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

71–80 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#71

Post by gregable »

chinathrow wrote: post #42
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 gave Sonnet 4.5 a base64 encoded PHP serialize() json of an object dump and told him to extraxt the URL within. It gave me the Youtube-URL to Rick Astley.

it. Not him.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#72

Post by jdgoesmarching »

lvl155 wrote: post #50
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 really don’t understand the hype around Gemini. Opus/Sonnet/GPT are much better for agentic workflows. Seems people get hyped for the first few days. It also has a lot to do with Claude code and Codex.

Personally my hype is for the price, especially for Flash. Before Sonnet 4.5 was competitive with Gemini 2.5 Pro, the latter was a much better value than Opus 4.1.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#73

Post by brookst »

wolttam wrote: post #41
llamasushi wrote: post #30

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 a…

It's 1/3 the old price ($15/$75)

Not sure if that’s a joke about LLM math performance, but pedantry requires me to point out 15 / 75 = 1/5

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#74

Post by llamasushi »

wolttam wrote: post #41
llamasushi wrote: post #30

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 a…

It's 1/3 the old price ($15/$75)

Just updated, thanks

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#75

Post by l1n »

brookst wrote: post #73
wolttam wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 1/3 the old price ($15/$75)

Not sure if that’s a joke about LLM math performance, but pedantry requires me to point out 15 / 75 = 1/5

15$/Megatoken in, 75$/Megatoken out

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#76

Post by HugoDias »

mritchie712 wrote: post #55
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…

> 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 part of it is this[0] and I expect it will become more of a problem. Claude models have built-in tools (e.g. `str_replace_editor`) which they've been trained to use. These tools don't exist in Cursor, but claude really wants to use them. 0 - https://x.com/thisritchie/status/1944038…

TIL! I'll finally give Claude Code a try. I've been using Cursor since it launched and never tried anything else. The terminal UI didn't appeal to me, but knowing it has better performance, I'll check it out.

Cursor has been a terrible experience lately, regardless of the model. Sometimes for the same task, I need to try with Sonnet 4.5, ChatGPT 5.1 Codex, Gemini Pro 3... and most times, none managed to do the work, and I end up doing it myself.

At least I’m coding more again, lol

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#77

Post by cyrusradfar »

I'm curious if others are finding that there's a comfort in staying within the Claude ecosystem because when it makes a mistake, we get used to spotting the pattern. I'm finding that when I try new models, their "stupid" moments are more surprising and infuriating.

Given this tech is new, the experience of how we relate to their mistakes is something I think a bit about.

Am I alone here, are others finding themselves more forgiving of "their preferred" model provider?

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#80

Post by jedberg »

Up until today, the general advice was use Opus for deep research, use Haiku for everything else. Given the reduction in cost here, does that rule of thumb no longer apply?
Post reply on HN