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

Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

tokens.billchambers.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 620 posts

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#441

Post by gck1 »

fathermarz wrote: post #234

I have been seeing this messaging everywhere and I have not noticed this. I have had the inverse with 4.7 over 4.6. I think people aren’t reading the system cards when they come out. They explicitly explain your workflow needs to change. They added more levels of effort and I see no mention of that in this post. Did y’all forget Opus 4? That was not that long ago that Claude was essentially unusable then. We are peak…

> They explicitly explain your workflow needs to change

How about - don't break my workflow unless the change is meaningful?

While we're at it, either make y in x.y mean "groundbreaking", or "essentially same, but slightly better under some conditions". The former justifies workflow adjustments, the latter doesn't.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#442

Post by zozbot234 »

stavros wrote: post #440
krackers wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>pay for reinitializing the cache Why can't they save the kv cache to disk then later reload it to memory?

Probably because the costly operation is loading it onto the GPU, doesn't matter if it's from disk or from your request.

The point of prompt caching is to save on prefill which for large contexts (common for agentic workloads) is quite expensive per token. So there is a context length where storing that KV-cache is worth it, because loading it back in is more efficient than recomputing it. For larger SOTA models, the KV cache unit size is also much smaller compared to the compute cost of prefill, so caching becomes worthwhile even for smaller context.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#443

Post by [deleted] »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #389
andai wrote: post #239

For a fair comparison you need to look at the total cost, because 4.7 produces significantly fewer output tokens than 4.6, and seems to cost significantly less on the reasoning side as well. Here is a comparison for 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 (Output Tokens section): https://artificialanalysis.ai/?models=claude-opus-4-7%2Cclau... 4.7 comes out slightly cheaper than 4.6. But 4.5 is about half the cost: https://artificialanalysi…

It thinks less and produces less output tokens because it has forced adaptive thinking that even API users can't disable. Same adaptive thinking that was causing quality issues in Opus 4.6 not even two weeks ago. The one bcherny recommended that people disable because it'd sometimes allocate zero thinking tokens to the model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 People are already complaining about low quali…

[deleted]

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#444

Post by xstas1 »

rectang wrote: post #400
trueno wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4.7 is going to replace both 4.5 and 4.6 as in 4.5 is no longer going to be avail? F. ive also been sticking with 4.5 that sucks

https://github.blog/changelog/2026-04-16-claude-opus-4-7-is-... > Over the coming weeks, Opus 4.7 will replace Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6 in the model picker for Copilot Pro+[...] > This model is launching with a 7.5× premium request multiplier as part of promotional pricing until April 30th.

Promotional pricing? Are they saying that after the promotion, it will cost more than 7.5x??

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#445

Post by jimkleiber »

hopfenspergerj wrote: post #141
jimkleiber wrote: post #138

I wonder if this is like when a restaurant introduces a new menu to increase prices. Is Opus 4.7 that significantly different in quality that it should use that much more in tokens? I like Claude and Anthropic a lot, and hope it's just some weird quirk in their tokenizer or whatnot, just seems like something changed in the last few weeks and may be going in a less-value-for-money direction, with not much being said a…

You can't accidentally retrain a model to use a different tokenizer. It changes the input vectors to the model.

I appreciate you saying that, i think sometimes with ai conversations i wade into them without knowing the precise definitions of the terms, I'll try to be more careful next time. Thank you.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#446

Post by nelox »

codethief wrote: post #430
matheusmoreira wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It thinks less and produces less output tokens because it has forced adaptive thinking that even API users can't disable. Same adaptive thinking that was causing quality issues in Opus 4.6 not even two weeks ago. The one bcherny recommended that people disable because it'd sometimes allocate zero thinking tokens to the model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 People are already complaining about low quali…

> > Why are you handwaving things away though? I've got you on max effort. I even patched the system prompts to reduce this. In my experience, prompts like this one, which 1) ask for a reason behind an answer (when the model won't actually be able to provide one), 2) are somewhat standoff-ish, don't work well at all. You'll just have the model go the other way. What works much better is to tell the model to take a st…

Precisely. I find Grok’s multi-agent approach very useful here. I have custom agent configured as a validator.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#447

Post by nixpulvis »

nixpulvis wrote: post #411
zaptrem wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your reasoning effort set to? Max now uses way more tokens and isn't suggested for most usecases. Even the new default (xhigh) uses more than the old default (medium).

That's what I'm wondering. Is it people are defaulting to xhigh now and that's why it feels like it's consuming a lot more tokens? If people manually set it to medium, would it be comparable?

Switching back to medium seems to have fixed the issue for me.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#448

Post by ashirviskas »

bdangubic wrote: post #279
estetlinus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, +1. I will never be working on unsolved problems anyhow. Skill atrophy is not happening if you stay curious and responsible.

I used to speak Russian like I was born in Russia. I stopped talking Russian … every day I am curious ans responsible but I can hardly say 10 words in Russian today. if you don’t use it (not just be curious and responsible) you will lose it - period.

More fair comparison would be writing/talking about Russian language in English. That way you'd still focus on Russian. Same way with programming - it's not like you stop seeing any code. So why should you forget it?
Post reply on HN