Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
1–10 of 400 posts
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#2With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#3The fun thing is, you can be aware of the entire range of Qwen models that are available for local running, but not at all about their cloud models.
I knew of all the 3.5’s and the one 3.6, but only now heard about the Plus.
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#4With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.
If money is no object, then nothing else is worth considering if it isn't Codex 5.4/Opus 4.7/SOTA. But for many to most people, value Vs. relative quality are huge levers.
Even many people on a Claude subscription aren't choosing or able to choose Opus 4.7 because of those cost/usage pressures. Often using Sonnet or an older opus, because of the value Vs. quality curve.
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#5With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.
If money is no object, then nothing else is worth considering if it isn't Codex 5.4/Opus 4.7/SOTA. But for many to most people, value Vs. relative quality are huge levers. Even many people on a Claude subscription aren't choosing or able to choose Opus 4.7 because of those cost/usage pressures. Often using Sonnet or an older opus, because of the value Vs. quality curve.
Codex subscription is very generous at pro tiers
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#6With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.
You compare with what's most comparable.
In any case a benchmark provided by the provider is always biased, they will pick the frameworks where their model fares well. Omit the others.
Independent benchmarks are the go to.
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#7With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.
Quite some time is a little over 2 months. I understand this is actually true right now, but it’s still a bit hard to accept.
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#8I find it odd that none of OpenAI models was used in comparison, but used Z GLM 5.1. Is Z (GLM 5.1) really that good? It is crushing Opus 4.5 in these benchmarks, if that is true, I would have expected to read many articles on HN on how people flocked CC and Codex to use it.
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#9With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.
[deleted]
Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving
#10With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.
Opus 4.6 performance has been so wildly inconsistent over the past couple of months, why waste the tokens?