that chart at the start is egregious
Claude Opus 4.5
151–160 of 525 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#152The 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.
Don't be so sure - while I haven't tested Opus 4.5 yet, Gemini 3 tends to use way more tokens than Sonnet 4.5. Like 5-10X more. So Gemini might end up being more expensive in practice.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
it's not about the terminal, but about decoupling yourself from looking at the code. The Claude app lets you interact with a github repo from your phone.
This is not the way
these agents are not up to the task of writing production level code at any meaningful scale
looking forward to high paying gigs to go in and clean up after people take them too far and the hype cycle fades
---
I recommend the opposite, work on custom agents so you have a better understanding of how these things work and fail. Get deep in the code to understand how context and values flow and get presented within the system.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#154This is gonna be game-changing for the next 2-4 weeks before they nerf the model. Then for the next 2-3 months people complaining about the degradation will be labeled “skill issue”. Then a sacrificial Anthropic engineer will “discover” a couple obscure bugs that “in some cases” might have lead to less than optimal performance. Still largely a user skill issue though. Then a couple months later they’ll release Opus 4…
There are two possible explanations for this behavior: the model nerf is real, or there's a perceptual/psychological shift.
However, benchmarks exist. And I haven't seen any empirical evidence that the performance of a given model version grows worse over time on benchmarks (in general.)
Therefore, some combination of two things are true:
1. The nerf is psychologial, not actual. 2. The nerf is real but in a way that is perceptual to humans, but not benchmarks.
#1 seems more plausible to me a priori, but if you aren't inclined to believe that, you should be positively intrigued by #2, since it points towards a powerful paradigm shift of how we think about the capabilities of LLMs in general... it would mean there is an "x-factor" that we're entirely unable to capture in any benchmark to date.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm completely the opposite. I find Gemini (even 2.5 Pro) much, much better than anything else. But I hate agentic flows, I upload the full context to it in aistudio and then it shines - anything agentic cannot even come close.
I think you're both correct. Gemini is _still_ not that good at agentic tool usage. Gemini 3 has gotten A LOT better, but it still can do some insane stupid stuff like 2.5
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
it's not about the terminal, but about decoupling yourself from looking at the code. The Claude app lets you interact with a github repo from your phone.
Interesting. Tell me more.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#157> 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
Thanks, updated to make more clear
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#158Earlier 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
In case it makes you feel better: I wondered the same thing. It's not explained anywhere on the blog post. In that poste they assume everyone knows how pricing works already I guess.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
3x price drop almost certainly means Opus 4.5 is a different and smaller base model than Opus 4.1, with more fine tuning to target the benchmarks. I'll be curious to see how performance compares to Opus 4.1 on the kind of tasks and metrics they're not explicitly targeting, e.g. eqbench.com
It seems plausible that it's a similar size model and that the 3x drop is just additional hardware efficiency/lowered margin.
Maybe it's AWS Inferentia instead of NVidia GPUs :)
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#160It's really hard for me to take these benchmarks seriously at all, especially that first one where Sonnet 4.5 is better at software engineering than Opus 4.1. It is emphatically not, it has never been, I have used both models extensively and I have never encountered a single situation where Sonnet did a better job than Opus. Any coding benchmark that has Sonnet above Opus is broken, or at the very least measuring thi…
These announcements and "upgrades" are becoming increasingly pointless. No one is going to notice this. The improvements are questionable and inconsistent. They could swap it out for an older model and no one would notice.
This is the surest sign progress has plateaued, but it seems people just take the benchmarks at face value.