← Back to context

Comment by rvnx

6 days ago

Opus is really great but through Claude Code. If you used Cursor or RooCode it could be normal that you get disappointed

7 comments

rvnx

Reply
bitpush  6 days ago

This matches my experience, but cant explain it. Do you know what's going on?

  • eunoia  6 days ago

    My understanding is context size. Companies like Cursor are trying to minimize the amount of context sent to the models to keep their own costs down. Claude Code seems to send a lot more context with every request and that seems to make the difference.

  • supermdguy  6 days ago

    Just guessing, but the new Opus was probably RL tuned to work better with Claude Code's tool calls

jedisct1  6 days ago

I got the opposite experience. Not with Opus (too expensive), but with Sonnet. I got things done way more efficiently when using Sonnet with Roo than with Claude Code.

  • rgbrenner  6 days ago

    same. i ran a few tests ($100 worth of api calls) with opus 4 and didn’t see any difference compared to sonnet 4 other than the price.

    also no idea why he thinks roo is handicapped when claude code nerfs the thinking output and requires typing “think”/think hard/think harder/ultrathink just to expand the max thinking tokens.. which on ultrathink only sets it at 32k… when the max in roo is 51200 and it’s just a setting.

    • rvnx  5 days ago

      I think I could share a trick that could help:

      From my experience (so not an ultimate truth) Claude is not so great at taking the decision for planning by its own: it dives immediately into coding.

      If you ask it to think step-by-step it still doesn’t do it but Gemini 2.5 Pro is good at that planning but terrible at actual coding.

      So you can use Gemini as planner and Claude as programmer and you get something decent on RooCode.

      This “think wisely” that you have to repeat 10x in the prompt is absolutely true

      1 reply →