Skip to content

When to Train an LLM From Scratch: A Decision Tree and the Full Cost Ladder

Sep 6, 20261 min
TL;DRTraining from scratch only makes sense in three cases: you want to learn how training works, you have 10B+ clean tokens no open model has seen, or you need a fully transparent training process for research. Otherwise fine-tuning or RAG is almost always cheaper. This post collapses the series' main routes into one cost ladder and a decision tree.

Look up & save

Loading dictionary…

中文版

Every route this series walked can be seen through one lens: MiniMind at $0.40, nanochat at $100, the Chinese community's small models, YuLan-Mini squeezing value from every token, and the industrially fully-open OLMo 3 and LLM360 — plus the national, efficiency, and framework routes that followed. This post collapses them into one question: which route should you take — or none at all.

The cost ladder

"Training from scratch" isn't one action; it's a spectrum spanning five orders of magnitude:

InvestmentExampleWhat you get
~3 RMB / 2 hoursMiniMind (64M)A teaching sample of the full training chain; the model itself is unusable
~$100 / 4 hoursnanochat (8×H100)A conversational ChatGPT clone, below GPT-2 level
~$300 / 12 hoursnanochat midGPT-2 equivalent on CORE metrics
~$1,000 / 41 hoursnanochat fullMore coherent; solves simple math and coding problems
Thousands of GPU-hoursYuLan-Mini (2.4B, 1.08T tokens)Math/coding rivaling much larger models, but demands data engineering skill
Tens of thousands of GPU-hoursOLMo 3 (32B), LLM360 K2 (65B)Frontier-research-grade models with fully transparent training

How to read this table matters more than the numbers: each step up swaps the bottleneck for a different one. At 3 RMB the gate is reading the code; at $100 it's operating a multi-GPU node; at YuLan-Mini it's data curriculum design; at OLMo scale it's systems engineering plus budget.

The decision tree

Ask what you actually want:

Understand how training works → MiniMind or nanochat. The former runs on one GPU in the Chinese ecosystem and covers through Agentic RL; the latter is a full-stack strong baseline in the English ecosystem, closer to industrial practice. Run both and your understanding of LLMs will surpass most people who've only fine-tuned. For the theory behind it, our Stanford CS336 course guides are the companion material.

Teach a model your domain data → almost never from scratch. If LoRA, full fine-tuning, or RAG can solve it, pretraining from zero trades tens of thousands of dollars for a worse result. The only exception: you hold 10B+ clean tokens no open model has seen (rare languages, proprietary domains, closed-industry corpora). In that case, study YuLan-Mini's data-efficiency recipe first — it proves data quality and curriculum design can save an order of magnitude of compute.

Research requiring transparency → OLMo 3 or LLM360. Weights, data, every checkpoint, training logs, all open. If you need to trace a model output back to its training data, this is the only route that can.

Train production models → use mature frameworks like verl and Llama-Factory, building on public recipes from OLMo and Marin. Don't rewrite a trainer.

When not to train

The honest list:

  • "The model should know my documents" → RAG, one afternoon
  • "The model should answer in my format" → fine-tuning
  • "The model needs fresh knowledge" → RAG or re-fine-tuning
  • "I want my own model" but the use case is unclear → clarify the use case first; the answer is usually an API

From-scratch pretraining in 2026 resembles building your own PC: enormous learning value, usually negative economic value. But "not economical" doesn't mean "not worth it" — that's the entire reason this series exists.

The takeaway

Recapping the spectrum: MiniMind pushed the entry bar down to where anyone can run it; Karpathy's nanochat shows the industrial-grade floor one person can maintain; the Chinese community projects prove the data ecosystem matters more than the architecture; YuLan-Mini takes data efficiency to its limit; OLMo and LLM360 define the ceiling of "fully open." These routes don't replace each other — they answer different questions. The only mistake to avoid is running a flagship with toy-project expectations, or dismissing educational projects because they can't do flagship work.

References