Quick Links
Standard AI models deliver pattern-matched responses, delivering accurate but limited answers to your questions. That all changed with the arrival of AI reasoning models that can “think” through your questions and problems step by step. You still receive your answer, but there are some important distinctions between AI reasoning and non-reasoning models.
Problem-Solving Approaches
When you ask a prompt, reasoning AI models likeDeepSeek-R1, a Chinese-developed AI model, don’t just spit out answers immediately. Instead, they generate multiple “chains of thought” traces.
Reasoning models analyze different logical paths before settling on the one that makes the most sense. That is why many people startedusing DeepSeek despite its privacy issues. However, besides DeepSeek, other reasoning AI models like ChatGPT-o1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, xAI Grok 3, and Alibaba’s QwQ are also available.
At first, it seems like watching someone work through a math problem on scratch paper. Traditional AI responds instantly with whatever pattern it recognizes, but reasoning AI deliberately evaluates multiple approaches, so you’ll often have to wait for a few seconds for an answer that would take a standard model less than a second to generate.
I gave both types of AI models a prompt asking:
If five people are seated at a round table, and each person must sit next to at least one person they know, what’s the minimum number of acquaintance relationships needed?
The non-reasoning model instantly offered “5 relationships” with a brief explanation. Meanwhile, DeepSeek thought for 298 seconds, visibly working through different seating arrangements and concerned edge cases before concluding its three relationships.
This pattern holds true across models like GPT-4o, Claude 3.7, and other experimental reasoning engines. The waiting time isn’t wasted—these models literally think through problems from multiple angles.
Task Performance Comparison
The performance difference in reasoning and non-reasoning models in some tasks is striking. When solving complex math problems, reasoning models consistently outperform their faster counterparts. you may ask both types to solve a multistep algebra problem, and sometimes, only the reasoning model can catch a subtle sign error that may change the answer.
This advantage extends to code debugging, too. Sometimes, the standard model suggests a fix that looks right (and is syntactically correct, too) but introduces a new edge case bug. The reasoning model methodically traces execution paths and finds both the original issue and potential new logical problems its solution might create.
This New Update Makes ChatGPT Essential for Coding
By integrating its Canvas co-editing feature with the advanced o1 reasoning model, ChatGPT has built a coder’s dream platform.
However, I’ve found that reasoning models aren’t always worth the wait for data analysis tasks. When I asked both to interpret a simple dataset showing temperature trends, the non-reasoning model gave me quick insights that were perfectly adequate for my needs.
The reasoning model’s additional analysis didn’t justify the extra nine seconds I waited. I know, nine seconds isn’t that long, but this wait applies to other tasks that don’t necessarily require the extra processing.
Similarly, scientific questions depend on complexity. Basic science queries get equally accurate responses from both types. But sometimes, the standard model confidently states things that physics experts would dispute, while the reasoning model carefully qualifies its statements and acknowledges theoretical debates.
Non-reasoning models still dominate where creativity and conversation matter more than precision. When you ask for a quick poem or story outline or maybeuse AI to write emails, you’d much rather have an instant response than wait for the reasoning model to overthink creative choices with no objectively “right” answer.
4 Reasons Why AI Checkers Might Flag Your Writing
Many schools use AI checkers to flag students suspected of writing with AI. However, these are ineffective and often lead to false-positive flags.
Instant responses feel more natural for simple information retrieval and casual conversation. The reasoning model’s extended thinking time creates awkward pauses that make the interaction feel less human—ironic considering these models are supposedly more advanced.
Processing Power Requirements
The computational demands of reasoning AI models explain the performance difference. These models aren’t just slightly more demanding—they can require 2-5 times the computational resources of their non-reasoning counterparts, directly translating to higher costs.
I Tried Running DeepSeek Locally on My Laptop: Here’s How It Went
It’s surprisingly simple to install DeepSeek on a laptop, and it means you no longer need an internet connection to use an AI chatbot.
This isn’t surprising when you consider how reasoning models are trained. While traditional models primarily learn pattern recognition from massive text datasets, reasoning models undergo additional training phases focused on deliberate problem-solving. They’re essentially taught to generate multiple solution paths and evaluate them, requiring significantly more computational resources.
This is why reasoning capabilities are typically found in premium AI services rather than free tiers. In my testing, running complex reasoning queries through Claude 3.7 Sonnet’s reasoning model cost noticeably more than Claude’s non-reasoning model.
The environmental impact shouldn’t be overlooked, either. These energy-hungry models have a larger carbon footprint, which matters at scale. We should start being more selective about when we use reasoning capabilities, saving them for tasks where precision truly matters rather than everyday queries that standard models handle adequately.
Making the Right Choice
Choosing between reasoning and non-reasoning AI models comes down to weighing speed against reliability. For work like financial analysis or research, I’ll always opt for reasoning models despite the wait. The stakes are too high for pattern-matched guesses.
For creative brainstorming or quick information lookup, standard models remain my go-to. The immediate response keeps the workflow flowing, and minor inaccuracies typically don’t have serious consequences. It’s similar to how we might use a calculator for quick math but break out spreadsheet formulas for important budgeting.
The future likely belongs to hybrid systems that can switch intelligently between approaches based on task complexity. Understanding whichprompts work best with reasoning modelsimproves the results, letting you decide which matters more at the moment—speed or deep analysis.
