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

Cerebras Code

cerebras.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 185 posts

Re: Cerebras Code

#121

Post by [deleted] »

thanhhaimai wrote: post #20
sneilan1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1,000 messages per day should be plenty as a daily development driver. I use claude code sonnet 4 exclusively and I do not send more than 1,000 messages per day. However, that is my current understanding. I am certainly not pressing enter 1,000 times! Maybe there are more messages being sent under the hood that I do not realize?

The issue is not about whether the limit is too high or too low. What turned me back was that they claimed "no weekly limits" as a selling feature, without mentioning that they change it to a "daily limits". I understand it's a sale tactics. But it seems not forthcoming, and it's hard for me to trust the rest of the claims.

[deleted]

Re: Cerebras Code

#122

Post by wordofx »

flashblaze wrote: post #120
wordofx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t feel like a competitor. Amp does tho.

I don't hear about Amp often. Have you tried it? How does it compare to Claude Code?

It’s really good. Was discussing it with a friend recently who said he thinks it works out cheaper because it takes less loops to get things right. I’ve been having better success with it so would recommend it over Claude Code for now.

Re: Cerebras Code

#123

Post by M4v3R »

dpkirchner wrote: post #42

For those that have tried this, what kind of time-to-first-token latency are you seeing?

The high TTFT (around 5-6 seconds) is what kills the excitement for this for me. Sure, when it starts outputting its crazy fast so it’s good for generating single file prototypes, but as soon as you try to use it in Cline or any other agentic loop you’ll be waiting for API requests constantly and it’s a real bottleneck.

Re: Cerebras Code

#124

Post by arisAlexis »

dmitrygr wrote: post #67
lvl155 wrote: post #49

Their hardware is incredible. Why aren’t more investors lining up for this in this environment?

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Or just bad marketing vs the Goliath (Nvidia)

Re: Cerebras Code

#125

Post by hollerith »

M4v3R wrote: post #123
dpkirchner wrote: post #42

For those that have tried this, what kind of time-to-first-token latency are you seeing?

The high TTFT (around 5-6 seconds) is what kills the excitement for this for me. Sure, when it starts outputting its crazy fast so it’s good for generating single file prototypes, but as soon as you try to use it in Cline or any other agentic loop you’ll be waiting for API requests constantly and it’s a real bottleneck.

TTFT == time to first token.

(I would've just said, "the throughput is fantastic, but the latency is about 3 times higher than other offerings".)

Re: Cerebras Code

#127

Post by handfuloflight »

kristjansson wrote: post #75
thanhhaimai wrote: post #8

> running at speeds of up to 2,000 tokens per second, with a 131k-token context window, no proprietary IDE lock-in, and no weekly limits! I was excited, then I read this: > Send up to 1,000 messages per day—enough for 3–4 hours of uninterrupted vibe coding. I don't mind paying for services I use. But it's hard to take this seriously when the first paragraph claim is contradicting the fine prints.

It’s a true statement - no weekly limits, just a daily limit. Easier to work with when you can only get locked out of your tool for 23h59m

You're going to send 1,000 messages in 1 minute?

Re: Cerebras Code

#128

Post by BenGosub »

Flux159 wrote: post #70

Tried this out with Cline using my own API key (Cerebras is also available as a provider for Qwen3 Coder via via openrouter here: https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3-coder ) and realized that without caching, this becomes very expensive very quickly. Specifically, after each new tool call, you're sending the entire previous message history as input tokens - which are priced at $2/1M via the API just like output tokens.…

If they say it costs $50 per month, why do you need to make additional payments?

Re: Cerebras Code

#129

Post by no_flaks_given »

lvl155 wrote: post #49

Their hardware is incredible. Why aren’t more investors lining up for this in this environment?

This model is super quantized and the quality isn't great, but that's necessary because just like everyone else except for Nvidia and AMD

They shat the bed. They went for super crazy fast compute and not much memory, assuming that models would plateu at a fee billion parameters.

Last year 70b parameters was considered huge, and a good place to standardize around.

Today we have 1t parameter models and we know it still scales linearly with parameters.

So next year we might have 10T parameter LLMs and these guys will still be playing catch up.

All that matters for inference right now is how many HBM chips you can stack and that's it

Re: Cerebras Code

#130

Post by davidweatherall »

BenGosub wrote: post #128
Flux159 wrote: post #70

Tried this out with Cline using my own API key (Cerebras is also available as a provider for Qwen3 Coder via via openrouter here: https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3-coder ) and realized that without caching, this becomes very expensive very quickly. Specifically, after each new tool call, you're sending the entire previous message history as input tokens - which are priced at $2/1M via the API just like output tokens.…

If they say it costs $50 per month, why do you need to make additional payments?

$50 per month is their SaaS solution that let's you make 1000 requests per day. The openrouter cost is the raw API cost if you try to use qwen3-coder via the pay as you go model when using Cline
Post reply on HN