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

291–300 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#291

Post by nojs »

hakanderyal wrote: post #162
bnchrch wrote: post #5

Seeing these benchmarks makes me so happy. Not because I love Anthropic (I do like them) but because it's staving off me having to change my Coding Agent. This world is changing fast, and both keeping up with State of the Art and/or the feeling of FOMO is exhausting. Ive been holding onto Claude Code for the last little while since Ive built up a robust set of habits, slash commands, and sub agents that help me squee…

I think we are at the point where you can reliably ignore the hype and not get left behind. Until the next breakthrough at least. I've been using Claude Code with Sonnet since August, and there haven't been any case where I thought about checking other models to see if they are any better. Things just worked. Yes, requires effort to steer correctly, but all of them do with their own quirks. Then 4.5 came, things got…

Using both extensively I feel codex is slightly “smarter” for debugging complex problems but on net I still find CC more productive. The difference is very marginal though.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#292

Post by 827a »

verdverm wrote: post #148
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…

> played around with You'll never get an accurate comparison if you only play We know by now that it takes time to "get to know a model and it's quirks" So if you don't use a model and cannot get equivalent outputs to your daily driver, that's expected and uninteresting

I rotate models frequently enough that I doubt my personal access patterns are so model specific that they would unfairly advantage one model over another; so ultimately I think all you're saying is that Claude might be easier to use without model-specific skilling than other models. Which might be true.

I certainly don't have as much time on Gemini 3 as I do on Claude 4.5, but I'd say my time with the Gemini family as a whole is comparable. Maybe further use of Gemini 3 will cause me to change my mind.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#293

Post by simonw »

jasonjmcghee wrote: post #243
simonw wrote: post #100

Notes and two pelicans: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/24/claude-opus/

Did you write the terminal -> html converter (how you display the claude code transcripts), or is that a library?

I built it with Claude. Here's the tool: https://tools.simonwillison.net/terminal-to-html - and here's a write-up and video showing how I built it: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/23/claude-code-for-web-vi...

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#294

Post by obblekk »

80% on swebench verified is incredible. a year ago the best model was at ~30%. i wonder if we'll soon have a convincingly superhuman coding capability (even in a narrow field like kernel optimization).

this is the most interesting time for software tools since compilers and static typechecking was invented.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#295

Post by typpilol »

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…

Same here. Gemini just rips shit out and doesn't understand the flow well between event based components either

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#296

Post by idonotknowwhy »

threeducks wrote: post #217
andreybaskov wrote: post #112

Does anyone know or have a guess on the size of this latest thinking models and what hardware they use to run inference? As in how much memory and what quantization it uses and if it's "theoretically" possible to run it on something like Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 512GB RAM. Just curious from theoretical perspective.

Rough ballpark estimate: - Amazon Bedrock serves Claude Opus 4.5 at 57.37 tokens per second: https://openrouter.ai/anthropic/claude-opus-4.5 - Amazon Bedrock serves gpt-oss-120b at 1748 tokens per second: https://openrouter.ai/openai/gpt-oss-120b - gpt-oss-120b has 5.1B active parameters at approximately 4 bits per parameter: https://huggingface.co/openai/gpt-oss-120b To generate one token, all active parameters must…

I love logical posts like this. There are other factors like mxfp4 in gpt-oss, mla in deepseek, etc.

>Amazon Bedrock serves Claude Opus 4.5 at 57.37

I checked the other Opus-4 models on bedrock:

Opus 4 - 18.56tps Opus 4.1 - 19.34tps

So they changed the active parameter count with Opus 4.5

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#297

Post by Aeolun »

tekacs wrote: post #60
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…

This is also super relevant for everyone who had ditched Claude Code due to limits: > For Claude and Claude Code users with access to Opus 4.5, we’ve removed Opus-specific caps. For Max and Team Premium users, we’ve increased overall usage limits, meaning you’ll have roughly the same number of Opus tokens as you previously had with Sonnet. We’re updating usage limits to make sure you’re able to use Opus 4.5 for daily…

It’s important to note that with the introduction of Sonnet 4.5 they absolutely cratered the limits, and the opus limits in specific, so this just sort of comes closer to the situation we were actually in before.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#299

Post by Aeolun »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #187
ceejayoz wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason they're called "guidelines" and not "hard rules".

I thought the reminder from GP was fair and I'm disappointed that it's downvoted as of this writing. One thing I've always appreciated about this community is that we can remind each other of the guidelines. Yes it was just one word, and probably an accident—an accident I've made myself, and felt bad about afterwards—but the guideline is specific about "word or phrase", meaning single words are included. If GGP's sin…

THIS, FOR EXAMPLE. IT IS MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO READ THAN A SINGLE CAPITALIZATION OF that.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#300

Post by jasonjmcghee »

simonw wrote: post #293
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you write the terminal -> html converter (how you display the claude code transcripts), or is that a library?

I built it with Claude. Here's the tool: https://tools.simonwillison.net/terminal-to-html - and here's a write-up and video showing how I built it: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/23/claude-code-for-web-vi...

Thank you!
Post reply on HN