I Tested Gemini 3 Deepthink — Google's Smartest AI Yet

I Tested Gemini 3 Deepthink — Google's Smartest AI Yet

I was halfway through building an autonomous agent pipeline in Claude Code when a notification pulled me out of flow state. Google had dropped something big. Not the incremental Gemini 3.1 Pro update everyone expected — something else entirely. A model called Gemini 3 Deepthink. And the claims around it were frankly absurd.

Gold medal-level math olympiad performance. A Codeforces ELO of 3,455. The ability to take a hand-drawn sketch on a napkin and turn it into a 3D printable file. I've been building with AI models professionally for over two years now, and I've learned to filter the hype from the substance. But these numbers? They stopped me mid-keystroke.

So I did what I always do when a model makes bold promises. I cleared my afternoon, fired up the API, and threw the hardest problems I could find at it. What happened over the next six hours changed how I think about where AI reasoning is heading — and honestly, where the entire competitive landscape between Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI is going.

Here's what I found, what genuinely impressed me, where it fell flat, and why this model matters even if you never plan to use it yourself.

What Makes Deepthink Different From Every Gemini Before It

The name tells you something important. This isn't a general-purpose chatbot upgrade. Google specifically engineered Gemini 3 Deepthink for one thing: deep, multi-step chain-of-thought reasoning. The kind of thinking where you need to hold seven variables in your head, trace logic across multiple layers of abstraction, and catch errors that would slip past most PhD candidates.

I've used every major Gemini release since the original. Gemini Pro was competent. Gemini Ultra was impressive in demos but inconsistent in practice. Gemini 2.0 closed the gap with GPT-4 in meaningful ways. But Deepthink operates in a different category altogether. The gap between this and standard Gemini 3 feels wider than the gap between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 felt back in 2023.

What changed? Google optimized the reasoning pipeline itself. Instead of training a bigger general model and hoping reasoning improved as a side effect, they specifically tuned the architecture for extended chain-of-thought sequences. Think of it like the difference between a car that happens to be fast and a Formula 1 car purpose-built for speed. Same general category, completely different engineering priorities.

The benchmark numbers back this up — but benchmarks only tell half the story. The real question is whether that reasoning capability translates to practical, real-world tasks that developers and engineers actually care about.

That's exactly what I spent six hours finding out.

The Benchmarks That Made Me Stop Scrolling

Before I share my hands-on testing, the official numbers deserve attention because a few of them are genuinely unprecedented.

Humanity's Last Exam — a collection of the hardest questions academics could design, covering everything from advanced mathematics to obscure scientific knowledge — Deepthink scored approximately 48% without any tool access. No calculator. No code interpreter. No web search. Just raw reasoning. For context, the previous best scores on this benchmark were in the low 30s. A near-50% jump is not incremental improvement. That's a category shift.

Codeforces, the competitive programming platform where the world's best programmers battle it out, gave Deepthink an ELO rating of 3,455. To put that in perspective — I compete on Codeforces occasionally, and my rating hovers around 1,400 on a good day. An ELO of 3,455 puts Deepthink in the top fraction of a percent of all competitive programmers who have ever participated. Not top percent. Top fraction of a percent.

And the one that really caught my attention: the Ark AGI 2 test. Deepthink scored 84.6, a result verified independently by the ARK Prize Foundation. This benchmark specifically tests pattern recognition and abstract reasoning — the kind of fluid intelligence that researchers consider a prerequisite for anything approaching AGI. The human baseline on this test sits lower than 84.6. Read that again.

Now — benchmarks can be gamed, optimized for, or cherry-picked. I know that. You know that. Which is exactly why I needed to test this myself with problems the model couldn't have been specifically tuned for.

The 3D Printing Test That Blew My Mind

Here's something most AI models absolutely cannot do: take a rough hand-drawn sketch and turn it into a structurally sound, 3D printable file. I've tried this with Claude, GPT-4, and previous Gemini versions. The results range from malformed geometry to files that look okay on screen but crumble the moment a slicer tries to process them.

I drew a quick sketch of a phone stand — nothing fancy, just an angled support with a lip to hold the device. Rough lines. No dimensions written. The kind of napkin sketch you'd hand to a colleague and say "something like this."

Deepthink didn't just generate a 3D file. It inferred reasonable dimensions from the proportions in my sketch. It added structural supports where the angles would create stress points. The resulting STL file loaded cleanly in Cura, sliced without errors, and the wall thicknesses were appropriate for FDM printing.

Was it perfect? No. The aesthetic finish was functional, not beautiful. But the fact that it produced a genuinely printable file from a rough sketch — handling the geometry, the structural engineering, and the file format requirements — that's a capability jump I didn't expect to see for at least another year.

