Codex Spark vs Gemini 3 Deep Think: Speed or Brains?

Codex Spark vs Gemini 3 Deep Think: Speed or Brains?

I was halfway through a complex refactoring session last Tuesday — three AI agents running in parallel, rewriting a legacy payment module — when my Codex-based sub-agent just... stalled. Fourteen seconds of latency on a single function completion. By the time it responded, my other agents had already moved on, and the merge conflicts were ugly.

That moment crystallized something I'd been feeling for months. Speed isn't a nice-to-have in agentic coding workflows. It's structural. When one agent in your pipeline is slow, everything downstream breaks. The promise of AI-powered coding isn't just "smart code generation" — it's real-time collaboration between multiple AI agents working in concert. And latency kills that dream faster than any hallucination ever could.

So when OpenAI dropped GPT-3.5 Codex Spark — a model that cranks out roughly 1,000 tokens per second on custom Cerebras hardware — I didn't just test it. I restructured my entire agentic pipeline around it within 48 hours. And what I found surprised me.

But here's the twist: the same week, Google quietly released Gemini 3 Deep Think, a model that takes the exact opposite approach. Slower. Way more computationally expensive. But disturbingly accurate on problems that make other models choke. And two open-weight contenders — Miniax M2.5 and GLM5 — are making the picture even more complicated.

This is the first time I've seen the AI coding landscape split so cleanly into two camps. And if you're building anything with AI agents right now, the model you pick isn't just a preference — it's an architectural decision that shapes everything else.

Why the Old "One Model for Everything" Approach Stopped Working

Six months ago, my workflow was simple. Pick the smartest model available, pipe everything through it, done. GPT-3.5 Codex handled reasoning. It handled code generation. It handled review. One model, one API, one set of quirks to learn.

That worked when I was running a single agent doing sequential tasks. It fell apart the moment I started building multi-agent systems where three, four, sometimes six specialized agents needed to coordinate in near-real-time.

Here's the pain point nobody talks about enough: when you're orchestrating agentic workflows, the bottleneck is almost never intelligence. It's round-trip time. If your "planner" agent takes eight seconds to respond, your "coder" agent sits idle for eight seconds. Your "reviewer" agent sits idle even longer. Multiply that across a dozen back-and-forth cycles and a task that should take ninety seconds takes twelve minutes.

I'd been compensating with async patterns and queue-based architectures, but that introduces its own complexity — stale context, coordination overhead, race conditions in shared state. What I actually needed wasn't a smarter model. I needed a faster one for specific parts of the pipeline.

That's exactly what Codex Spark promises. And it delivers — with some caveats that I learned the hard way.

What Codex Spark Actually Does Different Under the Hood

The headline number is 1,000 tokens per second. Let me put that in context because raw token counts can be misleading.

The standard GPT-3.5 Codex — the one most of us have been using through the API — typically runs in the range of 80 to 150 tokens per second depending on load, prompt complexity, and how lucky you're feeling that day. Codex Spark is roughly 7x to 12x faster than that baseline. On a typical function generation task (say, a 200-token output), you're looking at sub-200-millisecond response times. That's faster than most humans can context-switch.

The secret isn't algorithmic — it's hardware. OpenAI partnered with Cerebras to run Spark on their Scale Engine 3 chips, which are purpose-built for AI inference. Unlike traditional GPU clusters where data shuffles between thousands of individual processors, Cerebras uses wafer-scale chips that keep the entire model's working memory on a single massive die. Less data movement means less latency. It's an elegant solution to a physics problem.

I ran my own informal benchmarks across three task categories. Here's what I saw:

Function generation (50-300 token outputs): Codex Spark averaged 140ms round-trip. Standard Codex averaged 1.2 seconds. The difference was visceral — Spark felt like autocomplete, not like waiting for a response.

Multi-file refactoring (500-1,500 token outputs): Spark averaged 680ms. Standard Codex averaged 4.8 seconds. Still dramatically faster, though the gap narrows on longer outputs.

Complex reasoning with large context (2,000+ token outputs): Here's where things get interesting. Spark averaged 2.1 seconds — fast, but I noticed more logical inconsistencies compared to standard Codex on the same prompts. I'll come back to this because it's the trade-off that matters most.

