Item: Gemini 3 Deep Think
Author: Elena Marchetti

Google has spent the last year rebuilding its reputation in the AI race. After Gemini 2's mixed reception, the Gemini 3 family marked a genuine comeback - and Deep Think, the specialized reasoning mode that received a major upgrade on February 12, is the crown jewel. It does not just edge ahead on a few benchmarks. It obliterates them. An 84.6% score on ARC-AGI-2 against Claude Opus 4.6's 68.8% and GPT-5.2's 52.9% is not a marginal lead. It is a different category of performance. But there is a catch: Deep Think is slow, expensive, and locked behind Google's priciest subscription tier. Whether that trade-off makes sense depends entirely on what you need an AI to do.

What Deep Think Actually Is

Deep Think is not a separate model. It is a reasoning mode that runs on top of Gemini 3 Pro, applying what Google calls "System 2" thinking - extended inference-time compute that lets the model explore multiple hypotheses simultaneously, verify its own logic, and backtrack when it hits dead ends. Standard chain-of-thought prompting generates a single linear reasoning path. Deep Think constructs parallel reasoning chains, evaluates them against each other, and iteratively refines its answer across multiple rounds.

The number of reasoning rounds scales dynamically. A straightforward question might trigger two or three. A graduate-level physics problem can push past ten. This is the fundamental design choice: Deep Think sacrifices latency for accuracy, and it does so deliberately and transparently.

Developers working through the API can control this trade-off via a thinking_level parameter with four settings: None (1x compute, basic Q&A), Low (~3x, moderate reasoning), Medium (~10x, complex analysis), and Deep (~50x+, research-grade problems). This granularity matters. It means you do not have to burn fifty times the compute on a summarization task just because you are using the same endpoint.

The Benchmarks: Record After Record

There is no polite way to say this: Deep Think's benchmark performance is extraordinary. On reasoning benchmarks that have stumped every model released in the past year, it sets new records across the board.

Abstract Reasoning: 84.6% on ARC-AGI-2, a benchmark designed specifically to resist pattern-matching shortcuts. For context, ARC-AGI-1 scores have been climbing steadily across models for months. ARC-AGI-2 was built to be harder - and Deep Think hits 96.0% on the original while nearly doubling the next-best score on the harder version. The ARC Prize Foundation independently verified this result.

Science Olympiads: Gold-medal performance on the written portions of the 2025 International Math Olympiad, International Physics Olympiad (87.7%), and International Chemistry Olympiad (82.8%). This is not "approaching human expert level." This is outperforming the vast majority of human contestants who qualify for these international competitions. If you have been tracking our math olympiad AI leaderboard, you know how quickly this space is moving.

Graduate-Level Knowledge: 93.8% on GPQA Diamond, a benchmark of PhD-level science questions. GPT-5.2 Pro is essentially tied at 93.2%. Claude Opus 4.6 trails at around 90%. On Humanity's Last Exam - a crowdsourced benchmark of the hardest questions domain experts could devise - Deep Think scores 48.4% without tools, rising to 53.4% with search and code execution enabled.

Competitive Programming: A Codeforces Elo of 3,455, which translates to a Legendary Grandmaster rating. For comparison, Gemini 3 Pro sits at 2,512 and Claude Opus 4.6 at 2,352.

Where It Does Not Lead: GPT-5.2 still achieves a perfect 100% on AIME 2025 without tools. Claude Opus 4.6 remains ahead on production coding tasks (SWE-bench Verified) and long-context retrieval at the million-token mark. Deep Think's dominance is concentrated in reasoning-heavy domains, not general-purpose tasks.

Hands-On: What It Feels Like to Use

I spent two weeks testing Deep Think across scientific research, code generation, mathematical proofs, and general-purpose queries, using both the Gemini app (via AI Ultra subscription) and the API through Google AI Studio.

The Good: When you give Deep Think a genuinely hard problem - a proof that requires synthesizing ideas from multiple subfields, an optimization problem with competing constraints, an experimental dataset with ambiguous signals - it does things no other model I have tested can do. I fed it a draft mathematics paper with a subtle logical flaw that human reviewers had missed. Deep Think identified the error, explained why it broke the proof's validity, and suggested a corrective approach. Google cites mathematician Lisa Carbone at Rutgers having a similar experience, and I can confirm the capability is real.

The 3D printing pipeline is also genuinely impressive. I sketched a custom bracket on paper, photographed it, and asked Deep Think to generate a printable STL file. It analyzed the geometry, estimated structural tolerances, and produced a file that printed correctly on the first attempt. This is multimodal reasoning at its best - vision, physics, and code generation working in concert.

