed Approximately 275 tokens/s Approximately 36 tokens/s
Input price $1.50/M $3/M
Output price $7.50/M $15/M
Context window Approximately 1M Approximately 1M
Model type Proprietary Open-weight release announced
Best fit Fast and cost-efficient agents Higher-intelligence, long-horizon work

Kimi K3 has the stronger overall Intelligence Index score. It is a better candidate when maximum reasoning quality and sustained knowledge work matter more than response speed.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is approximately twice as cheap by listed input and output token prices, and its observed generation speed is several times higher. That makes it more attractive for interactive tools, coding loops, document analysis, and applications serving many simultaneous users.

There is also an openness difference, although it requires a date-sensitive qualification. Moonshot described Kimi K3 as an open-source model, but its official launch documentation said the complete weights would be released by July 27, 2026. They were not yet fully available at this article’s July 23 update.

The practical verdict is:

  • Choose Gemini 3.6 Flash for speed, lower API cost, multimodal input, and Google-native tools.
  • Choose Kimi K3 for stronger general intelligence, long-running knowledge work, and future self-hosting possibilities.
  • Test both on the actual workflow before assuming a higher benchmark score will produce a lower cost per successful task.

You can also try Kimi K3 on GPT Proto to compare its behavior with other current models.

Where Can You Access Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

Google provides direct access to the two models through Google AI Studio, the Gemini API, the Gemini app, and its enterprise products. Gemini 3.6 Flash is also available through Google Antigravity.

Developers who want one key for multiple AI providers can now access both models through GPT Proto:

GPT Proto provides an OpenAI-compatible API interface. Instead of maintaining separate Google, Kimi, OpenAI, DeepSeek, and other provider accounts, developers can use one API key, one balance, and the same base URL across 200+ models.

The GPT Proto model strings are:

gemini-3.6-flash
gemini-3.5-flash-lite

This also makes A/B testing easier. An application can route complex requests to Gemini 3.6 Flash and high-volume extraction or classification jobs to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite without rebuilding its API integration.

How to Use Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite API on GPT Proto

GPT Proto supports an OpenAI-compatible Chat Completions endpoint, so developers who already use the OpenAI SDK can access the two Gemini models by changing the API key, base URL, and model name.

Step 1: Create a GPT Proto API Key

Create or sign in to your GPT Proto account, add usage credits, and open the API Keys section in the dashboard.

Generate a new API key and store it securely. Do not paste the key directly into public repositories, frontend code, or shared documents.

For macOS or Linux, save it as an environment variable:

export GPTPROTO_API_KEY="sk-your-gptproto-api-key"

Step 2: Install the OpenAI Python SDK

Install or update the OpenAI SDK:

python -m pip install openai

GPT Proto uses the following OpenAI-compatible base URL:

https://gptproto.com/v1

Step 3: Call the Gemini 3.6 Flash API

Use Gemini 3.6 Flash when the request involves coding, planning, multimodal analysis, knowledge work, or a complex sequence of decisions.

import os
from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    api_key=os.environ["GPTPROTO_API_KEY"],
    base_url="https://gptproto.com/v1",
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gemini-3.6-flash",
    messages=[
        {
            "role": "system",
            "content": (
                "You are a careful software engineering assistant. "
                "Inspect the problem before proposing changes and explain "
                "how each recommendation should be verified."
            ),
        },
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": (
                "Review this API migration plan and identify compatibility, "
                "security, and performance risks."
            ),
        },
    ],
    max_completion_tokens=2048,
)

print(response.choices[0].message.content)

This request is sent to GPT Proto’s unified endpoint while using gemini-3.6-flash as the model ID.

Step 4: Switch to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

To use Flash-Lite, keep the same client, API key, and base URL. Only change the model string:

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gemini-3.5-flash-lite",
    messages=[
        {
            "role": "user",
            "content": (
                "Extract the merchant, invoice date, currency, subtotal, tax, "
                "and total from the following invoice text. Return valid JSON."
            ),
        }
    ],
    max_completion_tokens=1024,
)

print(response.choices[0].message.content)

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the better option for large batches of extraction, translation, classification, routing, and other clearly defined tasks.

Step 5: Route Tasks Between the Two Models

A production application does not have to send every request to the same model. A simple routing rule can use:

  • gemini-3.6-flash for planning, coding, exception handling, and difficult multimodal analysis.
  • gemini-3.5-flash-lite for repetitive execution, structured extraction, translation, and high-volume processing.

