Google wants you to know that Gemini 2.0 -flash should be your favorite AI -Chatbot. The model boasts greater speed, larger brains and more common sense than its predecessor, Gemini 1.5 flash. After putting Gemini Flash 2.0 through his pace against Chatgpt, I decided to see how Google’s new favorite model is compared to its older siblings.
As with the previous matchup, I created the duel with a few prompts built around ordinary ways that someone might use Gemini, including myself. Could Gemini 2.0 Flash offer better advice to improve my life, explain a complex topic I know a little about in a way I could understand, or prepare the answer to a complex logical problem and explain the rationale? This is how the test went.
Productive choices
If there is one thing that ai should be able to be useful advice. Not just generic tips, but usable and instant useful ideas. So I asked both versions the same question: “I want to be more productive, but also have a better balance between working life and life. What changes should I make to my routine?”
Gemini 2.0 was noticeably faster to answer, 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 major ideas with ball points, while 2.0 went on a longer list of 10 ideas explained in short sections.
I liked some of the more specific suggestions from 1.5, such as the Pareto principle, but in addition, 1.5 felt like a lot to restore the original concept, while 2.0 felt it gave me more nuanced life council for each suggestion. If a friend were to ask me for advice on the subject I would definitely go with 2.0’s answer.
What happens to Wi-Fi?
A big part of what makes an AI assistant useful is not just how much it knows – it’s how good it can explain things in a way that actually clicks. A good explanation is not just about listing facts; It’s about getting something complex to feeling intuitive. For this test, I wanted to see how both versions of Gemini handled the breakdown of 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 to compare Wi-Fi with radio, which is more of a description than the analogy it suggested it was doing. Calling the router DJ is also something of a stretch, although the advice on improving the signal was at least coherent.
Gemini 2.0 used a more detailed metaphor that involved a water supply system with devices such as plants that received water. AI expanded the metaphor to explain what could cause problems, such as too many “plants” to the available water and clogged pipes representing provider problems. The comparison “sprinkler interference” was much weaker, but which with the 1.5 version had Gemini 2.0 practical advice for improving the Wi-Fi signal. Despite it being much longer, 2.0’s answer appeared a little faster.
Logic bomb
For the last test, I wanted to see how well both versions handled logic and reasoning. AI models need to be good at riddles, 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 one takes exactly an hour to burn but they do not burn at a constant speed. How do you measure exactly 45 minutes?”
Both models technically gave the right answer about how to measure time, but in about as different ways as possible within the limitations of the puzzle and be correct. Gemini 2.0’s answer is shorter, ordered in a way that is 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 service. The phrasing was also confusing, especially when it said to turn on the remaining rope “at one end” as it meant the ending that it is not at the moment on.
For such an answer contained Gemini 2.0 stood out as remarkably better at solving this kind of logical puzzle.
Gemini 2.0 for speed and clarity
After testing the prompts, the differences between Gemini were 1.5 flash and Gemini 2.0 flash clear. Although 1.5 was not necessarily useless, it seemed to fight with specificity and make useful comparisons. The same goes for its logical breakdown. If it was applied to computer code, you should make a lot of cleaning up a working 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 more clearly explaining its own logic. That’s not to say it’s perfect. The water analogy fell slightly apart, and productivity advice could have used several specific examples or ideas.
That said, it was very fast and could clean up these problems with a little back and forth conversation. The Gemini 2.0 Flash is not the last, perfect AI assistant, but it is definitely a step in the right direction for Google as it strives to surpass itself and rivals like chatgpt.
