Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
什麼情況選哪一個
在主要 token 費率上，Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 是兩者中較便宜的：輸入為 $0.5 對比 $0.75，輸出為 $3 對比 $3.75，因此費用分別便宜了 1.5x 與 1.25x，且它允許 131072 個輸出 token，是 gemini-3.8-flash 的 65536 的兩倍，外加一個停用 thinking 的開關。當您需要其 1048576 token 的上下文（約為 Dola-Seed-2.0-pro 256000 的 4x）、文字與圖片和影片之外的音訊輸入，或針對長篇重複使用的提示詞需要較低的 $0.075 快取讀取費率時，請選擇 gemini-3.8-flash。兩者皆涵蓋對話、程式碼、推理與工具，並僅提供純文字輸出。
Benchmark 成績
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro：供應商沒有公布 benchmark 成績。
供應商公布： Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.75 | 0.67× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $3 | $3.75 | 0.8× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.075 | 1.3× |
費率取自網站建置時的即時目錄；各模型頁面都列有最新的價目。
兩者的相對位置：每 1M tokens 的輸入價格，涵蓋同一計費單位下全部 80 個聊天模型（對數尺度）
功能
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemini 3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可設定 | 是，但供應商未公布調整參數 |
| 結構化輸出 | - | 是 |
| 提示詞快取 | 隱式 + 顯式 | 隱式 + 顯式 |
| 快取存活時間 | 未公布 | 未公布 |
| 最小快取前綴 | 1,024 個 token | 4,096 個 token |
規格
| Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Gemini 3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 圖像 影片 | 文字 圖像 音訊 影片 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-02-14 | 2026-09-02 |
| 知識截止日期 | - | 2026-03 |
| 上下文視窗 | 256K | 1M |
| 最大輸出 | 131K | 66K |
| 思考參數 |
| - |
| 可接受的值 | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| - |
| 預設值 | enabled, with reasoning_effort medium and thinking summary on | - |
規格摘錄自各供應商的文件；供應商沒有公布的項目就直接略過，不自行推測。 完整來源： Dola Seed 2.0 Pro · Gemini 3.8 Flash
同一段提示詞，兩個模型，經閘道實測
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 3 sentences
Reasoning-enabled LLMs do not generate final answers in one pass: they run hundreds of unshown internal trial, cross-check, and correction steps for every user request, and every one of these hidden steps consumes billable GPU time just like the visible output text. Unlike our prior standard chat workload which only processed exactly what users typed, reasoning mode automatically executes these validation loops by default, with no visible indicator to end users that extra compute is being consumed. This 2x increase is not a billing error or rogue usage spike: industry benchmarks consistently put reasoning workloads at 1.7-2.6x the compute cost of equivalent standard LLM requests, and this pricing dynamic is almost never clearly disclosed on vendor rate cards.
輸出 563 tok (+416 思考) 延遲 9.4 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash 通過 · 3 sentences
When we enabled reasoning, the model began generating hidden "thinking tokens" to work through logic step-by-step before producing a final answer. Because AI vendors bill for every single token processed—visible or not—this internal deliberation dramatically inflated our billable volume per query. In short, while our total number of user requests remained flat, the cost per transaction doubled to buy higher accuracy on complex tasks.
輸出 705 tok (+624 思考) 延遲 6.4 s
是否照指令做（剛好三句，數得出來）、語氣是否貼合對象（寫給 CFO 看），以及下方 token 計量顯示出的隱藏思考計費落差。
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 8/8 cases
### Corrected Implementation ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` --- ### Bug Explanation The original code has three critical linked flaws: 1. It initialized run counters `best` and `cur` to `0` instead of `1`, failing to account for the fact that *every individual element is already a valid run of length 1* -- this causes single-element inputs to incorrectly return `0`. 2. `cur` only counted how many extra matching elements followed the start of a run, so it always tracked one less than the actual run length, and it reset to `0` (instead of `1`) when a new run began, preserving this off-by-one error for all runs. 3. […]
輸出 1278 tok (+951 思考) 延遲 16.7 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash 通過 · 8/8 cases
Here is the corrected function: ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function counted equal-neighbor transitions rather than the actual items making up each run. Because `cur` started at `0` (and was reset to `0` on mismatches), every run was undercounted by one: single-element lists returned `0` because the loop never executed, and any subsequent run—including those ending at the last index—recorded a count of $N - 1$ instead of $N$. The fix handles empty input upfront, initializes both `cur` and `best` to `1` (since any single element forms a run of length 1), and resets `cur` to `1` whenever a new run begins.
