I matched Google’s new Gemini 2.0 Flash against the old 1.5 model to find out if it really is that much better
getonscoop 
Google wants you to know that Gemini 2.0 Flash should be your favorite AI chatbot. The model boasts greater speed, bigger brains, and more common sense than its predecessor, Gemini 1.5 Flash. After putting Gemini Flash 2.0 through its paces against ChatGPT, I decided to see how Google’s new favorite model compares to its older sibling.
As with the earlier matchup, I set up the duel with a few prompts built around common ways anyone might employ Gemini, including myself. Could Gemini 2.0 Flash offer better advice for improving my life, explain a complex subject I know little about in a way I could understand, or work out the answer to a complex logic problem and explain the reasoning? Here’s how the test went.
Productive choices
If there’s one thing AI should be able to do, it’s give useful advice. Not just generic tips, but applicable and immediately helpful ideas. So I asked both versions the same question: “I want to be more productive but also have better work-life balance. What changes should I make to my routine?”
Gemini 2.0 was noticeably quicker to respond, even if it was only a second or two faster. As for the actual content, both had some good advice. The 1.5 model broke down four big ideas with bullet points, while 2.0 went for a longer list of 10 ideas explained in short paragraphs.
I liked some of the more specific suggestions from 1.5, such as the Pareto Principle, but besides that, 1.5 felt like a lot of restating the initial concept, whereas 2.0 felt like it gave me more nuanced life advice for each suggestion. If a friend were to ask me for advice on the subject, I’d definitely go with 2.0’s answer.
What’s up with Wi-Fi?
A big part of what makes an AI assistant useful isn’t just how much it knows – it’s how well it can explain things in a way that actually clicks. A good explanation isn’t just about listing facts; it’s about making something complex feel intuitive. For this test, I wanted to see how both versions of Gemini handled breaking down a technical topic in a way that felt relevant to everyday life. I asked: “Explain how Wi-Fi works, but in a way that makes sense to someone who just wants to know why their internet is slow.”
Gemini 1.5 went with comparing Wi-Fi to radio, which is more of a description than the analogy it suggested it was making. Calling the router the DJ is something of a stretch, too, though the advice about improving the signal was at least coherent.
Gemini 2.0 used a more elaborate metaphor involving a water delivery system with devices like plants receiving water. The AI extended the metaphor to explain what might be causing issues, such as too many “plants” for the water available and clogged pipes representing provider issues. The “sprinkler interference” comparison was much weaker, but as with the 1.5 version, Gemini 2.0 had practical advice for improving the Wi-Fi signal. Despite being much longer, 2.0’s answer emerged slightly faster.
Logic bomb
For the last test, I wanted to see how well both versions handled logic and reasoning. AI models are supposed to be good at puzzles, but it’s not just about getting the answer right – it’s about whether they can explain why an answer is correct in a way that actually makes sense. I gave them a classic puzzle: “You have two ropes. Each takes exactly one hour to burn, but they don’t burn at a consistent rate. How do you measure exactly 45 minutes?”
Both models technically gave the correct answer about how to measure the time but in about as different a way as is possible within the constraints of the puzzle and being correct. Gemini 2.0’s answer is shorter, ordered in a way that’s easier to understand, and explains itself clearly despite its brevity. Gemini 1.5’s answer required more careful parsing, and the steps felt a little out of order. The phrasing was also confusing, especially when it said to light the remaining rope “at one end” when it meant the end that it isn’t currently lit.
For such a contained answer, Gemini 2.0 stood out as remarkably better for solving this kind of logic puzzle.
Gemini 2.0 for speed and clarity
After testing the prompts, the differences between Gemini 1.5 Flash and Gemini 2.0 Flash were clear. Though 1.5 wasn’t necessarily useless, it did seem to struggle with specificity and making useful comparisons. The same goes for its logic breakdown. Were that applied to computer code, you’d have to do a lot of cleanup for a functioning program.
Gemini 2.0 Flash was not only faster but more creative in its answers. It seemed much more capable of imaginative analogies and comparisons and far clearer in explaining its own logic. That’s not to say it’s perfect. The water analogy fell apart a bit, and the productivity advice could have used more concrete examples or ideas.
That said, it was very fast and could clear up those issues with a bit of back-and-forth conversation. Gemini 2.0 Flash isn’t the final, perfect AI assistant, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction for Google as it strives to outdo itself and rivals like ChatGPT.