The catch? Spark runs a 128,000 token context window versus the 200,000 tokens you get with standard Codex. That's a 36% reduction. For most coding tasks, 128k is plenty. But if you're feeding in entire codebases or maintaining very long conversation histories across agent turns, you'll hit the ceiling faster than you expect. I bumped into it on day two when my documentation agent tried to ingest a full monorepo's type definitions.

The Speed-Intelligence Trade-Off Nobody Warned Me About

Here's the thing — Codex Spark isn't just a faster version of the same model. OpenAI made deliberate architectural choices to hit that speed target, and those choices come with real trade-offs.

On straightforward coding tasks — generating CRUD endpoints, writing test scaffolds, converting between data formats — Spark is essentially indistinguishable from standard Codex. The quality is there. I'd give it a 95% equivalence rating for bread-and-butter development work.

Where the gap shows up is on tasks requiring multi-step reasoning. When I asked Spark to debug a race condition in an async queue system, it identified the symptom correctly but proposed a fix that would have introduced a deadlock. Standard Codex caught the deadlock risk on the same prompt. When I asked it to design a caching invalidation strategy for a distributed system, Spark's answer was plausible but missed an edge case around clock skew that standard Codex flagged naturally.

This isn't a flaw — it's a design choice. Spark is optimized for the 80% of coding tasks that are execution-heavy and reasoning-light. The kind of work where speed matters more than depth. And honestly? That's most of what coding agents do. Write the function, format the output, run the boilerplate. You don't need a deep thinker for that.

The mistake — and I made this mistake initially — is using Spark for everything. That's like using a sports car for both highway driving and off-roading. Technically it moves, but you're going to break something.

I'll show you how I restructured my pipeline to use Spark where it shines and route harder tasks elsewhere. But first, you need to understand what "elsewhere" looks like now.

Gemini 3 Deep Think: The Opposite Bet

While OpenAI went all-in on speed, Google took Gemini 3 in a completely different direction with Deep Think. This model is slow. Deliberately, unapologetically slow. And it's terrifyingly good at the things that make fast models stumble.

Deep Think is designed for extended reasoning — the kind of problems where you need the model to actually "think" through multiple possibilities, evaluate trade-offs, and arrive at a considered answer rather than pattern-matching to the most probable completion. Google's internal benchmarks show it cracking past 80% on RKGI2 — a benchmark that was specifically designed to be too hard for current-gen models. It also outperforms earlier reasoning-focused models on complex code generation tasks involving multi-file coordination and architectural design.

I got access through Google's Ultra subscription, and here's what using it actually feels like.

Imagine you're pair-programming with someone who takes a full thirty seconds to respond to every question — but when they do respond, they've thought through three approaches, eliminated two, and can explain exactly why the third one works for your specific constraints. That's Deep Think. The latency is noticeable. On complex prompts, I've seen response times north of 45 seconds. For simple coding tasks, it's overkill — like hiring a systems architect to write CSS.

But for certain problems? Nothing else comes close right now.

I threw my race condition debugging task at Deep Think — the same one that tripped up Codex Spark. It didn't just identify the race condition. It mapped out the full execution timeline, identified three separate paths that could trigger the bug, proposed a fix using a combination of mutex locks and channel-based signaling, and then warned me about a performance regression the fix would cause under high concurrency. All in one response.

That's the level of reasoning we're talking about. And it has real implications for how you structure agentic systems.

The play here is obvious once you see it: use Deep Think as your "senior architect" agent that handles complex decisions, system design, and tricky debugging — and use Spark for the army of worker agents that execute the plan at speed. Two tiers. Two models. Each playing to their strengths.

I'll walk you through exactly how I wired this up. But there's a third option emerging that complicates the picture in a good way.

The Open-Weight Wild Cards: Miniax M2.5 and GLM5

Here's where the conversation gets really interesting for anyone who cares about cost — which should be all of us.

