Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#21

Post by incoming1211 »

Squarex wrote: post #17
827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

I have heard that gemini 3 is not that great in cursor, but excellent in Antigravity. I don't have a time to personally verify all that though.

I think gemini 3 is hot garbage in everything. Its great on a greenfield trying to 1 shot something, if you're working on a long term project it just sucks.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#22

Post by kjgkjhfkjf »

stavros wrote: post #11

Did anyone else notice Sonnet 4.5 being much dumber recently? I tried it today and it was really struggling with some very simple CSS on a 100-line self-contained HTML page. This never used to happen before, and now I'm wondering if this release has something to do with it. On-topic, I love the fact that Opus is now three times cheaper. I hope it's available in Claude Code with the Pro subscription. EDIT: Apparently…

My guess is that Claude's "bad days" are due to the service becoming overloaded and failing over to use cheaper models.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#23

Post by alach11 »

jumploops wrote: post #2

> Pricing is now $5/$25 per million [input/output] tokens So it’s 1/3 the price of Opus 4.1… > [..] matches Sonnet 4.5’s best score on SWE-bench Verified, but uses 76% fewer output tokens …and potentially uses a lot less tokens? Excited to stress test this in Claude Code, looks like a great model on paper!

This is the biggest news of the announcement. Prior Opus models were strong, but the cost was a big limiter of usage. This price point still makes it a "premium" option, but isn't prohibitive.

Also increasingly it's becoming important to look at token usage rather than just token cost. They say Opus 4.5 (with high reasoning) used 50% fewer tokens than Sonnet 4.5. So you get a higher score on SWE-bench verified, you pay more per token, but you use fewer tokens and overall pay less!

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#24

Post by viraptor »

Has there been any announcement of a new programming benchmark? SWE looks like it's close to saturation already. At this point for SWE it may be more interesting to start looking at which types of issues consistently fail/work between model families.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#25

Post by bryanlarsen »

stavros wrote: post #11

Did anyone else notice Sonnet 4.5 being much dumber recently? I tried it today and it was really struggling with some very simple CSS on a 100-line self-contained HTML page. This never used to happen before, and now I'm wondering if this release has something to do with it. On-topic, I love the fact that Opus is now three times cheaper. I hope it's available in Claude Code with the Pro subscription. EDIT: Apparently…

On Friday my Claude was particularly stupid. It's sometimes stupid, but I've never seen it been that consistently stupid. Just assumed it was a fluke, but maybe something was changing.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#26

Post by behnamoh »

827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

i’ve tried Gemini in Google AI studio as well and was very disappointed by the superficial responses it provided. It seems like at the level of GPT-5-low or even lower.

On the other hand, it’s a truly multi modal model whereas Claude remains to be specifically targeted at coding tasks, and therefore is only a text model.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#28

Post by viraptor »

rishabhaiover wrote: post #20
827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

I suspect Cursor is not the right platform to write code on. IMO, humans are lazy and would never code on Cursor. They default to code generation via prompt which is sub-optimal.

> They default to writing code via prompt generation which is sub-optimal.

What do you mean?

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#29

Post by poszlem »

827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

I’ve trashed Gemini non-stop (seriously, check my history on this site), but 3 Pro is the one that finally made me switch from OpenAI. It’s still hot garbage at coding next to Claude, but for general stuff, it’s legit fantastic.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#30

Post by llamasushi »

The burying of the lede here is insane. $5/$25 per MTok is a 3x price drop from Opus 4. At that price point, Opus stops being "the model you use for important things" and becomes actually viable for production workloads.

Also notable: they're claiming SOTA prompt injection resistance. The industry has largely given up on solving this problem through training alone, so if the numbers in the system card hold up under adversarial testing, that's legitimately significant for anyone deploying agents with tool access.

The "most aligned model" framing is doing a lot of heavy lifting though. Would love to see third-party red team results.

Post reply on HN