輸出 1393 tok (+1149 思考) 延遲 10.1 s
修正是否真的正確（跑得起來）、說明的資訊密度，以及在範圍明確的任務上的 token 效率。
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
輸出 506 tok (+452 思考) 延遲 8.6 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null } ```
輸出 3989 tok (+3932 思考) 延遲 30.4 s
是否遵守 schema（不自創欄位）、面對幻覺誘因的表現（題目明確不給 guidance），以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 通過 · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we’re rolling out cross-provider prompt caching for our API gateway. For engineering teams routing LLM requests across OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral and open source models, this feature stores identical prompt payloads at the gateway layer, rather than relying on per-provider cache implementations limited to single endpoints. How much time and compute could your team save by avoiding redundant token processing for repeated system prompts, context windows, or common user queries? Cache hits return responses in under 10ms, with configurable TTL, granular purge controls, and per-application cache partitioning. Early access teams running support bots, batch inference and internal assistants recorded 42-67% lower LLM spend. This feature is live for all gateway users today, with no required code changes to existing routing workflows. (120 words)
輸出 1041 tok (+872 思考) 延遲 11.4 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Why pay multiple model providers for the exact same output? Introducing Universal Prompt Cache, our latest API gateway capability engineered to cut compute expenses and drop inference latency. When your application makes a call, the gateway inspects a central memory layer before routing traffic to external LLMs. If an identical query was previously processed by OpenAI, Anthropic, or Mistral, our gateway returns that response immediately. This shared cache eliminates duplicate token fees and insulates your production apps from vendor rate limits or unexpected downtime. Developers can easily customize expiration settings, enforce strict data privacy controls, and configure invalidation logic across every endpoint. Stop wasting your budget on repeated queries. Enable prompt caching in your dashboard to accelerate your pipeline today.
輸出 3833 tok (+3688 思考) 延遲 21.8 s
是否遵守限制（字數上限、禁用詞清單、只能有一句問句）、文字風格的特徵，以及長度控制。
改一行程式碼就能在兩者之間切換
下面每個頁籤都列了這兩個模型 ID，要改的只有醒目標示的那兩行。端點、金鑰和請求格式都不變。
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",
# model="gemini-3.8-flash", # 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",
// model: "gemini-3.8-flash", // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",
# "model": "gemini-3.8-flash", # 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "Dola-Seed-2.0-pro",
// Model: "gemini-3.8-flash", // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("Dola-Seed-2.0-pro")
// .model("gemini-3.8-flash") // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 和 Gemini 3.8 Flash 哪個比較便宜？
以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看，Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 比較便宜（$0.5 對 $0.75，相差 1.5×）。其他項目的結果可能相反，完整價目請看上表；實際成本要看你的用量組合。
可以只串接一次，就對 Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 和 Gemini 3.8 Flash 做 A/B 測試嗎？
可以。兩個模型都走同一個 OpenAI 相容端點，用的也是同一把 API 金鑰，切換時只要改一行裡的模型名稱字串。你可以把一部分流量分別導到兩邊，再直接比較帳單。
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro 與 Gemini 3.8 Flash 支援提示詞快取嗎？
支援。兩者的快取讀取費率都低於輸入費率，所以前綴已經進快取的工作負載，實際成本會比官網價算出來的低。確切的快取讀取價格請見上方定價表。