Miniax M2.5 dropped a few weeks ago and immediately turned heads. On standard agentic coding benchmarks, it's outperforming GLM5 and sitting uncomfortably close to proprietary models that cost 10x more to run. This is an open-weight model that you can self-host, fine-tune, and run on your own infrastructure.

GLM5 is in a similar category — open-weight, solid agentic coding capabilities, rapidly improving. It's slightly behind Miniax M2.5 on the latest benchmarks, but both models are improving so fast that the rankings could flip by the time you read this.

I spent a weekend spinning up both on a 4x A100 cluster to see what the fuss was about. The results were genuinely impressive — and genuinely frustrating, sometimes in the same test run.

The good: On standard code generation tasks, Miniax M2.5 produces output quality that's within striking distance of Codex Spark. The latency is decent — not Cerebras-fast, but respectable for self-hosted. And the cost? After the initial hardware investment, you're looking at roughly 15-20% of what you'd pay for equivalent API calls to OpenAI or Google. For a startup running thousands of agent cycles per day, that math gets compelling fast.

The frustrating: Consistency. I ran the same architectural design prompt through Miniax M2.5 ten times and got meaningfully different quality levels across runs. Three of the ten outputs were genuinely excellent — I'd have been happy to use them in production. Four were solid but needed editing. Two were mediocre. And one was just... wrong. Confidently, fluently wrong. The kind of wrong that would pass a quick review but blow up in production.

GLM5 showed a similar pattern. Strong median performance, but the variance is a problem. When you're running these models as autonomous agents, inconsistency isn't just annoying — it's dangerous. A human developer writing mediocre code is one thing. An autonomous agent writing mediocre code at machine speed and committing it to your repository is something else entirely.

This doesn't mean you should ignore these models. It means you need to build guardrails around them — validation layers, automated testing, output scoring — that account for the inconsistency. The cost savings are real enough to justify the extra engineering. I'm running Miniax M2.5 as a "draft generation" agent now, with a proprietary model reviewing its output. Cheaper than using Codex for everything, better than trusting Miniax to fly solo.

My Two-Tier Pipeline: How I Actually Wired This Together

Alright, here's the implementation section. If you've made it this far, you already understand the landscape better than most developers I talk to. This is where it gets practical.

I restructured my agentic coding pipeline into two distinct tiers based on everything I tested above.

Tier 1: Speed Layer (Codex Spark)

These agents handle high-volume, execution-focused tasks where latency matters more than reasoning depth:

1. Code Generation Agent — Takes architectural plans from Tier 2 and implements them. Function bodies, test scaffolds, boilerplate, data transformations. This is where 70% of total tokens get generated, so speed here has an outsized impact on total pipeline latency.

2. Formatting and Refactoring Agent — Handles code style standardization, import organization, dead code removal. Pure execution work.

3. Documentation Agent — Generates docstrings, README updates, and inline comments based on code changes. Speed matters here because documentation is generated in parallel with testing.

Tier 2: Thinking Layer (Gemini 3 Deep Think or Standard Codex)

These agents handle low-volume, high-stakes decisions where getting it right matters more than getting it fast:

1. Architecture Agent — Designs system structure, chooses patterns, plans multi-file changes. This agent runs once at the beginning of a task and its output guides everything Tier 1 does.

2. Debug Agent — Activated when tests fail or when Tier 1 agents produce code that doesn't pass validation. Deep Think's extended reasoning shines here.

3. Review Agent — Final quality gate before anything gets committed. Reviews Tier 1 output for logical errors, security issues, and architectural drift.

The coordination layer is where this gets interesting. I'm using a lightweight orchestrator that routes tasks based on a simple classification:

def classify_task(task_description: str, complexity_score: float) -> str:
    """Route tasks to the appropriate model tier."""
    if complexity_score > 0.7:
        return "tier2_deep_think"  # Complex reasoning needed
    elif complexity_score > 0.4:
        return "tier2_standard"    # Moderate reasoning, standard Codex
    else:
        return "tier1_spark"       # Execution-focused, speed matters

The complexity score comes from a simple heuristic: number of files involved, presence of concurrent/async patterns, whether the task involves debugging vs. greenfield generation, and a keyword analysis of the task description. It's not perfect, but it catches about 85% of routing decisions correctly. The other 15% I handle with a fallback — if Tier 1 output fails validation, the task automatically escalates to Tier 2.