There's a developer named Ken who took this further, getting Deepthink to generate a PS5 controller model with decent structural accuracy and an Xbox controller 3D animation that looked legitimately good. The quality variance seems to depend heavily on prompting specificity, which brings up an interesting point I'll get to in the implementation section.

When I Asked It to Build a Minecraft Clone

This is where I started having fun — and where the model started showing both its brilliance and its rough edges.

I prompted Deepthink to generate a Minecraft-like browser game. Not a screenshot mockup. Not a concept description. An actual playable game in a single HTML file with JavaScript.

What came back was a game I'm calling "Webcraft" — a functional voxel world with block placement, block destruction, basic terrain generation, and working sound effects. You could walk around. You could build. The physics weren't embarrassing.

Were there bugs? Absolutely. Collision detection had edge cases where you could clip through blocks if you moved at certain angles. The inventory system was half-implemented. And the terrain generation produced some floating islands that were charming but clearly unintentional.

But here's what matters: this was a functional, playable game generated from a single prompt. Not iterated over dozens of rounds. Not hand-edited afterwards. A single generation pass.

Another developer, Ken, had even better results — adding crafting mechanics, more sophisticated sound effects, and better block interaction to his version. The difference likely came down to prompt engineering, which reinforces something I keep learning: with these advanced models, how you ask is almost as important as what you ask.

The Minecraft test told me something critical about Deepthink's architecture. The model isn't just pattern-matching code snippets from its training data. It's reasoning about game systems — how physics, rendering, input handling, and game state need to interact. That's systems thinking, not just code completion.

But the game test was just a warm-up for what came next.

The Browser-Based macOS Clone That Shouldn't Exist

I asked Deepthink to build a macOS-like operating system interface that runs entirely in a browser. A working dock. Functional apps. The whole experience.

What it generated stopped me cold.

The dock worked — icons bounced on hover, apps launched on click, and the magnification effect on the dock was smooth. There was a functional Finder app with a file tree you could navigate. A Notes app where you could actually type and save text. A Calculator that handled basic operations correctly. And — this is the part that got me — a Settings panel with appearance customization, including a dark mode toggle that actually restyled the entire interface.

I've seen AI generate landing pages. I've seen AI generate component libraries. But a multi-application desktop environment with inter-app consistency, state management, and dynamic theming? That requires the model to hold an enormous amount of architectural context in its reasoning chain simultaneously.

The animations were smooth. The CSS was well-organized. The JavaScript handling window management — dragging, resizing, minimizing, z-index layering — worked properly on the first generation. Not perfectly. Some windows could be dragged off-screen, and the resize handles had dead zones. But the core architecture was sound.

This wasn't a party trick. This was an AI demonstrating genuine software architecture skills — understanding how operating systems organize applications, manage state, handle user input, and maintain visual consistency. The reasoning depth required to pull this off in a single generation pass is exactly what Google claims Deepthink was built for.

And yet, I still hadn't thrown the hardest test at it.

The Power Grid Stress Test — Where Deepthink Earned My Respect

Alright, here's where things got serious. I wanted to test Deepthink on something that requires not just coding ability, but genuine engineering reasoning. The kind of problem where getting the architecture wrong doesn't just produce bugs — it produces a simulation that can't run at all.

I asked it to build a decentralized power grid simulator. Thousands of nodes. Realistic failure modes. Self-healing capability. The prompt specified cascading fault propagation, heat wave impacts on generation capacity, cyber attack scenarios, and oscillation handling. All in a single HTML file with visualization.

The model thought for a while on this one. Noticeably longer than the simpler prompts. When the output arrived, I spent twenty minutes just reading through the code before running it.

The architecture was thoughtful. Each node had independent state management with properties for generation capacity, current load, failure probability, and connection topology. The simulation ran in discrete time steps with a configurable speed. Power routing used a modified shortest-path algorithm that accounted for line capacity constraints. When a node failed, the load redistribution cascaded through connected nodes — and if the redistributed load exceeded capacity on neighboring nodes, they could fail too, triggering realistic cascading blackouts.

The heat wave simulation wasn't just "reduce capacity by X percent." It modeled thermal derating curves where generation capacity dropped non-linearly as temperature increased. The cyber attack scenario introduced targeted failures at high-connectivity nodes — the attack vector that would cause maximum cascade damage.

Running the simulation, I watched a grid of 2,000 nodes handle normal operation smoothly, then introduced a simulated heat wave in one region. Generation capacity dropped. Load shifted to neighboring regions. A few overloaded nodes tripped offline. The cascade propagated visually across the grid. And then — this is what impressed me most — the self-healing mechanism kicked in, rerouting power through alternative paths and gradually restoring service.

Was the physics simplified? Of course. A real power grid simulator accounts for reactive power, voltage stability, and frequency response that this model didn't attempt. But the structural approach was correct. The engineering reasoning was sound. The failure modes were realistic enough to be educational.

