Will Growing Context Window Size Kill RAG ?
Models vs Context Window Size

Will Growing Context Window Size Kill RAG ?

There’s a growing misconception in the AI space off-late (May 2025): “Now that we have massive context windows, RAG is no longer necessary.” RAG could face a gradual decline in relevance and become obsolete. That couldn’t be more wrong.

Before we continue, let’s first explore the dramatic increase in context window sizes.

  • Anthropic's Claude 4 with 1M token context (released April 2025)
  • OpenAI's new models including GPT-o4 (1M tokens) and GPT-o4 mini (512K tokens)
  • Google's Gemini 2.5 Ultra with 5M token context
  • Meta's Llama Horizon+ with their impressive 15M token context window
  • Deepseek's newer models including Deepseek-V3 (1M tokens) and Deepseek-V2 Extended+ (8M tokens)
  • Mistral's new offerings including Mistral Nemo (1M tokens) and Mistral Large 2.5 (256K tokens)
  • Perplexity models with their respective context windows: Perplexity Express (512K tokens) Perplexity Pro (256K tokens) Perplexity Online (128K tokens)

Here is the data for all the latest AI model context window sizes as of May 12, 2025. The data clearly shows the industry trend toward much larger context windows, with Meta leading at 15M tokens, followed by Google's and Meta's 10M token models.

Article content
Model Context Window Sizes
Article content
Top 10 Models with High Context Window Sizes Across All Companies
Article content
All Models with High Context Window Sizes Across All Companies
Article content
Models from Meta
Article content
Models from OpenAI
Article content
Models from Google
Article content
Models from Anthropic
Article content
Models from Deepseek
Why RAG Will Still Be Relevant !        

Let’s break down why Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is still absolutely essential - regardless of how large the context window gets.

1. Large context means slow responses. When you load an entire knowledge base into the context window, you're forcing the model to sift through a mountain of information on every request. This significantly increases latency. In real-world apps, that can mean response times stretching beyond 30 seconds. Users won’t wait - they’ll bounce.

2. More tokens introduce more risk. Feeding a model too much information doesn’t just slow things down - it can confuse the model. Irrelevant or conflicting content clutters the prompt, and I’ve seen firsthand how this leads to hallucinations and inconsistent answers. More isn’t always better.

3. Large context windows are expensive. Every token you feed into an LLM costs money. If you're pushing a million tokens through just to get a simple answer, your infrastructure bill will skyrocket. RAG lets you keep things lean, delivering only the most relevant 5K tokens for a fraction of the cost.

4. Context gets bloated quickly in conversations. In multi-turn interactions (few-shot), a large portion of your context window gets eaten up just by chat history. That leaves less room for useful knowledge. Without smart retrieval, you’ll quickly run into limits - even with 15M-token windows.

5. RAG scales better - by design. When you're working with large, dynamic datasets (like enterprise knowledge bases, document repositories, or user-generated content), it’s simply not feasible to cram everything into a prompt. RAG lets you retrieve only what's needed, when it’s needed - no matter how big your backend data grows. That means you can scale your system without ballooning prompt size or model cost.

6. Better performance under load. In production environments, performance isn't just about how fast one request runs - it's about how well your system handles thousands of concurrent requests. RAG enables leaner prompts and faster execution times, allowing for lower latency and higher throughput. With proper caching, chunking, and semantic search, RAG pipelines can serve high volumes of users with consistent speed and accuracy.

When RAG Won't Be Necessary !        

As context windows grow (e.g. 10M–15M tokens), RAG won't always be necessary. There are specific use cases where large context alone can outperform or simplify the system by removing retrieval altogether.

Here are the main scenarios where RAG may not be needed:

1. Static, Small-to-Medium Knowledge Bases

If your entire knowledge base is relatively small (say, under a few million tokens) and doesn't change frequently, you can just load the whole thing into the context window. This is common in:

  • Personal assistants with limited scope
  • Product FAQs or manuals
  • Small-scale internal tools

Why RAG may be overkill: Retrieval adds complexity, and if you can fit everything in context with acceptable latency and cost, there's no need to engineer a separate pipeline.

2. High-context Document Understanding

For tasks like summarization, Q&A, or analysis over a single very long document—e.g., a 500-page contract, transcript, or legal filing - a large context window allows the model to "see" the entire document at once.

Why RAG doesn’t help here: You're not searching across documents - you want the whole thing visible for comprehension. Long context models win.

3. Synthetic Memory for Agents

With long context, autonomous agents (like planning systems or AI copilots) can retain much longer memory across turns without needing retrieval or summarization.

Why RAG is less useful: Long context allows agents to remember past steps and intermediate reasoning inline, rather than fetching from a vector store or memory index.

4. Exploratory or Creative Use Cases

When the prompt is user-driven and not fact-heavy - such as brainstorming, storytelling, or coding with minimal external knowledge - long context helps keep the thread coherent without retrieval.

Why RAG isn't needed: There’s no external corpus to pull from, and coherence matters more than factual grounding.

However...

Even in these cases, you’re trading off cost, speed, and efficiency. Large context can enable skipping RAG, but that doesn’t always make it the smartest or most scalable solution.

