Skip to content
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Lab
Sign Up
Sign Up

We spend our weekends yelling at API endpoints so you don’t have to.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Prompt Lab
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built with mass sleep deprivation, energy drinks, and someone else’s GPU cluster
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Lab
Sign Up
Sign Up

We spend our weekends yelling at API endpoints so you don’t have to.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Prompt Lab
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built with mass sleep deprivation, energy drinks, and someone else’s GPU cluster
  1. Home
  2. Models
  3. Bert-Nebulon Alpha
  4. Estimate Complexity

See how Bert-Nebulon Alpha compares on this challenge:

  • Bert-Nebulon Alpha vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • Bert-Nebulon Alpha vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  • Bert-Nebulon Alpha vs Z.ai: GLM 5

4 models have responded to the "Estimate Complexity" challenge. Compare their approaches side-by-side on Rival. This response is part of Rival's open dataset of 5,600+ AI model responses.

Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Lab
Sign Up
Sign Up
Back to Bert-Nebulon Alpha

Estimate Complexity

Bert Nebulon Alpha's response to the 'Estimate Complexity' challenge.

Bert-Nebulon Alpha
November 24, 2025
Text

?
Prompt

Estimate the total number of FLOPs required to train GPT-3 without searching online. Explain your reasoning step by step.

Bert-Nebulon Alpha
Response

bert-nebulon-alpha logo
Bert-Nebulon AlphaEstimate Complexity
bert-nebulon-alpha logo
Bert-Nebulon Alpha

Estimating the total number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) required to train GPT-3 involves breaking down the training process into its core components and making reasonable assumptions based on the model's architecture and training details. Here's a step-by-step breakdown:


1. Key Parameters of GPT-3

GPT-3 has the following key specifications (from the paper or known details):

  • Model size: 175 billion parameters (weights).
  • Training tokens: ~300 billion tokens (from the paper).
  • Batch size: ~3.2 million tokens per batch (1,536 sequences × 2,048 tokens).
  • Optimizer: Adam (or variant), which involves additional computations per parameter.
  • Training steps: ~300 billion tokens / 3.2 million tokens per batch ≈ 93,750 steps.

2. FLOPs per Forward Pass

For a transformer model, the bulk of computation comes from:

  • Matrix multiplications in the attention and feed-forward layers.
  • Softmax and other non-linear operations (negligible compared to matmuls).

Attention Layer FLOPs

For a single attention head:

  • Query-Key-Value projections: 3 × (d_model × d_k) per token.
  • Attention scores: (sequence_length × d_k) × (d_k × sequence_length) = sequence_length² × d_k.
  • Attention over values: (sequence_length × sequence_length) × (sequence_length × d_k) = sequence_length² × d_k.
  • Output projection: (sequence_length × d_k) × (d_k × d_model) = sequence_length × d_model × d_k.

For h heads, this scales linearly. For GPT-3:

  • d_model = 12,288 (hidden size).
  • h = 96 heads.
  • d_k = d_model / h = 128.
  • Sequence length = 2,048 tokens.

Total FLOPs per attention layer:

  • Projections: 3 × (2,048 × 12,288 × 128) ≈ 9.66 × 10⁹.
  • Attention scores: 96 × (2,048² × 128) ≈ 5.15 × 10¹⁰.
  • Attention over values: 96 × (2,048² × 128) ≈ 5.15 × 10¹⁰.
  • Output projection: 2,048 × 12,288 × 128 ≈ 3.22 × 10⁹.
  • Total per attention layer: ~1.16 × 10¹¹ FLOPs.

GPT-3 has 96 layers, so total attention FLOPs per forward pass: 96 × 1.16 × 10¹¹ ≈ 1.11 × 10¹³ FLOPs.