Because both models use the same GPT Proto endpoint and account balance, switching between them only requires changing the model ID.

Avoid adding deprecated Gemini sampling parameters such as temperature, top_p, and top_k to new integrations. Google has deprecated these parameters for Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.

Migration Notes: Do Not Treat It as a Model-ID-Only Upgrade

Gemini 3.6 Flash may look like an obvious replacement for Gemini 3.5 Flash, but Google introduced API behavior changes that can affect existing applications.

Starting with Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite:

  • temperature is deprecated.
  • top_p is deprecated.
  • top_k is deprecated.
  • Prefilled model turns are no longer supported.
  • A request whose last non-empty turn is a model message can return an HTTP 400 error in future implementations.

Google currently says the deprecated sampling parameters are ignored, but future model generations may reject them. Developers should remove them rather than relying on the API to continue ignoring the values.

Before migrating production traffic, test:

  • Structured JSON output
  • Function and tool calls
  • Multi-turn message history
  • Prompts that previously depended on temperature
  • Long-document accuracy
  • Thinking-level behavior
  • Token use and cost per completed task
  • Retry and timeout handling

This is particularly important for agentic applications, where a small change in tool selection or reasoning length can significantly affect total cost.

Limitations to Know Before Switching

Both new models are capable, but they still have important limitations.

They Only Generate Text

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite can analyze images, videos, audio, and PDFs, but they do not directly generate media. Image, video, speech, and music generation require separate models.

A 1M Context Window Does Not Guarantee Perfect Recall

The context limit tells you how much content the API can accept, not whether every fact will receive equal attention. Important instructions and evidence should still be clearly structured, especially in very long prompts.

Thinking Tokens Count Toward Output Billing

Increasing the thinking level can improve difficult tasks, but it also increases output consumption and latency. Flash-Lite at a high thinking level may behave very differently from its minimal default.

GA Does Not Eliminate Hallucinations

Both official model cards list hallucination, occasional slowness, and timeouts as known limitations. High-stakes outputs still require grounding, validation, or human review.

Computer Use Documentation Is Currently Inconsistent

Google’s launch guide states that the new models support its built-in tool suite, including Computer Use. However, the individual Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model page currently lists Computer Use as unsupported, while the launch materials describe it as available.

Developers planning browser or interface automation with Flash-Lite should verify the latest API capability documentation before production deployment.

Final Verdict

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite are not redundant releases.

Gemini 3.6 Flash is the better default when a task requires coding, planning, complex reasoning, multimodal interpretation, or multiple tool calls. Its main advantage over Gemini 3.5 Flash is not a dramatic increase in general intelligence, but a better combination of speed, token efficiency, coding reliability, and output pricing.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the better choice when the task is clearly defined and must be repeated thousands or millions of times. It costs more than the previous Flash-Lite generation in several pricing categories, but it delivers a significant improvement in reasoning, tool reliability, and throughput.

For many production systems, the best decision will be to use both: Gemini 3.6 Flash as the planner and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite as the scalable execution layer.

Both models are now available on GPT Proto at 40% off Google’s standard listed rates. Developers can use the Gemini 3.6 Flash API for complex coding and agentic workflows, switch to the Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite API for high-volume execution, or browse the full GPT Proto AI model collection to compare more than 200 models through one API platform.

創意工作室

使用生產級 API 生成圖像、影片及更多內容。

開始創作
創意工作室
相關模型
全部模型
Google
40% OFF
Google
40% OFF
Google
40% OFF
MoonshotAI
10% OFF

常見問題

Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 何時發布?

Google 於 2026 年 7 月 21 日發布兩個模型。兩者在同一天透過 Gemini API、Google AI Studio、Gemini 應用程式與企業產品開放使用。

Gemini 3.6 Flash 已正式開放使用嗎?

是。Gemini 3.6 Flash 已正式開放使用,並列為穩定的正式環境模型。其 API 模型 ID 為 gemini-3.6-flash。

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite GA 是什麼意思?

GA 代表 Generally Available(正式開放使用)。這表示 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 已準備好用於正式環境,而不是暫時性的預覽版本。「GA」是可用性狀態,不是模型名稱的一部分。

Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 的價格是多少?