Cost, Speed, Efficiency Trade-Offs        

The cost per call increases significantly with a larger context window like 10-15 million tokens due to multiple reasons i.e.

1. You pay per token - input and output.

Most LLMs charge based on the number of tokens in your prompt (input) and the response (output). So if you're using a 10M-token context, you're paying for all 10 million tokens, even if only a tiny portion is relevant to the actual task.

For example:

  • A call with a 5K-token input might cost fractions of a cent.
  • A call with 10M-token input can cost hundreds of times more, depending on the model's pricing.

2. Latency also scales with context size.

The longer the prompt, the more time it takes to process. This can slow down response times dramatically, which has indirect cost implications:

  • Slower UX → higher user drop-off
  • More server time used per request → higher infra cost
  • Lower concurrency → reduced scalability

3. Inefficiency drives up compute waste.

In many cases, only a fraction of the 10M tokens is actually relevant to the query. The rest is "dead weight" that the model still has to process, leading to:

  • Wasted compute
  • Higher energy usage
  • Poor cost-to-performance ratio

4. Not all providers optimize large context well.

Even with support for massive context windows, not all models are efficient at searching within that context. Some might still exhibit degraded accuracy or higher hallucination rates unless guided properly (which RAG helps with).

Token Cost Comparison        

Token Cost Comparison – OpenAI GPT-4-turbo (GPT-4o)

Finer details of tokens are covered in my previous article Monumental rise in AI reasoning: o1 to o4-mini.

Article content

Assumptions:

  • Only counting input token cost here (no output cost).
  • Based on GPT-4o pricing:

Key Takeaways:

  • At 10M tokens, a single prompt costs $50 just for input - not counting output or retries.
  • Compare that with ~5K tokens using RAG, which would cost $0.025 - that’s 2,000× cheaper.
  • Multiply this by thousands of users or frequent requests, and the cost difference becomes massive.

Yes, high size i.e. 10M-token context windows can be used, but they are much more expensive per call, and generally less efficient.

For high-scale, cost-sensitive, or latency-critical applications, RAG is usually the smarter approach - delivering only the relevant 1–5K tokens instead of paying for 10M.

Conclusion        

Despite the rapid growth in context window sizes - from hundreds of thousands to now 10M+ tokens - RAG is not only surviving, but thriving. While long context can eliminate the need for retrieval in some narrow cases (like small, static knowledge bases or long single-document tasks), it comes with major trade-offs: high latency, increased hallucination risk, and significantly higher cost per call.

RAG, by contrast, offers a targeted, efficient, and scalable way to feed only the most relevant information to the model, which is essential for real-world applications where performance and cost matter.

As LLMs scale, RAG will evolve alongside them - not vanish. We’ll likely see smarter hybrid systems that combine large context with optimized retrieval, dynamic memory, and agentic reasoning.

RAG won’t always be visible, but it will remain a core architectural component behind any serious AI system handling large or fast-changing data. In short, bigger windows may reduce RAG's role in some use cases, but they’ll never replace the need for smart, efficient information retrieval.

Kristian Poe

Executive Management Consultant | Business Development & Strategic Innovation for Transformative Growth

8h

Great article!

Like
Reply

In my view. Ai Is fundamentally flawed. Typical - input, function, output. AI - inputs, outputs, function (from approximate function to a function) It's the strong short term memory power of human brain that gets it carried away due to intellectual curiosity and misses to cross check detail

Md Sakib Reja

Data Scientist | AI & ML Enthusiast | Python | Data Analysis | Deep Learning | NLP | Generative AI | LangChain | LLMs | RAG | EDA | Predictive Modeling | Azure AI | MLOps | AI Agent | MCP

1d
Like
Reply
Deepali L.

Director of Engineeing

1d

I think, large context window size is going to help LLM vendors generate more revenue per call. App developers should be cautious to minimize such calls. A balanced approach is needed to keep cost low.

To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Vishvambhar D.

  • RAG vs MCP: A Guide to Native AI Apps

    In AI systems, especially retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and model context protocols - choosing between RAG and…

    3 Comments
  • Top 20 Vector DBs Fueling The Agentic AI Rise

    A vector database is a type of database specifically built to store, index, and retrieve data in the form of…

    1 Comment
  • Benchmarks for LLM AI Models

    How Benchmarks Help Evaluate LLMs Major Benchmarks like GSM8K (math reasoning), HumanEval (code generation), and MMLU…

    2 Comments
  • Monumental rise in AI reasoning: o1 to o4-mini

    OpenAI's o4-mini is a reasoning model designed for both text and image processing, while o4-mini-high is a more…

    2 Comments
  • Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) - A Subword Tokenization Method in NLP

    Issue: Language models must balance between using a large vocabulary (to ensure most words are represented as whole…

  • Refining LLM Decisions : RLFT with CoT Reasoning

    The success of large language models (LLMs) has sparked a lot of interest in building agentic applications around them.…

    4 Comments
  • Agentic AI Journey from MAS to MARS - Part 1

    A Multi-Agentic System (MAS) — more commonly known as a Multi-Agent System — is composed of autonomous AI agents that…

    6 Comments

Explore topics