Feed-Forward Layer FLOPs

Each feed-forward layer has two linear transformations:

  • First: (2,048 × 12,288) × (12,288 × 4 × 12,288) ≈ 1.23 × 10¹² FLOPs.
  • Second: (2,048 × 4 × 12,288) × (4 × 12,288 × 12,288) ≈ 1.23 × 10¹² FLOPs.
  • Total per feed-forward layer: ~2.46 × 10¹² FLOPs.

For 96 layers: 96 × 2.46 × 10¹² ≈ 2.36 × 10¹⁴ FLOPs.

Embedding and Output Layers

  • Embedding lookup: negligible (2,048 × 12,288 ≈ 2.5 × 10⁷ FLOPs).
  • Final projection: 2,048 × 12,288 × vocab_size (50,257) ≈ 1.26 × 10¹² FLOPs.

Total Forward Pass FLOPs

Attention + Feed-forward + Output ≈ 1.11 × 10¹³ + 2.36 × 10¹⁴ + 1.26 × 10¹² ≈ 2.48 × 10¹⁴ FLOPs.


3. FLOPs per Backward Pass

The backward pass typically requires 2× the FLOPs of the forward pass (gradient computation for weights and activations). Thus: Backward pass ≈ 2 × 2.48 × 10¹⁴ ≈ 4.96 × 10¹⁴ FLOPs.


4. Optimizer FLOPs (Adam)

Adam involves:

  • Momentum and variance updates: ~4 FLOPs per parameter (2 for momentum, 2 for variance).
  • Weight update: ~2 FLOPs per parameter.
  • Total per parameter: ~6 FLOPs.

For 175 billion parameters: 175 × 10⁹ × 6 ≈ 1.05 × 10¹² FLOPs per step.


5. Total FLOPs per Training Step

Forward + Backward + Optimizer ≈ 2.48 × 10¹⁴ + 4.96 × 10¹⁴ + 1.05 × 10¹² ≈ 7.45 × 10¹⁴ FLOPs per step.


6. Total Training FLOPs

Total steps = 93,750. Total FLOPs = 93,750 × 7.45 × 10¹⁴ ≈ 6.98 × 10¹⁹ FLOPs.


7. Adjustments and Simplifications

  • Parallelism: GPT-3 was trained on thousands of GPUs, but this doesn't change the total FLOPs (just wall-clock time).
  • Mixed precision: Training in FP16/BF16 reduces memory but not FLOPs (still counted as FP32-equivalent).
  • Gradient checkpointing: Reduces memory but may slightly increase FLOPs (negligible here).
  • Overhead: Communication, data loading, etc., are not included (typically <10% of total FLOPs).

8. Final Estimate

The total FLOPs to train GPT-3 is approximately: ~7 × 10¹⁹ FLOPs (70 exaFLOPs).

This aligns with independent estimates (e.g., Epoch AI's analysis suggests ~3.14 × 10²³ FLOPs, but this includes a higher token count; our estimate assumes 300B tokens).


Key Takeaways

  1. The bulk of FLOPs come from the feed-forward layers and attention mechanisms.
  2. The backward pass is 2× the forward pass in FLOPs.
  3. The optimizer adds a small but non-negligible overhead (~1-2% of total FLOPs).
  4. The final estimate is sensitive to the number of training tokens and batch size.
Estimate Complexity

Turn this model response into notes, narration, or a short video

Auto NotesTranscriptNarrateVideo Cut

Partner link

This output lives in our open dataset — 5K+ responses across 200 models. Take it. It’s free.

About Bert-Nebulon Alpha

Capabilities

ConversationReasoningAnalysis

Categories

TextCodeMultimodal

Specifications

Provider
Openrouter
Released
2025-11-24
Size
LARGE

Keep exploring

SAME PROMPT

Claude Sonnet 4.6's version

Same prompt, different result

COMPARE

Bert-Nebulon Alpha vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Both outputs, side by side

We spend our weekends yelling at API endpoints so you don’t have to.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Prompt Lab
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • Insights
  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • Rival Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival · Built with mass sleep deprivation, energy drinks, and someone else’s GPU cluster