blog: Gemini 3.5 Flash deep-dive benchmark and capability review by atharvadeosthale · Pull Request #3014 · appwrite/website

atharvadeosthale · 2026-05-20T10:50:37Z

New blog post evaluating Gemini 3.5 Flash against Google's model card, Artificial Analysis numbers, and Appwrite Arena results. Author: atharva.

appwrite · 2026-05-20T10:50:47Z

Appwrite Website

Project ID: 69d7efb00023389e8d27

Sites (1)

Site	Status	Logs	Preview	QR
website `69d7f2670014e24571ca`	Ready	View Logs	Preview URL

Website (appwrite/website)

Project ID: 684969cb000a2f6c0a02

Sites (1)

Site	Status	Logs	Preview	QR
website `68496a17000f03d62013`	Queued	View Logs	Preview URL

Tip

Preview deployments create instant URLs for every branch and commit

greptile-apps · 2026-05-20T10:55:07Z

Greptile Summary

This PR adds a new blog post evaluating Gemini 3.5 Flash using Google's model card, Artificial Analysis leaderboard data, and Appwrite Arena benchmark results, along with a cover image and a corresponding .optimize-cache.json entry.

The article's internal numbers are self-consistent after what appears to be a prior revision pass: the MCP Atlas margin, Intelligence Index value, and pricing comparison are all cross-verified against the inline benchmark tables.
The cache entry added to .optimize-cache.json is keyed to cover.png, but the committed file is cover.avif; the phantom .png entry will persist in the cache until manually cleaned.

Confidence Score: 5/5

Safe to merge; this is a new blog post with no changes to application logic

All three files are additive: a new markdoc post, a cover image, and a cache entry. The article's benchmark numbers cross-check cleanly against its own inline tables after prior revision. The only residual issue is the stale cache key referencing cover.png instead of cover.avif, which has no runtime impact on readers.

.optimize-cache.json has a phantom cover.png entry that does not match the committed cover.avif

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
src/routes/blog/post/gemini-3-5-flash-deep-dive/+page.markdoc	New blog post evaluating Gemini 3.5 Flash; numerical claims within the article are internally self-consistent after prior revision rounds
.optimize-cache.json	Adds a cache entry keyed to cover.png, which does not exist; the committed image is cover.avif
static/images/blog/gemini-3-5-flash-deep-dive/cover.avif	Binary cover image in AVIF format; no issues

_{Reviews (7): Last reviewed commit: "blog(gemini-3-5-flash): correct vs 3.1 P..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

Gemini 3.5 Flash is the fastest frontier-class peer at 278 tok/s; gpt-oss-120b (high) at 246 is the next closest, not faster.

GPT 5.5 parenthetical reversed (90.0 to 94.8 = +4.8). Claude Opus 4.7 delta is -0.6, not +0.6: Skills reduced its freeform score from 94.8 to 94.2.

- MCP Atlas margin over 3.1 Pro: 5.4 points, not 4.5 (83.6 - 78.2). - GPT-5.5 (xhigh) speed: 65 tok/s, matching the SOTA table and AA summary. - Realtime score qualified as MCQ Realtime (94.1%); overall is 94.0. - Reframed Flash Lite reference: it scores 88.3, below the 90-point top tier.

…al cost Intelligence Index bullet uses 55.3 to match the SOTA table. Eval cost bullet uses $1,552 to match the table and downstream prose.

Frontmatter unlisted: true was copied from a style-reference post without authorization. Removing so the post appears on the blog index.

3.5 Flash is 25% cheaper per token than 3.1 Pro on both input and output ($1.50/$2.00 and $9.00/$12.00 = 0.75), not 40%.

blog(gemini-3-5-flash): add deep-dive benchmark and capability review

27167f9

Merge branch 'main' into gemini-3-5-flash

8063483