GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
GPT-5.1 vs MiniMax M2-her
Compare GPT-5.1 by OpenAI against MiniMax M2-her by MiniMax, context windows of 400K vs 66K, tested across 52 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
GPT-5.1vsMiniMax M2-her
47 challenges
Why GPT-5.1?
6.1x more context400K
Why MiniMax M2-her?
7.7x cheaper overall$0.30/M in · $1.20/M out
3 months newerJan 2026
Favorites
GPT-5.1MiniMax M2-her
12 / 47
Estimate Complexityreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
MiniMax M2-her
Alright, let's tackle this question. The user is asking to estimate the total number of FLOPs required to train GPT-3 without searching online. First, I need to recall what FLOPs stands for. FLOPs are Floating Point Operations, which measure the computational complexity of an algorithm. So, the question is about estimating the computational effort needed to train GPT-3, a large language model, without looking up any external information. Let me think about how to approach this. I'll need to break down the training process into steps and calculate the number of operations for each. Let me start by outlining the key components involved in training a model like GPT-3. 1. Model Size: GPT-3 is a massive model with a significant number of parameters. I need to remember the approximate number of parameters in GPT-3. I think it's around 175 billion parameters. 2. Training Data: The amount of data GPT-3 is trained on is huge. It's typically trained on a large corpus of text, but I don't remember the exact size. I'll have to estimate based on common knowledge of large-scale language models. 3. Number of Training Iterations: The number of epochs or training iterations is another factor. I believe GPT-3 is trained for multiple epochs over the dataset. Let me recall that it's usually trained for a few dozen epochs. 4. Forward and Backward Passes: For each training step, the model performs a forward pass to compute the loss and a backward pass to compute gradients. Each pass involves a certain number of FLOPs depending on the model size and the batch size. 5. Update Steps: After computing gradients, the model updates its parameters using an optimizer like Adam or SGD. This also involves some computation, but it's usually less intensive compared to the forward and backward passes. 6. Computational Efficiency: The efficiency of the hardware and software can affect the total FLOPs. For this estimation, I'll assume we're using standard GPU/TPU accelerators that are commonly used for training large models. Now, let's get into the calculations. First, I need to estimate the number of parameters in GPT-3. I think it's around 175 billion parameters. Let me confirm that. Yes, GPT-3 has approximately 175 billion parameters. Next, the training data. I believe GPT-3 is trained on a large-scale text corpus, which includes Common Crawl, WebText2, Books1, Books2, and Wikipedia. The total size is around 45TB of uncompressed text, but for training, it's usually tokenized. Tokenization reduces the size, but it's still substantial. Let me estimate the number of tokens in the dataset. I think it's on the order of 300-500 billion tokens. For this estimation, I'll use a round number of 400 billion tokens. Now, the number of training iterations. GPT-3 is trained for multiple epochs over the dataset. I think it's typically trained for 40 epochs. Let me confirm that. Yes, 40 epochs is a reasonable estimate. Now, for each epoch, the model processes the entire dataset once. So, the total number of training steps is the number of epochs multiplied by the number of tokens in the dataset divided by the batch size. However, since the batch size can vary, I'll assume a common batch size for large-scale training. Let me think about the batch size. In practice, large models are trained with a batch size that fits into memory, often using techniques like gradient accumulation. For GPT-3, the batch size is typically large, maybe around 1-2 million tokens per batch. For simplicity, I'll use 1 million tokens per batch. Therefore, the number of training steps per epoch is: Number of steps = Total tokens / Batch size = 400,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 400,000 steps per epoch Since we're training for 40 epochs, the total number of training steps is: Total steps = 40 epochs * 400,000 steps/epoch = 16,000,000 total steps Now, let's think about the forward and backward passes. Each training step involves a forward pass to compute the loss and a backward pass to compute gradients. For the forward pass, the number of FLOPs is roughly proportional to the number of parameters in the model. Since GPT-3 has 175 billion parameters, and each parameter is involved in a multiply-add operation, the number of FLOPs per forward pass is approximately 2 * Number of parameters. So, for the forward pass: FLOPs_forward = 2 * 175e9 = 350e9 FLOPs For the backward pass, it's typically more computationally expensive because it involves computing gradients for all parameters. Let's assume the backward pass is about twice as expensive as the forward pass. Therefore: FLOPs_backward = 2 * FLOPs_forward = 700e9 FLOPs Therefore, the total FLOPs per training step (forward + backward) is: FLOPs_total_step = FLOPs_forward + FLOPs_backward = 350e9 + 700e9 = 1,050e9 FLOPs per step Now, multiplying by the total number of training steps: Total FLOPs = FLOPs_total_step * Total steps = 1,050e9 * 16e6 = 1.68e18 