Pro tip: Don't try to make the routing perfect. Build it to be fast and approximately right, then add escalation paths for when it's wrong. Trying to perfectly classify every task before routing is its own bottleneck and defeats the purpose of having a speed-focused tier.

Step-by-step to set this up yourself:

Step 1: Start with your existing single-model pipeline. Don't rip everything apart at once. Identify your three highest-volume agent tasks — the ones generating the most tokens per day.

Step 2: Move those three tasks to Codex Spark. Keep everything else on your current model. Measure the total pipeline latency reduction. In my case, this single change cut total cycle time by 40%.

Step 3: Identify your three hardest tasks — the ones where your current model produces the most errors or requires the most human intervention. Move those to Deep Think (or keep them on standard Codex if you don't have Deep Think access yet).

Step 4: Add the escalation path. When a Spark agent's output fails validation, route the task to your Tier 2 model automatically. This is your safety net and it catches most of the cases where Spark's reasoning limitations cause problems.

Step 5: Add Miniax M2.5 or GLM5 as a cost-optimization layer for draft generation. Use it for first-pass output that gets reviewed by a proprietary model. This is optional but can cut API costs by 30-50% depending on your workload.

Common errors you'll hit: Spark's 128k context limit will surprise you if you're passing full conversation histories. Trim aggressively — most agent turns don't need full history. Deep Think's latency will timeout if your orchestrator has aggressive timeouts configured. I set Deep Think calls to a 120-second timeout minimum. And open-weight models need explicit system prompts for output formatting — they're less reliable at following formatting conventions without explicit instructions.

What Most People Get Wrong About This Shift

Here's my honest take, and I know some people will disagree.

The AI coding community is having the wrong conversation right now. Everyone's asking "which model is the best?" as if there's a single answer. There isn't. There hasn't been for at least six months, and the gap between "best for what?" is only getting wider.

The real question is: what does your workload look like, and how do you decompose it across models with different strengths?

I made this mistake myself. When Codex Spark launched, my first instinct was to switch everything to it. Faster is better, right? I wasted two days debugging issues that turned out to be Spark making reasoning errors on tasks that should have stayed on a deeper model. The speed gains were real, but so were the quality regressions on complex tasks.

The bigger misconception is that open-weight models are a replacement for proprietary ones. They're not — at least not yet. What they are is a complement. A way to handle the volume of low-stakes, high-frequency tasks at a fraction of the cost while keeping proprietary models for the work that actually matters.

There's also an uncomfortable truth about Gemini 3 Deep Think that I haven't seen anyone else write about. Yes, it's the most capable reasoning model available right now for complex coding tasks. But its latency makes it impractical for any workflow that requires human-in-the-loop interaction. If I'm sitting there waiting 45 seconds for every response during a debugging session, I lose my train of thought. I end up context-switching to something else, and the whole session falls apart. Deep Think is brilliant for autonomous agents that run in the background. It's frustrating for interactive use.

And the elephant in the room: OpenAI restricting Codex Spark to ChatGPT Pro users feels like a hardware constraint being dressed up as a product strategy. Cerebras can only produce so many wafer-scale chips, which means Codex Spark compute is genuinely scarce. But the effect is creating a two-tier developer ecosystem — Pro subscribers get the fast model, everyone else gets the slower one. If this pattern continues (and I think it will as custom AI hardware becomes more competitive), access to the fastest models might become as much about your subscription tier as about your technical skill.

This is something worth watching. The competition between Cerebras, Groq (now owned by Nvidia), and traditional GPU providers is reshaping who gets to run what. Hardware isn't just an implementation detail anymore — it's a strategic differentiator that determines model availability.

The Results: What Changed in My Pipeline

After two weeks running the two-tier architecture, here's what the numbers look like.

Total pipeline latency: Down 47% compared to single-model (standard Codex for everything). The biggest wins came from Spark handling the high-volume generation tasks — the raw throughput increase cascades through the entire system.

