How Many Parameters does GPT-5 have

OpenAI has not published an official parameter count for GPT-5 — from around 1.7–1.8 trillion parameters (dense-model style estimates) to tens of trillions if you count the total capacity of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) style architectures. None of these numbers are officially confirmed, and differences in architecture (dense vs. MoE), parameter sharing, sparsity and quantization make a single headline number misleading.

What does OpenAI say about GPT-5’s size and architecture?

OpenAI’s public materials about GPT-5 emphasize capabilities, APIs and new controls rather than raw parameter counts. The company’s product and developer pages introduce GPT-5’s features — improved coding, a new verbosity parameter, and new reasoning controls — but do not disclose a “parameters = X” figure. For example, OpenAI’s official GPT-5 pages and developer documentation describe capabilities and configuration knobs but omit a parameter-count specification.

Why that silence matters

Parameter counts used to be a simple shorthand for model scale. Today they’re less informative alone: model design choices (Mixture-of-Experts, parameter sharing, quantization), training compute, data quality, and algorithmic changes can produce big capability differences without a proportional change in published parameter totals. OpenAI’s focus on features and safety improvements reflects that shift: they highlight performance, safety tests, and API controls more than raw size.

What independent estimates exist — and how widely do they differ?

Because OpenAI didn’t publish the number,Our team makes an estimate based on several scenarios that have produced estimates and hypotheses. These cluster into a few categories:

• ~1.7–1.8 trillion parameters (dense-style estimate). Several analyses compare benchmark performance, pricing, and historical scaling to estimate GPT-5 is in the low-trillion parameter range — similar order of magnitude to some estimates for GPT-4. These estimates are cautious and treat GPT-5 as a dense model of extended scale rather than an enormous MoE system.
• Tens of trillions (MoE-style totals). Other reports suggest GPT-5 (or some GPT-5 variants) use a Mixture-of-Experts approach where the total number of parameters across all experts can reach dozens of trillions — for example, a claimed 52.5 trillion-parameter MoE configuration has circulated in industry commentary. MoE systems only activate a subset of experts per token, so “total parameters” and “active parameters per forward pass” are very different metrics.
• Conservative takes that avoid a single number. Some technical write-ups and aggregators emphasize that parameter count alone is a poor proxy and thus decline to give a definitive figure, preferring to analyze performance, latency, pricing and architectural trade-offs.

These differences matter: a “1.8T dense” and a “50T MoE total” claim are not directly comparable — the former implies a dense matrix applied on every token, the latter implies a sparse activation pattern that makes effective compute and memory usage very different.

How can different sources produce such different numbers?

There are several technical and contextual reasons estimates diverge.

(a) Dense vs. sparse (Mixture-of-Experts) architectures

A dense transformer applies the same weight matrices to every token; a dense model’s parameter count is the number of stored weights. An MoE model stores many expert sub-models but activates only a small subset per token. People sometimes report the total count of expert parameters (which can be enormous) while others report an effective per-token activated parameter count (much smaller). That mismatch produces wildly different headline numbers.

(b) Parameter sharing and efficient representations

Modern production models often use parameter-sharing tricks, low-rank adapters, or aggressive quantization. These reduce memory footprint and change how you should count “parameters” for practical capacity. Two models with the same raw parameter count can behave very differently if one uses shared weights or compression.

(c) Public-facing economics and product packaging

Companies may expose different model variants (e.g., GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, GPT-5-instant) with different internal sizes and cost profiles. Pricing, latency and throughput for those variants give analysts indirect clues — but those clues require assumptions about batching, hardware and software stacks that introduce error.

(d) Deliberate nondisclosure and competitive reasons

OpenAI and other companies increasingly treat certain architecture details as proprietary. That reduces what can be learned from first-principles counting and forces the community to rely on indirect inferences (benchmarks, latency, reported infrastructure partners), which are noisy.

Which of the published estimates are the most credible?

Short assessment

No single public source is authoritative; credibility depends on methods:

• Analyses that triangulate from benchmarks, pricing and inference latency (e.g., careful industry technical blogs) are useful but necessarily approximate.
• Claims of enormous total parameter counts are plausible if the architecture is MoE — but those totals are not directly comparable to dense models and often come from extrapolation rather than primary evidence. Treat them as a different metric.
• OpenAI’s silence on the number is, itself, an important data point: the company is emphasizing behavior, safety, and API controls over raw counts.

How to weigh the numbers

If you need a working assumption for engineering or procurement: model behavior (latency, throughput, cost per token, correctness on your tasks) matters more than an unverified parameter total. If you must use a numerical estimate for modeling cost, conservatively assume a low-trillion order magnitude unless you have direct evidence of MoE and its activation patterns; if MoE is present, ask whether the metric is total vs active parameters before using the number for capacity planning.

