GPT Image 2.5 Flare vs Sunburst: OpenAI's Image Models Compared

OpenAI has released GPT Image 2.5, the successor to GPT Image 2, which was already widely regarded as one of the strongest image generation models available. The surprise is that this is not a single update. OpenAI has shipped two distinct models under the 2.5 name, each aimed at a different priority. To understand how much has really changed, we looked at a side by side comparison of 15 images generated across all three models, along with the speed and cost of each generation.

Two Models, Two Different Promises

The new release splits into GPT Image 2.5 Flare and GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst.

GPT Image 2.5 Flare: Same Quality, Half the Wait

Flare is designed to match the output quality of GPT Image 2 while cutting latency by around 50%. In other words, the pitch is the same images, delivered in roughly half the time.

GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst: Quality First

Sunburst keeps generation speed broadly in line with the previous model, but aims for the highest image quality OpenAI has produced so far. It is the flagship of the pair.

OpenAI's Focus on Image Editing

Beyond raw generation, one of the clearest themes in OpenAI's launch material is editing. Anyone who has tried to adjust an AI generated image will recognise the problem: you ask for one small change, and the model reworks the entire picture, or ignores the request altogether. OpenAI's own examples, such as placing an existing subject into a new background, are built to show that the 2.5 models can make targeted changes while leaving the rest of the image intact. The independent tests below suggest this claim largely holds up.

Speed and Cost at a Glance

In the first test, a Swiss style exhibition poster, the timings told the story clearly. GPT Image 2 took around 120 seconds, Flare around 40 seconds, and Sunburst around 65 seconds. All three cost roughly the same, at about 21 cents per image.

A Note on Quality Tiers

GPT Image 2 tops out at a "high" quality setting, while Flare and Sunburst add a higher "max" tier. The comparison pitted each model at its best setting, so the 2.5 models were running at a tier the older model simply does not offer. Lower tiers remain available for anyone prioritising cost.

How the Models Compared Across 15 Images

Typography and Layout

On the exhibition poster with the headline "Made of Light", GPT Image 2 squeezed the full headline onto a single line, which looked cramped. Flare and Sunburst both split the text across two lines for a cleaner layout, with Sunburst producing the most balanced composition. When asked to change only the headline to "Shaped by Light", all three models handled the edit well.

Photorealism and the End of the "AI Texture"

This is where the newer models start to pull ahead. In a documentary style photo of a baker braiding dough on a flour dusted bench, all three results looked professional, but GPT Image 2 produced a braid that did not quite resemble a real one. Sunburst offered the most convincing composition.

A still life of fruit was more revealing. GPT Image 2 rendered apples and pears that looked too perfect, a common giveaway of AI imagery. Flare and Sunburst added natural blemishes, dots and surface texture that made the fruit far more believable.

Perhaps the most significant improvement is in backgrounds. GPT Image 2 had a persistent habit of adding a strange, distorted texture to flat areas of colour, a subtle but reliable sign that an image was machine generated. Flare and Sunburst have largely eliminated this. It is not flawless, but flat surfaces now look like flat surfaces, and the same improvement showed up again in an exploded mechanical assembly test.

Fine Detail and Prompt Accuracy

In a perfume bottle product shot, all three models performed strongly. The difference was in the small details: only Sunburst showed the dip tube running all the way down into the liquid, while Flare stopped short and GPT Image 2 omitted it entirely.

A technical diagram of a simple series circuit exposed the gap more clearly. The prompt asked for standard electrical symbols. GPT Image 2 drew a literal glowing light bulb, which looks right at first glance but does not follow the convention. Flare and Sunburst both used the correct symbol. Only Sunburst drew the switch as properly closed, as the prompt specified.

Targeted Edits

The editing tests reinforced OpenAI's claims. Asked to open the switch in the circuit diagram and turn off the bulb, Sunburst made exactly that change. Flare introduced a small glitch, and GPT Image 2 removed the switch entirely.

In an architectural scene, the models were asked to swap an arched window for a circular one while keeping everything else unchanged. GPT Image 2 shifted the camera angle and the lighting along with the window. Flare and Sunburst returned practically the same image, with only the window altered. For anyone who relies on iterative editing, this is arguably the most meaningful upgrade in the release.

Signage, Characters and Everyday Snapshots

On multilingual signage, Sunburst produced the most realistic wall and lettering, while GPT Image 2 had the over detailed look and colour cast typical of AI images. In a cartoon character continuity test, all three performed well, with the 2.5 models producing slightly more vibrant results.

The natural smartphone style snapshot was the one test where Sunburst did not come out on top. Flare looked the most authentic, with background text that blended in naturally, while GPT Image 2's signage looked suspiciously perfect. Results like this can vary between runs, but it is a useful reminder that Flare is not simply the budget option.

Complex and Surreal Scenes

Architecture, motion and fluid physics tests (a strawberry dropping into water, for instance) produced strong, similar results across all three models. The most demanding prompt, a surreal scene of a giant porcelain teapot floating above a desert and pouring a waterfall into a circular pool, separated them again. GPT Image 2 poured the water into the sand rather than the pool. Flare and Sunburst both followed the instruction exactly.

Which Model Makes Sense When?

The pattern across the tests is consistent. For straightforward images where all three models perform similarly, Flare is the logical default, delivering comparable or better quality in roughly half the time. Sunburst earns its place when precision matters: technical diagrams, fine product details, complex multi element scenes and careful edits.

Is GPT Image 2 Now Obsolete?

Not entirely. It still produces very good images, particularly natural snapshot style photos. But with the cost per image essentially unchanged, there is little reason to choose it over the newer models.

The Bottom Line

GPT Image 2.5 is a genuine step forward rather than a minor refresh. Its two biggest wins are not flashy: much more faithful adherence to instructions, and the removal of the background texture that so often gave AI images away. Add a faster model that matches the old quality at the same price, and a quality focused model that rarely missed a detail in testing, and this release looks set to become the new reference point for AI image generation.