Gemini 3.6 Flash 在標準付費 API 價格下,每百萬個輸入 token 收費 $1.50,每百萬個輸出 token 收費 $7.50。Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 每百萬個輸入 token 收費 $0.30,每百萬個輸出 token 收費 $2.50。批次處理可提供約 50% 的 token 價格折扣。

Gemini 3.6 Flash 比 Gemini 3.5 Flash 更好嗎?

Gemini 3.6 Flash 通常是較佳的正式環境選擇,因為它的輸出價格較低、使用的輸出 token 較少、完成任務的速度更快,且在多項程式設計與代理基準測試中有所提升。不過,兩個模型在 Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 中都獲得 50 分,因此 3.6 更像是效率與執行能力的升級,而不是全面性的智慧躍升。

Flash 與 Flash-Lite 有什麼差異?

Flash 的設計是在複雜實際任務中平衡智慧、速度與成本。Flash-Lite 則優先考量較低延遲、較低 API 成本,以及適合擷取、翻譯、分類與子代理執行等重複性或範圍明確任務的高吞吐量。

兩個模型都支援 1M token 上下文視窗嗎?

是。Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 都支援最多 1,048,576 個輸入 token,以及最多 65,536 個輸出 token。

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 可以處理圖片與影片嗎?

是。它可接受文字、圖片、影片、音訊與 PDF 檔案作為輸入。不過,其輸出僅限於文字。

Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Flash-Lite 免費嗎?

Google 針對符合資格的使用情境提供有限的免費 Gemini API 方案。需要更高額度、快取、Batch API 存取權或進階控制功能的正式環境應用程式,通常需要付費方案。免費額度與區域可用性可能會變更。

開發人員應該立即從 Gemini 3.5 Flash 遷移嗎?

Gemini 3.6 Flash 在價格與效率方面具有優勢,但開發人員應先測試提示詞與工具工作流程。temperature、top_p 與 top_k 等取樣參數已遭棄用,且不再支援預填模型回合。

我可以在 GPTProto 上使用 Gemini 3.6 Flash 與 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 嗎?

Yes. Both models are available through GPTProto’s OpenAI-compatible API. Use `gemini-3.6-flash` or `gemini-3.5-flash-lite` as the model ID with the base URL `https://gptproto.com/v1`. The same API key and account balance work across other models available on GPTProto.

新的 Gemini 模型在 GPTProto 上的價格是多少?

GPTProto 以 Google 標準列出價格的 40% 折扣提供兩個模型。Gemini 3.6 Flash 每百萬個輸入 token 收費 $0.90,每百萬個輸出 token 收費 $4.50。Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 每百萬個輸入 token 收費 $0.18,每百萬個輸出 token 收費 $1.50。在估算正式環境成本前,請查看各模型頁面的最新即時價格。

相關文章

更多部落格
GLM-5.2 與 Kimi K3 程式設計比較:2026 年哪個更適合開發者?

GLM-5.2 與 Kimi K3 程式設計比較:2026 年哪個更適合開發者?

TL;DR: 當任務困難、執行時間長或涉及視覺內容時,Kimi K3 是更強的程式設計模型。在 Moonshot 公開的程式設計比較中,它全面領先 GLM-5.2,並可透過其託管服務接受圖片與影片。對於日常的儲存庫工作,GLM-5.2 仍是更好的預設選擇:成本低得多、運行規模較小,且採用寬鬆的 MIT 授權。Kimi K3 現在也已釋出權重,但其 1.56 TB 儲存庫、建議使用 64 個以上加速器的部署要求,以及自訂授權,意味著自行託管需要投入更多資源。當能力是瓶頸時選擇 Kimi;當成本與日常運營簡易性更重要時選擇 GLM。 GLM-5.2 與 Kimi K3 程式碼比較中有趣的地方,不在於兩個模型都能撰寫 React 元件或解決簡短演算法。這個層級的模型早已具備這些能力。真正有用的問題是,當任務變得複雜時會發生什麼:儲存庫稽核、多檔案遷移、只會在螢幕截圖中出現的錯誤,或必須讓多個系統保持一致的可遊玩 Three.js 原型。 這也是價格差異開始產生影響的地方。Kimi K3 在最困難的公開測試中表現較佳,但其官方輸出價格超過 GLM-5.2 的三倍。每天執行數千次普通審查的團隊,使用 GLM 可能能以每美元完成更多工作。試圖挽救一個棘手視覺專案的開發者,則可能很樂意為 K3 買單。

Tiffany Layne | 2026-07-28

Kimi K3 與 GPT-5.6 Sol:更便宜的 Token,還是更便宜的任務?

