Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.5

anthropic.com

81–90 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#81
I wonder what this means for UX designers like myself who would love to take a screen from Figma and turn it into code with just a single call to the MCP. I've found that Gemini 3 in Figma Make works very well at one-shotting a page when it actually works (there's a lot of issues with it actually working, sadly), so hopefully Opus 4.5 is even better.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#82

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…

Still way pricier (>2x) than Gemini 3 and Grok 4. I've noticed that the latter two also perform better than Opus 4, so I've stopped using Opus.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#83
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

damn, I need a MAX sub for this.

You don't, you can add $5 or whatever to your Claude wallet with the Pro subscription and use those for Opus.

I ain’t paying a penny more than the $20 I already do. I got cracks in my boots, brother.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#84
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…

100% dumber, especially since last 3-4 days. I have two guesses:

- They make it dumber close to a new release to hype the new model

- They gave $1000 Claude Code Web credits to a lot of people, which increased the load a lot so they had to serve quantized version to handle the it.

I love Claude models but I hate this non transparency and instability.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#85
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't use LLMs for a task a human can't do, they won't do it well.

A human could easily come up with a base64 -d | jq oneliner.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#86
post #15

> 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!

> Pricing is now $5/$25 per million tokens For anyone else confused, it's input/output tokens $5 for 1million tokens in $25 for 1million tokens out

What prevents these jokers from making their outputs ludicrously verbose to squeeze more out of you, given they charge 5x more for the end that they control? Already model outputs are overly verbose, and I can see this getting worse as they try to squeeze some margin. Especially given that many of the tools conveniently hide most of the output.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#88

I used Gemini instead of my usual Claude for a non-trivial front-end project [1] and it really just hit it out of the park especially after the update last week, no trouble just directly emitting around 95% of the application. Now Claude is back! The pace of releases and competition seems to be heating up more lately, and there is absolutely no switching cost. It's going to be interesting to see if and how the fronti…

Gemini is indeed great for frontend HTML + CSS and even some light DOM manipulation in JS.

I have been using Gemini 2.5 and now 3 for frontend mockups.

When I'm happy with the result, after some prompt massage, I feed it to Sonnet 4.5 to build full stack code using the framework of the application.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#89
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…

My workflow was usually to use Gemini 2.5 Pro (now 3.0) for high-level architecture and design. Then I would take the finished "spec" and have Sonnet 4.5 perform the actual implementation.

This is how I do it. Though, I've been using Composer as my main driver more an more.

* Composer - Line-by-Line changes * Sonnet 4.5 - Task planning and small-to-medium feature architecture. Pass it off to Composer for code * Gemini Pro - Large and XL architecture work. Pass it off to Sonnet to breakdown into tasks.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#90
On my Max plan, Opus 4.5 is now the default model! Until now I used Sonnet 4.5 exclusively and never used Opus, even for planning - I'm shocked that this is so cheap (for them) that it can be the default now. I'm curious what this will mean for the daily/weekly limits.

A short run at a small toy app makes me feel like Opus 4.5 is a bit slower than Sonnet 4.5 was, but that could also just be the day-one load it's presumably under. I don't think Sonnet was holding me back much, but it's far too early to tell.

Post reply on HN