Error rate on committed code: Down 12%. This one surprised me. Despite Spark being "less intelligent" than standard Codex, the overall error rate dropped because complex tasks are now handled by Deep Think, which makes fewer mistakes on hard problems. The routing matters more than the individual model capabilities.

API cost: Up 23%. Deep Think is expensive, and running two different model providers adds overhead. However, if I swap in Miniax M2.5 for draft generation (which I'm currently testing), the projected cost is roughly break-even with my old single-model setup.

Developer experience: Dramatically better. The Spark-powered agents feel responsive in a way that changes how I interact with the pipeline. I find myself breaking tasks into smaller chunks because I know the response will be fast enough to maintain flow. That behavioral change alone probably accounts for some of the productivity gains — it's not just the models, it's how their speed changes my work patterns.

What to measure if you try this yourself: Track three things — total task completion time (end-to-end, not just model latency), error rate on code that passes initial generation (how often does committed code need fixes), and cost per successful task completion (total spend divided by tasks that shipped without rework). Those three metrics tell you whether your multi-model architecture is actually working or just adding complexity.

Quick wins come from the speed tier. Within a day of switching high-volume tasks to Spark, you'll feel the difference. Long-term gains come from the thinking tier — the error reduction compounds over time as your debug and review agents catch problems that would have become production incidents.

Where This Is All Heading

The thing that excites me most isn't any individual model — it's the pattern. We're watching the AI coding landscape bifurcate in real-time, and it's happening for a very specific reason.

Coding tasks have a property that most other AI use cases don't: verifiable outputs. You can run the code. You can check if the tests pass. You can measure whether the refactoring preserved behavior. That verifiability makes coding the ideal domain for AI agents because you can build reliable feedback loops — generate, test, fix, repeat — without human judgment in the loop.

This is why every major lab is pouring resources into coding models specifically. It's not just that developers are a lucrative market (though they are). It's that coding is the proving ground for agentic AI. If you can build agents that write reliable code autonomously, you've solved most of the hard problems of agentic AI in general. The skills transfer — planning, execution, error detection, self-correction — they all generalize.

My prediction: within twelve months, we'll see purpose-built "coding operating systems" that orchestrate dozens of specialized models automatically. You describe what you want at a high level, and the system decomposes the task, routes sub-tasks to the appropriate model tier, handles coordination, runs tests, and delivers working code. The two-tier architecture I built manually is a primitive version of what these systems will do natively.

The hardware side is equally fascinating. Cerebras powering Codex Spark is just the beginning. Groq's acquisition by Nvidia signals that traditional GPU makers see custom inference hardware as an existential threat. Within two years, the AI hardware landscape will look nothing like it does today — and model speed will be constrained more by chip availability than by algorithmic limits.

For developers building with AI right now, the actionable takeaway is this: stop treating model selection as a one-time decision. Build your systems to be model-agnostic at the routing layer. The specific models will change every few months. The architectural pattern — speed-optimized models for execution, reasoning-optimized models for decisions, cost-optimized open-weight models for volume — that pattern is durable.

Here's what I'd challenge you to do this week: look at your current AI-assisted workflow and identify the single task where latency hurts you the most. Not the hardest task — the one where waiting for the model response actually breaks your flow. Move that one task to the fastest model you have access to. Don't overthink it. Don't redesign your whole system. Just solve the latency pain for one task and see how it changes your relationship with the tool.

Because that's the real lesson from Codex Spark, Deep Think, Miniax, and everything else dropping right now. The age of the one-model-fits-all approach is over. And the developers who figure out multi-model orchestration first are going to build things the rest of us can't even imagine yet.

What's the one task in your pipeline where speed would change everything?

🤝 Let's Work Together

Looking to build AI systems, automate workflows, or scale your tech infrastructure? I'd love to help.

• 🔗 Fiverr (custom builds & integrations): fiverr.com/s/EgxYmWD
• 🌐 Portfolio: mejba.me
• 🏢 Ramlit Limited (enterprise solutions): ramlit.com
• 🎨 ColorPark (design & branding): colorpark.io
• 🛡 xCyberSecurity (security services): xcybersecurity.io