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

Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

cursor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 238 posts

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#11

Post by darkwi11ow »

sergiotapia wrote: post #9

Congratulations on the launch! I'm interested in trying Cursor but it's very confusing what I should buy. What does the Pro $20 plan get me in usage if I only use Composer 2.5? How fast is the model?

I use $20 plan on daily basis for more than a year now, and have yet to exhaust that limit. The plan includes $20 in api costs for non-Cursor premium models and $20 for Composer and Auto models provided by Cursor themselves.

That said, I am pretty old-fashioned coder and use LLM mostly to overcome the blank page problem, which means I review and often rewrite LLM output by hand and avoid prompt loops for a single task.

People who are aiming to not read code any more might find this $20 plan lacking for their needs, however for my needs it fits perfectly.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#12

Post by criemen »

PUSH_AX wrote: post #8

They set themselves up for flack when they use whatever these evals are… they did the same for composer 2 which was evaled in close competition with frontier models, spoiler alert, it wasn’t even close in practice. So now 2.5 is supposed to compete with opus 4.7? Sure…

Well is that a statement about the quality of Opus 4.7 or about compose 2.5? :P

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#13

Post by GenerWork »

Lionga wrote: post #10
asar wrote: post #2

The model is (like Composer 2) based on Kimi K2.5 and they claim SOTA performance for 1/10th of the cost. The tweet also mentions that they've started a new model from scratch on Colossus 2 (xAI/SpaceX Cluster). Really impressive how they've made this jump from being called the vscode fork with no moat just a couple of months ago.

They are still a vscode fork with no moat? Like they lost about 70% of users in half a year which goes to show how there is not even the tiniest of moat.

I feel like they've been targeting enterprise pretty hard. I know my company uses them, and the companies that hire us also use Cursor.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#16

Post by whywhywhywhy »

asar wrote: post #2

The model is (like Composer 2) based on Kimi K2.5 and they claim SOTA performance for 1/10th of the cost. The tweet also mentions that they've started a new model from scratch on Colossus 2 (xAI/SpaceX Cluster). Really impressive how they've made this jump from being called the vscode fork with no moat just a couple of months ago.

It's still a VsCode fork just now with a Kimi fine tune and still no moat...

I won't debate that it turns out none of this mattered when it came to being as successful company though and kinda makes anyone who tried to roll their own instead of fork look a little silly.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#18

Post by aurareturn »

asar wrote: post #2

The model is (like Composer 2) based on Kimi K2.5 and they claim SOTA performance for 1/10th of the cost. The tweet also mentions that they've started a new model from scratch on Colossus 2 (xAI/SpaceX Cluster). Really impressive how they've made this jump from being called the vscode fork with no moat just a couple of months ago.

I doubt it's a brand new model. It's likely just Kimi K2.5 further trained on coding.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#19

Post by liuliu »

asar wrote: post #2

The model is (like Composer 2) based on Kimi K2.5 and they claim SOTA performance for 1/10th of the cost. The tweet also mentions that they've started a new model from scratch on Colossus 2 (xAI/SpaceX Cluster). Really impressive how they've made this jump from being called the vscode fork with no moat just a couple of months ago.

Since the frontier is only 8-month ahead of DeepSeek, it is hard to see how model training can be a moat as all the tricks are available from open labs in China. You really just need <100m to bootstrap at this point.

Re: Cursor Introduces Composer 2.5

#20

Post by tuo-lei »

PUSH_AX wrote: post #8

They set themselves up for flack when they use whatever these evals are… they did the same for composer 2 which was evaled in close competition with frontier models, spoiler alert, it wasn’t even close in practice. So now 2.5 is supposed to compete with opus 4.7? Sure…

they say it themselves in the post - behavior dimensions "not well captured by existing benchmarks". that was the exact problem with composer 2. not dumber on individual tasks, just bad at session-level decisions like when to stop editing, how much context to carry forward, when to re-read a file vs assume. you don't catch any of that in an isolated eval.
Post reply on HN