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

GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 415 posts

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#281

Post by pjs_ »

tiffanyh wrote: post #231
pjs_ wrote: post #66

Continue to believe that Cerebras is one of the most underrated companies of our time. It's a dinner-plate sized chip. It actually works. It's actually much faster than anything else for real workloads. Amazing

If history has taught us anything, “engineered systems” (like mainframes & hyper converged infrastructure) emerge at the start of a new computing paradigm … but long-term , commodity compute wins the game.

I think that was true when you could rely on good old Moore’s law to make the heavy iron quickly obsolete but I also think those days are coming to an end

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#282

Post by joering2 »

With the money they spending, could it ended up to be AIISS - low orbit station just for a farm of these chips or alikes? space seems to be most reasonable place for it, even at $40 million dollar trip to space, the can pack one rocket with the whole farm - one side solar panel, the other side heat exhaust and downlink via laser beam, sort of speak. But you get the point.

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#283

Post by HumanOstrich »

postalcoder wrote: post #108

First thoughts using gpt-5.3-codex-spark in Codex CLI: Blazing fast but it definitely has a small model feel. It's tearing up bluey bench (my personal agent speed benchmark), which is a file system benchmark where I have the agent generate transcripts for untitled episodes of a season of bluey, perform a web search to find the episode descriptions, and then match the transcripts against the descriptions to generate f…

Yea it's been butchering relatively easy to moderate tasks for me even with reasoning set to high. I am hoping it's just tuning that needs to be done since they've had to port it to a novel architecture.

If instead the model is performing worse due to how much they had to shrink it just so it will fit on Cerebras hardware, then we might be in for a long wait for the next gen of ginormous chips.

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#284

Post by HumanOstrich »

Squarex wrote: post #133
postalcoder wrote: post #108

First thoughts using gpt-5.3-codex-spark in Codex CLI: Blazing fast but it definitely has a small model feel. It's tearing up bluey bench (my personal agent speed benchmark), which is a file system benchmark where I have the agent generate transcripts for untitled episodes of a season of bluey, perform a web search to find the episode descriptions, and then match the transcripts against the descriptions to generate f…

I wonder why they named it so similiarly to the normal codex model while it much worse, while cool of course.

Not sure what you mean. It IS the same model, just a smaller version of it. And gpt-5.3-codex is a smaller version of gpt-5.3 trained more on code and agentic tasks.

Their naming has been pretty consistent since gpt-5. For example, gpt-5.1-codex-max > gpt-5.1-codex > gpt-5.1-codex-mini.

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#285

Post by shaklee3 »

ehzb2827 wrote: post #44
pdeva1 wrote: post #12

This is closer to 5.1 mini it seems and tied to Pro account. GLM 4.7 is available on-demand on Cerebras today [1] and performs better and cheaper... [1] https://www.cerebras.ai/blog/glm-4-7

GLM 4.7 scores 41.0% on Terminal Bench 2.0 [1] compared to 58.4% for GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark [2]. [1] https://z.ai/blog/glm-4.7 [2] https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-3-codex-spark/

Which is also bad compared to 5.3 codex. People don't seem to realize that this is not codex 5.3 quality. It's a large step down on the benchmarks to get lower latency.

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#286

Post by moralestapia »

dgfl wrote: post #209
moralestapia wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, does a wafer with a huge chip has more defects per area than a wafer with 100s of small chips?

There’s an expected amount of defects per wafer. If a chip has a defect, then it is lost (simplification). A wafer with 100 chips may lose 10 to defects, giving a yield of 90%. The same wafer but with 1000 smaller chips would still have lost only 10 of them, giving 99% yield.

As another comment referenced in this thread states, Cerebras seems to have solved by making their big chip a lot of much smaller cores that can be disposed of if they have errors.

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#287

Post by fodkodrasz »

neya wrote: post #245
elorant wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been discussions about this chip here in the past. Maybe not that particular one but previous versions of it. The whole server if I remember correctly eats some 20KWs of power.

20KW? Wow. That's a lot of power. Is that figure per hour?

What do you mean by "per hour"?

Watt is a measure of power, that is a rate: Joule/second, [energy/time]

> The watt (symbol: W) is the unit of power or radiant flux in the International System of Units (SI), equal to 1 joule per second or 1 kg⋅m2⋅s−3.[1][2][3] It is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#288

Post by ddalex »

neya wrote: post #245
elorant wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been discussions about this chip here in the past. Maybe not that particular one but previous versions of it. The whole server if I remember correctly eats some 20KWs of power.

20KW? Wow. That's a lot of power. Is that figure per hour?

20 kWh per hour

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#289

Post by DeathArrow »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #210

Wow, I wish we could post pictures to HN. That chip is HUGE!!!! The WSE-3 is the largest AI chip ever built, measuring 46,255 mm² and containing 4 trillion transistors. It delivers 125 petaflops of AI compute through 900,000 AI-optimized cores — 19× more transistors and 28× more compute than the NVIDIA B200. From https://www.cerebras.ai/chip : https://cdn.sanity.io/images/e4qjo92p/production/78c94c67be9... https://cd…

>Wow, I wish we could post pictures to HN. That chip is HUGE!!!!

Using a waffer sized chip doesn't sound great from a cost perspective when compared to using many smaller chips for inference. Yield will be much lower and prices higher.

Nevertheless, the actual price might not be very high if Cerebras doesn't apply an Nvidia level tax.

Re: GPT‑5.3‑Codex‑Spark

#290

Post by DeathArrow »

fulafel wrote: post #278
codyb wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I'm staggered, thanks for sharing I was under the impression that often times chip manufacture at the top of the lines failed to be manufactured perfectly to spec and those with say, a core that was a bit under spec or which were missing a core would be down clocked or whatever and sold as the next in line chip. Is that not a thing anymore? Or would a chip like this maybe be so specialized that you'd use say a g…

Designing to tolerate the defects is well trodden territory. You just expect some rate of defects and have a way of disabling failing blocks.

So you shoot for 10% more cores and disable failing cores?
Post reply on HN