FLOPs However, I should consider that the training process also includes other computations, such as the optimization step (e.g., updating parameters with Adam), which adds some overhead. Let's assume the optimizer adds an additional 10% to the total FLOPs. Therefore, the adjusted total FLOPs are: Total FLOPs_adjusted = 1.68e18 * 1.1 = 1.848e18 FLOPs To put this into perspective, let's compare it to some benchmarks. A typical GPU like the NVIDIA A100 can perform around 19.5 teraFLOPs (19.5e12 FLOPs) per second for floating-point operations. However, for large-scale training, the throughput is often higher due to parallelization across multiple GPUs and efficient use of hardware. Let's assume we're using a single A100 GPU for this estimation. The time required to train GPT-3 would be: Time = Total FLOPs_adjusted / Throughput of GPU Time = 1.848e18 FLOPs / 19.5e12 FLOPs/s ≈ 94,769 seconds ≈ 26.3 hours However, in reality, training GPT-3 is done using multiple GPUs in parallel, often in data centers with thousands of GPUs. This significantly reduces the training time. Let's say we're using 1,000 GPUs in parallel. The time would then be: Time = 26.3 hours / 1,000 = 1.578 seconds, which is unrealistic. Therefore, let's adjust the number of GPUs based on practical deployment. Typically, large models are trained on clusters with hundreds to thousands of GPUs. Let's assume a more reasonable setup of 1,000 GPUs. Time = 26.3 hours / 1,000 = 1.578 seconds, which is too low. Let's adjust the number of GPUs to a more practical number, say, 1,000 GPUs. Time = 26.3 hours / 1,000 = 1.578 seconds, which is still too low. Let me think differently. Maybe I should consider the total FLOPs required for the entire training process, including the time it takes to compute gradients for all parameters over all epochs. Wait, perhaps I should consider the total number of parameters and the number of iterations to estimate the total FLOPs more accurately. Let me re-examine my approach. First, the number of parameters in GPT-3 is indeed 175 billion. The number of training steps is 16 million as calculated earlier. Each step involves forward and backward passes, which total 1,050 billion FLOPs. Multiplying these gives the total FLOPs: 1,050e9 * 16e6 = 1.68e18 FLOPs Adding the optimizer overhead, it's 1.848e18 FLOPs. Now, considering the computational power, if we're using 1,000 GPUs, each capable of 19.5 teraFLOPs per second, the time required would be: Time = 1.848e18 FLOPs / (1,000 * 19.5e12 FLOPs/s) ≈ 0.00948 seconds, which is still unrealistic. This suggests that my initial estimate might be too simplistic. Perhaps I'm missing something in the FLOPs calculation, or the number of GPUs is too high. Let me adjust the number of GPUs to a more realistic number, say, 100 GPUs. Time = 26.3 hours / 100 = 0.263 hours, which is about 15 minutes. That seems too fast. Maybe I need to consider the total number of FLOPs per GPU per second and adjust accordingly. Alternatively, perhaps I should think about the total number of FLOPs required for the entire training process, regardless of the number of GPUs. In that case, the time would be: Time = 1.848e18 FLOPs / (19.5e12 FLOPs/s) ≈ 94,769 seconds, which is about 26.3 hours, as calculated earlier. But in reality, training such a large model takes much longer, often weeks or months, depending on the infrastructure. This discrepancy suggests that my initial FLOPs estimate might be off, or I'm not accounting for some overheads. Let me try another approach. Maybe I should consider the number of parameters and the number of training iterations more carefully. The number of parameters in GPT-3 is 175 billion. Let's denote this as P. The number of training steps
Vote
2 / 47
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
Vote
3 / 47
Logic Puzzlereasoning
Tests an AI's ability to solve a simple but potentially confusing logic puzzle
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
Sally has 1 sister. That's because each of her brothers shares the same sister, which is Sally herself. So, although each brother has two sisters, one of those sisters is Sally, and the other sister is shared among all of them.
Vote
4 / 47
Math Misconception Testreasoning
Tests an AI's understanding of number representation
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
9.9 is greater than 9.11. This is because 9.9 is 0.9 greater than 9.0, while 9.11 is only 0.11 greater than 9.0. Therefore, 9.9 is greater than 9.11.
Vote
5 / 47
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
No content available for this output.
Vote
6 / 47
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 47
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
GPT-5.1
MiniMax M2-her
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 47
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 47
Realistic AI Interviewconversation
Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 47
Satirical Fake News Headlineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and understanding of current events
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
No content available for this output.
Vote
11 / 47
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
GPT-5.1
No content available for this output.
MiniMax M2-her
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 47
Minimalist Landing Pageweb design
Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page
GPT-5.1
MiniMax M2-her
Vote
12 of 47