Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B: A Comparação Definitiva de Desempenho e Preço

Mergulhe profundamente em raciocínio, benchmarks e insights de latência.

O Veredicto Final no Confronto Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B

Após uma análise abrangente, Qwen1.5 Chat 110B surge como a escolha superior para usuários que priorizam inteligência e raciocínio brutos. No entanto, Ling-flash-2.0 continua a ser uma opção altamente competitiva, especialmente para cenários que exigem tempos de resposta mais rápidos e eficiência de custos. Esta detalhada comparação de Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B irá analisar cada métrica crítica para ajudá-lo a tomar a melhor decisão.

Explore os melhores cenários•Deixe o AI Selector recomendar os próximos passos

Instantâneo do Modelo

Principais métricas de decisão em um relance.

Ling-flash-2.0

Other

Raciocínio: 7
Codificação: 2
Multimodal: 1
Contexto Longo: 2
Preço Combinado / 1M tokens: $0.000
Latência P95: 1000ms
Tokens por segundo: 59.526tokens/seg

Qwen1.5 Chat 110B

Other

Raciocínio: 6
Codificação: 6
Multimodal: 1
Contexto Longo: 1
Preço Combinado / 1M tokens: $0.015
Latência P95: 1000ms
Tokens por segundo: —

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Ling-flash-2.0` vs `Qwen1.5 Chat 110B`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B debate, Ling-flash-2.0 scores 70 against Qwen1.5 Chat 110B's 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Ling-flash-2.0300ms

Qwen1.5 Chat 110B300ms

Tokens per Second

Ling-flash-2.059.526

Qwen1.5 Chat 110B70

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B

Power is only one part of the equation. This Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, Ling-flash-2.0 would cost $0.000, whereas Qwen1.5 Chat 110B would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B Battle for You?

Choose Ling-flash-2.0 if...

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Qwen1.5 Chat 110B if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the Ling-flash-2.0 vs Qwen1.5 Chat 110B Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Fonte de dados: https://artificialanalysis.ai/