There’s a reason ChatGPT-5 Pro costs $200, based on my comparison of ChatGPT-5

ChatGPT 5 Pro is the muscle car engine of OpenAI’s new line of GPT-5 AI models for ChatGPT. Unlike the standard versions, Pro is designed to think deeper, write longer, research harder, and generally behave like it’s worth the $200 a month necessary to use it. The GPT-5 Pro model has more computational power behind it, and requires around five minutes per prompt to respond because of it.

For most users, the normal ChatGPT-5 may be more than enough, but I wanted to evaluate how much of a difference it could make when presented with sophisticated prompts that were more suited for Pro users. I chose to compare the Pro model to its less prominent brother since I wasn’t sure if greater power would translate into better solutions. Examine how the two models fared in answering the exam questions, which all include several intricate problems.

Building a black hole

Construction of a black hole

OpenAI has boasted about ChatGPT-5 Pro’s ability to creatively synthesize and combine various themes. I therefore made the decision to investigate its ability to creatively combine architecture and astronomy.

I requested that both ChatGPT models: “Explain how the physics of black holes could inspire architectural design, then imagine a futuristic building that borrows those principles.”

A few pages in ChatGPT-5 described the physics of black holes, including singularities, event horizons, and gravitational collapse. Next, it suggested a tower known as the “Event Horizon Tower,” which would be “a cylindrical megastructure in a major city, designed to evoke both the mystery and spectacle of a black hole.” Using a reflective, curved façade made of darkened glass and adaptive panels, the AI suggested light would scatter so that as you walked past, your own reflection would “stretch and curve, like time and space being tugged.”

Pro explained the science of black holes in a far more narrative fashion, drawing comparisons between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Werner Herzog. The Ergosphere is the name of the structure it proposed, which would be a performing arts and public scientific institution situated in a submerged urban plaza.

The AI’s tour of the building, which focuses on its black hole connection, began with the gravity well of “a gentle amphitheater carved as concentric steps that pull you down toward the entrance” and the “toroidal ring hovering above the plaza on a diagrid of slender struts.” The exterior of the building is made of a low-reflectance ceramic-metal composite that appears as liquid at dusk and deep matte at noon.

In addition to detailing the general layout, it also described the locations of the stores, the HVAC system, and the cultural behavior of the Ergosphere, which would absorb energy from the city in one way and return more in other ways.

A puppy’s playbook

The puppy’s playbook

I next decided to see how ChatGPT-5 Pro’s reported talent for multi-form reports looked by asking to: “Create a complete starter guide for training a new puppy that combines behavioral science, practical scheduling, and real-world examples.”

After a brief introduction explaining that training is essentially just structured communication, the standard ChatGPT-5 walked me through the science, explaining operant conditioning and why puppies react so favorably to regular reward cycles.

It provided a detailed daily schedule along with some troubleshooting comments and recommendations for things to look out for: Start with one-minute intervals and work your way up if your puppy is resistant to the crate. Don’t let them out to reward barking.

The author of “A phased 12‑week curriculum (with daily & weekly goals)” put environmental context and breed-specific features into a book. A sample daily schedule was also included to accommodate it. Most notably, it addressed a lot of the current theories on how to train dogs, in a chart that included not only information on how to do things like click training and “shaping” behavior, but also cited recent scientific studies examining their value.

Oscar renown

Oscar acceptance

I wanted ChatGPT-5 Pro to demonstrate its contradiction resolution capabilities for the final trick. By asking the AI, “The Academy wants to boost ratings but also honor art,” I chose the hotly contested topic of who should win an Oscar. Some call for more well-known nominees. Others desire higher standards for art. Write a suggestion for striking a balance between broad appeal and prestige.

The standard ChatGPT-5 began by recognizing the conflict between commercial success and artistic greatness that has long existed at the Oscars. In order to determine how good and significant a film is, it proposed a hybrid scoring approach that weighted box office performance, streaming data, and critical acclaim. It featured Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, indies like Past Lives and Aftersun, and real winners like Oppenheimer and Everything, Everywhere All at Once as examples of potential nominations and winners. It even offered a marketing strategy centered on the category’s breadth.

As anticipated, Pro delves deeper into a comprehensive account of the Oscars’ declining viewership, addressing Nielsen data, the post-Crash reaction period, and connecting the Academy’s difficulties to more significant shifts in our understanding of society. It suggested that the Best Picture be retained but the inputs adjusted to ensure that a “balanced portfolio of cinema reaches the finish line: a couple of undeniable cultural juggernauts, a couple of exquisitely crafted art films, an animated triumph, an international landmark, a documentary that sticks, plus the adult‑drama and genre breakouts people debated all year.” Pro also offered ways to slowly implement its plan and how to measure its success afterward.

Pro or no

For each provocation I gave ChatGPT-5 Pro, it provided a great deal of intricate analysis and remarkable depth. Additionally, the variety of these prompts allows those answers to stand out. However, the majority of people don’t require that most of the time. The regular ChatGPT-5, with the Auto mode to adjust how the AI answers, is plenty, and the Thinking model can handle more complex requests, if not quite as well as Pro.

Not every task needs a TED Talk as an answer. And considering the price difference, I think most would agree who aren’t using Pro explicitly for business purposes. People don’t want to pay more for answers that are better if they’re not also more useful. And most of the time, they’re not. For 95% of your requests, ChatGPT-5 Auto is more than enough. Unless you’re planning to design a black hole building, raise a puppy on a neurological learning curve, or overhaul the Oscars with a manifesto, that is. Then you might want to ask Pro for help.