NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super vs Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash: Which AI Model Is Better?

Updated March 24, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data

Quick Verdict

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super leads in intelligence with a score of 36.0 vs 19.4. NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super is 3.0x cheaper at $0.10/1M tokens vs $0.30/1M.

Head-to-Head Comparison

MetricNVIDIA: Nemotron 3 SuperGoogle: Gemini 2.5 Flash
Intelligence Score36.019.4
Coding Score31.214.5
Math ScoreN/A46.7
Speed (tok/s)402 tok/s343 tok/s
Latency (TTFT)0.59s0.31s
Input Price / 1M tokens$0.10$0.30
Output Price / 1M tokens$0.50$2.50
Context Window262K1.0M
Max Output TokensN/A66K
Input ModalitiesTextFile + Image + Text + Audio + Video
Output ModalitiesTextText
Free TierNoNo

Detailed Analysis

Intelligence & Quality

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super outperforms Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash on the Artificial Analysis intelligence index with a score of 36.0 compared to 19.4. For coding tasks, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super has the edge with a coding score of 31.2 vs 14.5.

Speed & Latency

Both models deliver similar output speeds: NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super at 402 tok/s and Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash at 343 tok/s. Time to first token is 0.31s for Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash vs 0.59s for NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super, which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.

Pricing

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super is more affordable at $0.10/1M input tokens ($0.50/1M output), while Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30/1M input ($2.50/1M output). That makes Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash 3.0x more expensive per token, which can add up significantly at scale. For a typical workload of 100 requests per day at 2,000 tokens each, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super would cost approximately $0.60/month vs $1.80/month for Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash in input costs alone.

Context Window

Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash offers a larger context window at 1.0M tokens compared to NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super's 262K. This means Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash can process roughly 524 pages of text in a single request vs 131 pages for NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super.

Best Use Cases

Choose NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super when you need higher intelligence (36.0), stronger coding performance (31.2), lower cost. Choose Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash when you need larger context window (1.0M).

Choose NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super if:

  • You need higher intelligence (score: 36.0 vs 19.4)
  • You prioritize coding performance (score: 31.2 vs 14.5)
  • Budget is a concern ($0.10/1M vs $0.30/1M)

Choose Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash if:

  • You want lower latency (0.31s vs 0.59s TTFT)
  • You need a larger context window (1.0M vs 262K)
  • You need image understanding (Supports image input)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super better than Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash for coding?

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super scores higher on coding benchmarks (31.2 vs 14.5), making it the better choice for programming tasks.

Which is cheaper, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super or Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash?

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super is cheaper at $0.10/1M input tokens vs $0.30/1M for Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash.

Is NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super faster than Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash?

NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super is faster, producing output at 402 tok/s compared to Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash's 343 tok/s.

Can NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super process images?

No, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super does not support image input. However, Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash does support images.

Which has a larger context window, NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super or Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash has a larger context window at 1.0M compared to NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super's 262K.

Should I use NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super or Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash?

It depends on your priorities. NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super scores higher on intelligence (36.0), but Google: Gemini 2.5 Flash may be better for specific use cases like budget-conscious projects or speed-critical applications.

Related Comparisons

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis

Data last synced: March 24, 2026