Kimi K3 與 GPT-5.6 Sol:更便宜的 Token,還是更便宜的任務?

TL;DR 更新 — 2026 年 7 月 28 日 :Kimi K3 的完整權重現已公開。Moonshot AI 已在其官方儲存庫中發布 2.8T checkpoint、技術報告與 Kimi K3 License。此次發布強化了 K3 相較於 GPT-5.6 Sol 在控制權與部署方面的優勢,但不會改變獨立基準測試結果,也不代表自行運行 K3 的成本變低。 Kimi K3 的每個 Token 成本較低。GPT-5.6 Sol 是高風險生產代理程式中更強的預設選擇。這兩個說法可以同時成立。 價格卡所呈現的差距比實際情況更大。在 Artificial Analysis 的測試中,GPT-5.6 Sol max 的 Intelligence Index 得分為 59,而 Kimi K3 為 57。然而,實測每項任務的成本分別約為 Sol 的 1.04 美元與 K3 的 0.95 美元,並不是官方輸出價格所暗示的兩倍差距。 簡短答案是:當整體可靠性、程式設計代理效能,以及 OpenAI 的託管工具堆疊最重要時,選擇 GPT-5.6 Sol 。當影片輸入、長上下文工作、較低的牌價,或已發布的開放權重會影響決策時,選擇 Kimi K3 。

Schuyler Stacy | 2026-07-28

Kimi K3 是什麼?真的接近 GPT-5.6 與 Fable 5 嗎?

Kimi K3 是什麼?真的接近 GPT-5.6 與 Fable 5 嗎?

TL;DR Kimi K3 是 Moonshot AI 推出的 2.8 兆參數多模態模型,專為長時間跨度的程式設計、知識工作、推理與代理工作流程打造。獨立測試顯示,它整體表現接近 Claude Opus 4.8 與 GPT-5.5,但 GPT-5.6 Sol 和 Claude Fable 5 仍然領先。K3 在代理基準測試中更加接近頂尖模型,並在部分自動化測試中取得領先,但其測得的幻覺率較 K2.6 上升。 Kimi K3 現已開放權重。Moonshot AI 已發布完整模型檢查點、模型卡、技術報告與自訂 Kimi K3 License。官方 Hugging Face 儲存庫由 96 個 safetensors 分片組成,容量約 1.56 TB;Moonshot 建議使用配備 64 個以上加速器的超級節點部署。開放權重解決了所有權問題,但並不代表 K3 成為一般的本地模型。 對大多數開發者而言,託管 API 仍是最實際的起點。目前, GPTProto 上的 Kimi K3 API 列出的價格為每百萬個輸入 token 2.70 美元,以及每百萬個輸出 token 13.50 美元。當資料控管、自訂推論或模型修改的價值足以抵銷基礎設施成本與授權審查時,再選擇模型權重。 簡而言之,Kimi K3 已足夠接近 GPT-5.6 和 Fable 5,足以加入同一場討論—而如今開放權重的發布,也讓開發者擁有一個這兩個閉源模型都不提供的部署選項。

Michael Johnson | 2026-07-28

2026 年開發者最佳 AI API:10 個平台比較

2026 年開發者最佳 AI API:10 個平台比較

重點摘要 最佳直接 API: OpenAI 是最安全的通用預設選擇;Anthropic Claude 最適合程式碼開發與長時間執行的代理;Gemini 適合低成本多模態原型開發;DeepSeek 則在文字 Token 價格方面領先。 最佳多模型選項: OpenRouter 是測試多種 LLM 的清晰選擇。當單一產品需要透過一個 API 金鑰和共用餘額使用文字、圖片與影片模型時,GPTProto 更為合適。 最佳基礎架構選擇: Amazon Bedrock 適合受 AWS 管理的企業部署;Replicate、fal.ai 與 Together AI 則更適合開放模型或生成式媒體推理。 沒有適用於所有情境的唯一贏家。請比較工作負載適配度、模型涵蓋範圍、實際計費單位、生產環境控制能力與切換成本。價格與可用性已於 2026 年 7 月 14 日確認;部署前請查看供應商的即時頁面。

Tiffany Layne | 2026-07-15