← Back to context Comment by mwigdahl 21 hours ago Which is why I don't take the benchmarks at face value... 4 comments mwigdahl Reply babelfish 21 hours ago So you have decided the model is bad without having used it yet? cbg0 21 hours ago If they had a model on par with Opus 5.5 there would be no need to undercut it by that much, that's probably the logic. rfgplk 21 hours ago Anthropic models are comically overpriced. They also gobble up an obscene # of tokens to get the same result as others. The price delta is literally 5x. mwigdahl 19 hours ago No, I have decided I don't trust benchmarks without using the model first.
babelfish 21 hours ago So you have decided the model is bad without having used it yet? cbg0 21 hours ago If they had a model on par with Opus 5.5 there would be no need to undercut it by that much, that's probably the logic. rfgplk 21 hours ago Anthropic models are comically overpriced. They also gobble up an obscene # of tokens to get the same result as others. The price delta is literally 5x. mwigdahl 19 hours ago No, I have decided I don't trust benchmarks without using the model first.
cbg0 21 hours ago If they had a model on par with Opus 5.5 there would be no need to undercut it by that much, that's probably the logic. rfgplk 21 hours ago Anthropic models are comically overpriced. They also gobble up an obscene # of tokens to get the same result as others. The price delta is literally 5x.
rfgplk 21 hours ago Anthropic models are comically overpriced. They also gobble up an obscene # of tokens to get the same result as others. The price delta is literally 5x.
So you have decided the model is bad without having used it yet?
If they had a model on par with Opus 5.5 there would be no need to undercut it by that much, that's probably the logic.
Anthropic models are comically overpriced. They also gobble up an obscene # of tokens to get the same result as others. The price delta is literally 5x.
No, I have decided I don't trust benchmarks without using the model first.