If you've made it this far, you're seeing the same pattern I saw: Deepthink doesn't just write code. It reasons about systems. That's the difference.

The Places Where Deepthink Stumbled

I'd be doing you a disservice if I only talked about the wins. I spent enough time with this model to find its limits, and knowing where an AI model falls short is honestly more useful than knowing where it shines.

SVG generation was underwhelming. I asked for a photorealistic butterfly in SVG format. What came back was... fine. Adequate. The kind of output you'd expect from a mid-range model. Clean paths, reasonable coloring, but nothing approaching the photorealistic SVG work I've seen other developers achieve with the same model. This tells me the issue is likely prompting — Deepthink's strength is reasoning, not aesthetic generation, and getting visual quality out of it requires very specific prompting techniques I haven't dialed in yet.

Landing page design was good but not exceptional. The model produced a modern, minimalistic front-end with smooth scrolling and dynamic typography. Solid work. But I've gotten comparable output from Claude Sonnet and GPT-4o for simpler generation tasks. Deepthink's advantage shows up in complex, multi-system problems — not in single-page designs where the reasoning depth isn't needed.

Context window pressure was real. On the longer generations like the power grid simulator, I noticed the model occasionally losing consistency in variable naming between early and late sections of the code. A function parameter called nodeCapacity in one section became node_capacity later. Not a logic error, but a sign that the extended reasoning chain taxes the model's coherence over very long outputs.

Speed is not its strength. Deepthink is slow compared to standard Gemini 3 or Claude Sonnet. The reasoning tokens add significant latency. For the power grid simulator, generation took several minutes. If you need fast iteration cycles, this model will frustrate you. It's built for hard problems where getting the answer right matters more than getting it fast.

Here's the honest truth: Deepthink is a specialist tool. Asking it to write a basic CRUD API is like hiring a structural engineer to hang a picture frame. It'll do it, but you're wasting its strengths and paying for capabilities you don't need.

How to Actually Get the Best Results From Deepthink

Based on my testing, here's what separates mediocre Deepthink output from impressive results. And this matters because the prompt engineering patterns for reasoning-optimized models differ significantly from what works with general-purpose models.

Step 1: Define the problem space explicitly.

Don't say "build a game." Say "build a voxel-based browser game with the following systems: terrain generation using 3D Perlin noise, block placement and destruction with raycasting, basic physics with gravity and collision detection, an inventory system tracking 5 block types, and sound effects for placement and destruction events. Single HTML file with inline JavaScript."

Deepthink's reasoning engine is most powerful when it has clear constraints and system boundaries to reason within. Ambiguous prompts produce ambiguous results.

Step 2: Specify the architecture, not just the output.

I got dramatically better results when I included architectural guidance in my prompts. "Use an entity-component system for game objects" or "implement the power routing as a modified Dijkstra's algorithm with capacity constraints" — these hints don't limit the model. They give its reasoning chain a structure to build around.

Step 3: Request explicit reasoning before code.

This is the single biggest tip I can share. Add "First, outline your architectural approach and identify the three hardest technical challenges. Then implement" to your prompts. When Deepthink reasons about the problem before coding, the output quality jumps noticeably. The model seems to allocate its reasoning budget more effectively when forced to plan first.

Step 4: Use staged complexity.

For the most impressive results, I found that starting with a core system and then asking Deepthink to extend it produced better output than asking for everything at once. "Build the base grid simulation with 500 nodes and power routing. Then I'll ask you to add failure cascading." Two focused reasoning passes outperformed one sprawling one.

Step 5: Be specific about failure modes.

When I asked for "error handling," I got generic try-catch blocks. When I asked for "handle the case where a node receives redistributed load exceeding 140% of rated capacity, triggering a protection relay with a 200ms delay before disconnection, and log the cascade path for debugging," I got realistic engineering behavior. Deepthink rewards specificity with specificity.

Pro tip: If you're generating complex simulations or multi-system applications, ask Deepthink to output the code with section comments marking each system boundary. This makes debugging infinitely easier and helps you verify that each subsystem's logic is sound before running the whole thing.

The Pricing Reality — Is It Worth $250 a Month?

Let's talk money, because this model isn't cheap and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.

Gemini 3 Deepthink is currently available through Google's AI Ultra subscription. The introductory pricing runs approximately $125 per month for the first three months. After that, you're looking at roughly $250 monthly.

That's more expensive than ChatGPT Plus, Claude Pro, and most other AI subscriptions combined. Google is also planning an API access program for developers, but details on pricing and availability are still pending.

So is it worth it? That depends entirely on what you're using it for.

