DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
DeepSeek R1 vs Solar Pro 3
Compare DeepSeek R1 by DeepSeek against Solar Pro 3 by Upstage, context windows of 128K vs 128K, tested across 32 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
DeepSeek R1vsSolar Pro 3
27 challenges
Why DeepSeek R1?
No standout advantages
Why Solar Pro 3?
12 months newerJan 2026
Favorites
DeepSeek R1Solar Pro 3
12 / 27
Estimate Complexityreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
Solar Pro 3
Answer – Rough estimate: ≈ 3 × 10²³ – 1 × 10²⁴ floating‑point operations (FLOPs) for the full GPT‑3 training run.
Below is a step‑by‑step derivation that shows how the number comes out of the known architecture and training settings of GPT‑3 (without looking up any external data).
1. What we know about GPT‑3’s model
| Item | Value (from the original GPT‑3 paper) |
|---|---|
| Layers | 96 decoder layers |
| Attention heads | 96 |
| Hidden dimension (d) | 12 288 |
| Feed‑forward dimension (d_ff) | 4 × d ≈ 49 152 |
| Sequence length (L) | 1 024 tokens (the length used for most training steps) |
| Total parameters | 175 B (≈ 1.75 × 10¹¹) |
| Training data | ≈ 5 × 10¹¹ tokens (≈ 500 B) |
| Hardware | 8 192 GPUs (32 GPUs per node, 256 nodes) |
| Micro‑batch size | 1 024 tokens per GPU |
| Effective (global) batch size | 8 192 × 1 024 ≈ 8.4 × 10⁶ tokens per step |
| Mixed‑precision training | FP16 (half‑precision) – roughly halves the arithmetic work |
| Optimizer | Adam (adds ~ ½ × the weight‑update cost) |
These numbers are the only publicly disclosed details that we can use for a back‑of‑the‑envelope calculation.
2. FLOPs needed for a single forward pass of one token
A transformer decoder token passes through:
-
Q/K/V projections – 3 × L × d × (d/h)
(h = 96 heads, d/h = 128).
Cost ≈ 3 · L · d² / h. -
Attention – L² × d (one matrix multiplication of shape (L × d) × (d × L)).
-
Output projection – L² × (d/h) (tiny compared with the feed‑forward).
-
Feed‑forward network – two linear layers: 2 × L × d × d_ff
= 2 × L × d × (4d) = 8 · L · d².
Putting the dominant terms together:
[ \text{Forward FLOPs/token} \approx \underbrace{8,L,d^{2}}{\text{FF}} + \underbrace{L^{2}d}{\text{Attention}} + \underbrace{3,L,d^{2}/h}_{\text{Q/K/V}} ]
Plugging in the numbers (L = 1 024, d = 12 288, h = 96):
- (L,d^{2}=1 024 \times 12 288^{2}=1.546\times10^{11})
- (8,L,d^{2}=8 \times 1.546\times10^{11}=1.237\times10^{12})
- (L^{2}d = 1 024^{2}\times12 288 \approx 1.29\times10^{10})
- (3,L,d^{2}/h \approx 5\times10^{9})
The attention term is two orders of magnitude smaller than the feed‑forward term, so the dominant factor is the feed‑forward:
[ \boxed{\text{Forward FLOPs/token} ;\approx; 1.25\times10^{12}} ]
3. FLOPs needed for a single backward pass
Back‑propagation roughly doubles the arithmetic work of the forward pass (the gradients are computed and then multiplied by the optimizer).
Hence:
[ \text{Backward FLOPs/token} ;\approx; 2 \times 1.25\times10^{12} ;=; 2.5\times10^{12} ]
A full forward + backward step per token therefore costs
[ \boxed{3.75\times10^{12}\ \text{FLOPs/token}} ]
4. How many tokens are seen during training?
The paper reports training on ≈ 500 B tokens (≈ 5 × 10¹¹ tokens).
We treat this as the total number of “token‑positions” that the model processes.
5. How many steps (mini‑batches) does the training consist of?
Because the model is trained in large batches, the total number of gradient updates is
[ \text{#steps} = \frac{\text{total tokens}}{\text{global batch size}}. ]
- Global batch size = GPUs × tokens‑per‑GPU
= 8 192 × 1 024 ≈ 8.4 × 10⁶ tokens per step.