Does parameter count still predict performance?

Short answer: partly, but less reliably than before.

The historical view

Scaling laws showed a strong correlation between model size, compute and performance for certain benchmarks. Increasing parameters (and matched compute/data) historically improved capabilities in a predictable way. However, those laws assume similar architectures and training regimens.

The modern caveats

Today, architectural innovations (Mixture-of-Experts, better optimization, chain-of-thought training, instruction-tuning), training data curation and targeted fine-tuning (RLHF, tool use integration) can increase capability much more per parameter than naive scaling. OpenAI’s GPT-5 announcements emphasize reasoning controls and developer parameters like verbosity and reasoning_effort — design choices that change user experience without anyone needing to know a single parameter count.

So: parameter count is one predictor among many; it is neither necessary nor sufficient to characterize model usefulness.

What do the latest news stories say about GPT-5 beyond size?

Recent reporting focuses on capability, safety, and product choices rather than raw scale. News outlets have covered OpenAI’s claims that GPT-5 reduces political bias in its outputs, that new age-gating and content-policy changes are forthcoming, and that OpenAI is iterating to make the model both more useful and more controllable for developers. These are product and policy signals that matter more in practice than an undisclosed parameter tally.

Practical changes in the product

OpenAI’s developer materials announce new API parameters (verbosity, reasoning effort, custom tools) designed to let developers trade off speed, detail and thinking depth. Those knobs are concrete and immediately actionable for developers who must decide which GPT-5 variant or setting fits their product.

What should researchers and engineers do if they need to plan capacity or cost?

Don’t rely on a single “parameters” number

Use empirical benchmarking on your workload. Measure latency, throughput, token cost and accuracy on representative prompts. Those metrics are what you’ll pay for and what your users will experience. Models with similar parameter counts can have very different real-world costs.

If you must pick a parameter-based assumption

Document whether you’re modeling total parameters (useful for storage and some licensing discussions) versus active parameters per token (useful for runtime memory/compute). If a public estimate is used, cite its source and its assumptions (MoE vs dense, quantization, whether weights are shared).

Monitor official docs and OpenAI’s stated changes

OpenAI publishes API features and pricing that directly affect cost; those are more actionable than speculative parameter counts. Watch the developer pages and release notes for variant names, pricing, and latency tiers.

So — how many parameters does GPT-5 have, finally?

There is no single authoritative public answer because OpenAI has not published a parameter count and third-party estimates diverge. The best, honest summary:

• OpenAI: No public parameter count; focus is on capability, safety, and developer controls.
• Independent cautious estimates: Many analyses suggest a low-trillion order magnitude (≈1.7–1.8T) if you model GPT-5 as a dense transformer of scaled size. Treat this as an estimate, not a fact.
• MoE/total-parameter claims: There are circulating claims (e.g., ~52.5T) that refer to total expert capacity in a hypothetical MoE configuration. These are not directly comparable to dense counts and are dependent on activation behavior.

Final takeaways

1. Parameter counts are informative but incomplete. They help build intuition about scale, but modern LLM capability depends on architecture, training data, compute, and fine-tuning.
2. OpenAI doesn’t publish GPT-5’s parameter total. Analysts therefore rely on indirect signals and assumptions; expect a range of estimates.
3. MoE totals vs. dense counts: If you see a headline “tens of trillions,” check whether it refers to total MoE experts or active parameters per token — they’re not the same.
4. Benchmarks beat speculation for product decisions. Measure the model on the tasks you care about (accuracy, latency, cost). The API settings OpenAI provides (verbosity, reasoning effort) will likely matter more than an unverified total-parameter number.

How to call GPT-5 API more cheaply?

CometAPI is a unified API platform that aggregates over 500 AI models from leading providers—such as OpenAI’s GPT series, Google’s Gemini, Anthropic’s Claude, Midjourney, Suno, and more—into a single, developer-friendly interface. By offering consistent authentication, request formatting, and response handling, CometAPI dramatically simplifies the integration of AI capabilities into your applications. Whether you’re building chatbots, image generators, music composers, or data‐driven analytics pipelines, CometAPI lets you iterate faster, control costs, and remain vendor-agnostic—all while tapping into the latest breakthroughs across the AI ecosystem.

Developers can access GPT-5  and GPT-5 Pro API through CometAPI, the latest model version is always updated with the official website. To begin, explore the model’s capabilities in the Playground and consult the API guide for detailed instructions. Before accessing, please make sure you have logged in to CometAPI and obtained the API key. CometAPI offer a price far lower than the official price to help you integrate.

Ready to Go?→ Sign up for CometAPI today !

If you want to know more tips, guides and news on AI follow us on VK, X and Discord!