Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

openrouter.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 80 posts

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#11

Post by olao99 »

iceKirin wrote: post #7

I feel that the recent iterations of LLM haven't provided an intuitive qualitative leap. Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

For what is worth I find GPT 5.5 qualitatively different than 5.4 and 5.3

If I had to collapse the nature of the difference in one sentence it'd be that the 5.5 does more what I'm asking it to do versus doing a small aspect of what I'm asking then stopping.

5.4 required a lot of "continue" encouragement. 5.5 just "gets it" a bit more

What is boils down to for me is that even though it's more expensive I would much rather use 5.5 on low then 5.4/5.3 on high/medium

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#12

Post by sarjann »

jsnell wrote: post #2

This doesn't seem to be controlling for the number of turns in any way. Am I missing something? Stronger models needing fewer turns to achieve a task feels like a prime source of efficiency gains for agentic coding, more so than individual responses being shorter.

I think it should be tested on goals.

E.g. Crack this puzzle, fix this code so these tests pass. (A human can verify it doesn't cheese things).

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#13

Post by helloplanets »

iceKirin wrote: post #7

I feel that the recent iterations of LLM haven't provided an intuitive qualitative leap. Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

Are you running gpt-5.5 on xhigh reasoning? Because I'm seeing a clear difference between that and gpt-5.4 on xhigh.

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#14

Post by patates »

iceKirin wrote: post #7

I feel that the recent iterations of LLM haven't provided an intuitive qualitative leap. Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

Considering my use case (web apps), there already wasn't anything I couldn't do with Opus 4.5, the same will be true or were already true for more people in other releases, and at some point, which may have already passed, most people will stop finding qualitative leaps.

This doesn't always mean that there is a bottleneck in terms of raw power, it may also mean that your use cases (or the lower hanging fruits among them) are already covered.

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#15

Post by SecretDreams »

iceKirin wrote: post #7

I feel that the recent iterations of LLM haven't provided an intuitive qualitative leap. Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

> Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

So quickly - this industry has had trillions thrown around to get here so quickly, heh.

But, yes, capability seems somewhat stagnant. It's about ISO perf and cost improvements or iso cost and perf improvements + agentic.

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#17

Post by 2ndorderthought »

iceKirin wrote: post #7

I feel that the recent iterations of LLM haven't provided an intuitive qualitative leap. Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

I am delighted to see the ceiling on small models exponentially increase. I think the "make models unsustainably large because the benchmark improved by 1%" practice is ending. I think the thing boosting small models will be the thing that makes LLMs actually useful. The main thing is research.

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#18

Post by aurareturn »

iceKirin wrote: post #7

I feel that the recent iterations of LLM haven't provided an intuitive qualitative leap. Have they entered a bottleneck period so quickly?

They likely entered the same compute constraint scenario as Anthropic.

IE. They had 100 compute units. Demand is 200 units. They have to do a combination of buying more compute, increasing price, lowering limits, etc.

Re: GPT-5.5 Price Increase: What It Costs

#19

Post by languid-photic »

We track performance vs. the all-in cost of completing real engineering tasks, rather than cost per token. [1]

Cost per token is a bit misleading because, as others have noted, different models use tokens in different ways. (Aside - This is also why TPS isn't a great metric).

We found that 5.5 is about 1.5-2x more expensive overall. On a "Pareto" basis, we only find 5.5 xhigh worth it. At the lower reasoning levels, 5.4 still edges it out on cost/perf.

We take a spec-driven approach and mostly work in TS (on product development), so if you use a more steer-y approach, or work in a different domain, YMMV.

[1] https://voratiq.com/leaderboard?x=cost

Post reply on HN