If you're a competitive programmer, a researcher working on complex mathematical problems, or an engineer building simulations — the reasoning capability is genuinely unmatched right now. The $250/month pays for itself if it saves you even a few hours of debugging time on hard problems.

If you're writing blog posts, generating marketing copy, or building standard web applications? Not even close to worth it. Standard Claude Sonnet or GPT-4o will handle those tasks just as well for a fraction of the cost.

I keep Claude as my daily driver for coding, writing, and general AI work. Deepthink I'd use the way I use a specialized IDE — I pull it out when I hit a problem that specifically needs deep reasoning, and I put it away when the task is straightforward.

My honest recommendation: try the introductory rate for a month. Throw your hardest unsolved problems at it. If the results justify $250/month for your specific use case, you'll know within the first week. If they don't, cancel before the price doubles.

What This Means for the AI Landscape — And Why I'm Watching Closely

Here's where I want to share something I've been thinking about since testing Deepthink, because it extends beyond just one model.

The arms race between Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI just shifted from "who has the best general model" to "who has the best reasoning model." OpenAI started this with o1 and o3. Anthropic responded with extended thinking in Claude. Now Google has dropped Deepthink, and the Ark AGI 2 score suggests they might be leading the pack on raw reasoning capability.

What interests me — and honestly, what slightly concerns me — is the Ark AGI 2 result. Scoring 84.6 on a test designed to measure abstract reasoning capability, verified independently, and surpassing human baseline performance? That's not just an impressive benchmark. That's data suggesting meaningful progress toward artificial general intelligence.

I'm not saying AGI is around the corner. The model still can't independently learn from experience, set its own goals, or transfer skills between domains it wasn't trained on. But the reasoning depth I observed in my testing — the ability to hold complex system architectures in context, reason about failure modes, and produce structurally sound engineering solutions — that's not just pattern matching anymore. Something qualitatively different is happening.

The practical implication for developers: the models you build with today will be obsolete in their reasoning capabilities within 12-18 months. Design your AI-integrated systems with swappable model layers. Hard-code as little model-specific behavior as possible. The model that's best for your use case in February 2026 probably won't be the best model for your use case in February 2027.

And here's a prediction I'll put on record: by the end of 2026, reasoning-optimized models like Deepthink will be the standard, not the premium exception. The price will come down. The speed will improve. And the developers who learned to prompt for deep reasoning now will have a significant advantage over those who waited.

The Results That Changed My Daily Workflow

After six hours of testing, here's what concretely changed in how I work:

For complex architecture decisions, I now start with Deepthink. Before this testing, I'd sketch system architectures manually and use Claude for implementation. Now I give Deepthink the full problem space — constraints, failure modes, performance requirements — and use its architectural output as a starting point. The power grid simulator test proved it can reason about system design at a level that saves me hours of whiteboarding.

For debugging hard problems, Deepthink finds logical errors that other models miss. I gave it a section of a concurrent processing pipeline that had a subtle race condition — a bug I'd spent three hours hunting manually. Deepthink identified it in the first pass and explained why the lock ordering created the deadlock potential. That alone justified the subscription cost for the month.

For learning new domains, the model's ability to reason through unfamiliar territory is exceptional. I asked it to explain quaternion rotation mathematics in the context of 3D printing orientation optimization — a topic at the intersection of math and engineering that I only partially understood. The explanation was the clearest I'd encountered, complete with worked examples and intuitive analogies.

What I don't use it for: quick coding tasks, content generation, standard API integrations, or anything where speed matters more than depth. Claude Opus 4.6 remains my primary tool for daily development work. Deepthink is the specialist I call in for the hardest 5% of problems.

The quick win: if you're currently stuck on a complex technical problem — something you've been circling for days — try throwing it at Deepthink with maximum context. Describe the problem, what you've tried, what failed, and what constraints exist. The cost of a month's subscription is worth it if it unblocks even one project that's been stalled.

The Real Question Nobody's Asking Yet

I started this piece at 2 PM on a random Tuesday, expecting to spend an hour kicking the tires on another AI model update. Six hours later, I was watching a self-healing power grid simulation recover from a cascading cyber attack — code generated in a single pass by an AI that reasons better than most engineers I've worked with.

Google didn't just ship a faster model. They shipped a fundamentally different kind of thinking machine. Whether Deepthink specifically ends up being the model that matters long-term, or whether Claude or GPT catches up in their next release, is almost beside the point. The capability exists now. The reasoning depth is real. The benchmark results are verified.

So here's the question I've been sitting with, and I'll leave you with it: if an AI can already reason through complex engineering problems, design sound software architectures, and catch logical errors that experienced humans miss — what does your engineering career look like in three years if you're not building alongside these tools?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely working through the answer myself. And I think the developers who start answering it now are going to be the ones who thrive in whatever comes next.

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