Skip to content
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Sign Up
Sign Up

Compare AI vibes, not scores. Side-by-side outputs across the world's best models.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • 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
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Sign Up
Sign Up

Compare AI vibes, not scores. Side-by-side outputs across the world's best models.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • 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
  1. Home
  2. Models
  3. GPT-5 Nano
  4. Estimate Complexity

See how GPT-5 Nano compares on this challenge:

  • GPT-5 Nano vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • GPT-5 Nano vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  • GPT-5 Nano 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
Sign Up
Sign Up
Back to GPT-5 Nano

Estimate Complexity

Gpt 5 Nano's response to the 'Estimate Complexity' challenge.

GPT-5 Nano
August 7, 2025
Text

?
Prompt

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

GPT-5 Nano
Response

gpt-5-nano logo
GPT-5 NanoEstimate Complexity
gpt-5-nano logo
GPT-5 Nano

Here’s a back-of-the-envelope estimate for the total FLOPs to train GPT-3 (the 175B-parameter model) using reasonable public details, without looking anything up.

Assumptions (typical GPT-3 specs)

  • Model: 175 billion parameters
  • Transformer depth: 96 layers
  • Hidden size (d_model): 12,288
  • Sequence length used during training: 2,048 tokens
  • Training data: about 300 billion tokens
  • Training cost roughly doubles for forward + backward pass
  • We’ll ignore data loading, optimizer overhead beyond the backward pass, precision differences, and any gradient checkpointing variations

Step 1: FLOPs per forward pass for one 2,048-token sequence

  • Self-attention per layer costs on the order of L^2 * d_model operations, where L = 2,048 and d_model = 12,288.
    • L^2 * d_model = 2,048^2 * 12,288 ≈ 51.54 × 10^9 operations per layer
    • Across 96 layers: 51.54e9 × 96 ≈ 4.96 × 10^12 FLOPs for attention per forward pass
  • Feed-forward network (FFN) per layer costs roughly 8 × d_model^2 operations
    • d_model^2 = 12,288^2 ≈ 150.995 × 10^6
    • 8 × d_model^2 ≈ 1.208 × 10^9 FLOPs per layer
    • Across 96 layers: 1.208e9 × 96 ≈ 1.16 × 10^11 FLOPs for FFN per forward pass
  • Total forward pass per sequence: attention + FFN ≈ 4.96e12 + 1.16e11 ≈ 5.07e12 FLOPs
  • Include backward pass (roughly similar magnitude to forward): ≈ 2 × 5.07e12 ≈ 1.01 × 10^13 FLOPs per forward+backward pass

Step 2: How many 2,048-token sequences to cover 300B tokens?

  • Number of segments N = 300e9 tokens / 2,048 ≈ 1.465 × 10^8 segments

Step 3: Total training FLOPs

  • Total FLOPs ≈ (FLOPs per forward+backward) × N
  • ≈ (1.01 × 10^13) × (1.465 × 10^8)
  • ≈ 1.48 × 10^21 FLOPs

Result

  • Rough estimate: about 1.5 × 10^21 FLOPs to train GPT-3 at the 175B scale, under the stated assumptions.

Notes and caveats

  • This is a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Real compute could differ by a factor of a few due to:
    • Different batch sizes or gradient accumulation, which changes the effective number of forward/backward passes
    • Use of gradient checkpointing or optimizer options that alter the forward/backward FLOP balance
    • Exact data token count and how sequences are batched
    • Precision (fp32 vs. fp16/bfloat16) affecting the count of floating-point operations
    • Overheads from data loading, padding, sparsity, or other architectural details
  • The order-of-magnitude (around 10^21 FLOPs) is the key takeaway, not a precise figure.

If you want, I can run through a variant with a different token budget, sequence length, or depth to show how sensitive the total FLOPs is to those choices.

Estimate Complexity

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

Auto NotesTranscriptNarrateVideo Cut

Partner link

This output is part of our open dataset — 5K+ AI responses across 200 models

About GPT-5 Nano

Capabilities

ConversationReasoningCode GenerationAnalysis

Categories

TextCodeMultimodal

Specifications

Provider
Openai
Released
2025-08-07
Size
SMALL

Keep exploring

SAME PROMPT

Claude Sonnet 4.6's version

Same prompt, different result

COMPARE

GPT-5 Nano vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Both outputs, side by side

Compare AI vibes, not scores. Side-by-side outputs across the world's best models.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • 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