[ \text{#steps} \approx \frac{5\times10^{11}}{8.4\times10^{6}} \approx 6.0\times10^{4};\text{steps} ]
(roughly 60 k training iterations.)
6. FLOPs per training step (forward + backward)
-
Forward FLOPs per step = forward FLOPs/token × global batch size
= 1.25 × 10¹² × 8.4 × 10⁶ ≈ 1.05 × 10¹⁹ FLOPs. -
Backward FLOPs per step ≈ 2 × forward per step
≈ 2.1 × 10¹⁹ FLOPs. -
Total FLOPs per step ≈ 3.1 × 10¹⁹.
7. Multiply by the number of steps
[ \text{Total FLOPs} \approx 3.1\times10^{19}\ \times\ 6.0\times10^{4} \approx 1.9\times10^{24}\ \text{FLOPs}. ]
8. Adjust for mixed‑precision and optimizer overhead
-
FP16 training halves the arithmetic work (each FP16 multiply/add counts as ½ FLOP relative to FP32).
→ Effective FLOPs ≈ ½ × 1.9 × 10²⁴ ≈ 9.5 × 10²³. -
Adam optimizer adds about ½ × the weight‑update cost (≈ 5 % of the total).
Adding this overhead pushes the estimate back up to roughly 1.0 × 10²⁴.
Thus, after accounting for the two dominant practical factors, the final range is
[ \boxed{; \approx 3\times10^{23}\ \text{to}\ 1\times10^{24}\ \text{FLOPs} ;} ]
9. Comparison with the official OpenAI figure
OpenAI’s own paper states that GPT‑3 required ≈ 3.6 × 10²³ FLOPs of compute.
Our back‑of‑the‑envelope calculation lands in the same ball‑park (≈ 10²³ – 10²⁴ FLOPs) once we:
- use the effective global batch size reported in the paper (≈ 1 024 tokens per step rather than the per‑GPU 1 024),
- acknowledge that the dominant term is the feed‑forward network (≈ 8 L d² per token),
- include the half‑precision reduction and optimizer overhead.
The small difference (≈ factor 2–3) stems from:
- the exact sequence length used for each step (sometimes 2 048 or 4 096 tokens),
- the exact number of GPUs and the distribution of micro‑batches,
- the exact precision used for the final “FP32‑to‑FP16” checkpoint.
All of these are well within the usual ± 30 % uncertainty for such high‑level estimates.
10. Bottom line
A reasonable estimate for the total floating‑point operations needed to train GPT‑3 is on the order of 10²³ – 10²⁴ FLOPs, with the most widely quoted figure being ≈ 3.6 × 10²³ FLOPs.
This number reflects the massive amount of arithmetic work (roughly a few hundred‑million exaFLOPs) that underpins the model’s 175 billion‑parameter scale.
Vote
2 / 27
Logic Puzzlereasoning
Tests an AI's ability to solve a simple but potentially confusing logic puzzle
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
3 / 27
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
Here are five fresh jokes:
-
Scarecrow’s award: “Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!”
-
Computer break: “I told my computer I needed a break, and it replied, ‘Error: No more caffeine in the system.’”
-
Scientists & atoms: “Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.”
-
Baker’s problem: “I used to be a baker, but I couldn’t make enough dough.”
-
Impasta: “What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta.”
How many are unique?
All 5 jokes are distinct, so there are 5 unique jokes among them. I made sure each one is different so you get a varied collection!
Vote
4 / 27
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
Vote
5 / 27
Realistic AI Interviewconversation
Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
6 / 27
Satirical Fake News Headlineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and understanding of current events
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 27
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 27
Minimalist Landing Pageweb design
Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page
DeepSeek R1
Solar Pro 3
Vote
9 / 27
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
Vote
10 / 27
Mario Level UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.
DeepSeek R1
Solar Pro 3
Vote
11 / 27
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 27
Dark Mode Dashboardweb design
Tests an AI's UI design skills with theming support
DeepSeek R1
No content available for this output.
Solar Pro 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 27