The Bad: Latency is the elephant in the room. At the Deep thinking level, responses routinely take 30 to 90 seconds. For complex multi-step problems, I waited over two minutes several times. This is not a model for conversational AI, real-time coding assistance, or anything where responsiveness matters. Google's own documentation frames this as a feature, not a bug - and for research use cases, I agree. But it fundamentally limits the model's applicability.

The Ugly: The consumer access story is poor. Deep Think requires a Google AI Ultra subscription at $249.99 per month (with a promotional rate of $124.99 for the first three months). Usage limits apply even at that price point. Hit your cap and you get downgraded to Gemini 3 Flash mid-conversation. For API users, Deep Think multiplies standard Gemini 3 Pro token costs by 10x to 50x depending on thinking level, which can make complex queries extremely expensive. A single research-grade prompt at the Deep thinking level can cost several dollars in tokens.

How It Compares

The AI model landscape in February 2026 is more specialized than ever. As we discussed in our overall LLM rankings, no single model dominates every task, and Deep Think sharpens that reality.

Capability	Deep Think	Claude Opus 4.6	GPT-5.2
ARC-AGI-2	84.6%	68.8%	52.9%
GPQA Diamond	93.8%	~90%	93.2%
Codeforces Elo	3,455	2,352	N/A
SWE-bench Verified	~48%	55.6%+	~53%
AIME 2025	~95%	~93%	100%
Long-context (1M)	26.3%	76%	~65%
Latency	Slow	Moderate	Fast

Deep Think's strength is unambiguous: if your problem requires deep, multi-step reasoning across scientific or mathematical domains, nothing else comes close. But if you need a general-purpose AI for coding, writing, or fast interaction, Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.2 are better choices.

The Science Angle

What makes Deep Think genuinely interesting - beyond the benchmark numbers - is what it suggests about the direction of AI research. Google DeepMind's approach here is not to build a bigger base model. It is to layer agentic reasoning workflows on top of an existing foundation model, using inference-time compute scaling to push accuracy on hard problems.

The Aletheia math research agent, which Deep Think uses internally, includes a natural language verifier that routes outputs through three pathways: accept, revise, or restart entirely. It uses "balanced prompting" - asking for simultaneous proof or refutation of a hypothesis to minimize confirmation bias. And it can integrate Google Search and web browsing for literature synthesis in real time.

This architecture produced concrete research results. Google reports that an evaluation of 700 open problems in the Bloom's Erdos Conjectures database yielded autonomous solutions to four open questions, with one solution contributing to a generalization published in a research paper. That is not a benchmark score. That is novel mathematics.

For anyone following the debate over whether AI benchmarks still matter, Deep Think offers an interesting data point: the model's benchmark performance correlates strongly with its real-world scientific utility. When your ARC-AGI-2 score jumps from 52% to 84%, that is not benchmark gaming. That is a qualitative shift in what the system can reason about.

Strengths

Record-breaking reasoning performance across ARC-AGI-2, science olympiads, GPQA Diamond, and competitive programming
Configurable compute depth via thinking_level parameter lets developers balance cost against accuracy
Novel scientific contributions - not just answering questions but solving open research problems
Strong multimodal reasoning - the sketch-to-3D pipeline is genuinely useful
Agentic verification architecture that can catch its own errors and backtrack

Weaknesses

Extreme latency at higher thinking levels (30-120+ seconds per response)
Expensive - $249.99/month consumer subscription, or 10-50x API token costs
Limited availability - API still in early access for enterprises and researchers
Weak long-context performance - drops to 26.3% on MRCR v2 at the 1M-token mark
Not competitive for production coding - trails Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.2 on SWE-bench
Usage caps on consumer tier force downgrades to Flash mid-conversation

Verdict: 8/10

Gemini 3 Deep Think is the most impressive reasoning system any lab has produced. Its benchmark numbers are not incremental improvements - they represent a generational leap on problems that genuinely require deep thought. The fact that it has contributed to real mathematical research is not marketing fluff. It happened, it was verified, and it matters.

But "most impressive reasoning system" is not the same as "best AI model." Deep Think is a specialist tool with a specialist's price tag and a specialist's limitations. It is slow, expensive, gated behind Google's most premium tier, and it underperforms the competition on coding tasks, long-context retrieval, and anything where latency matters. If you are a researcher in mathematics, physics, or chemistry, or an engineer solving complex optimization problems, Deep Think is the best tool available today - full stop. For everyone else, the smarter play is to route hard reasoning queries to Deep Think via the API while using faster, cheaper models for everything else. Google's tiered thinking_level system actually makes this practical, which is perhaps the most underappreciated aspect of the entire release.

The question for Google is whether Deep Think's research dominance can translate into broader commercial success at $250 per month. My guess: not at that price. But as the technology matures and costs come down - as they always do - Deep Think's approach of layering agentic reasoning on top of foundation models may end up being the architecture that matters most.

Sources: