| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 21 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surely Gemini 3.0 Pro would be the appropriate comparison. If you want to compare the weakest models from both companies then Gemini Flash vs GPT Instant would seem to be best comparison, although Claude Opus 4.5 is by all accounts the most powerful for coding. In any case, it will take a few weeks for any meaningful test comparisons to be made, and in the meantime it's hard not to see any release from OpenAI since they announced "Code Red" (aka "we're behind the competition") a few days ago as more marketing than anything else. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That's what I said in my original message. By my account, GPT 5.2 is better than Gemini 3 Pro and Opus 4.5 Gemini 3 Pro is a great foundation model. I use as a math tutor, and it's great. I previously used Gemini 2.5 Pro as a math tutor, and Gemini 3 Pro was a qualitative improvement over that. But Gemini 3 Pro sucks at being a coding agent inside a harness. It sucks at tool calling. It's borderline unusable in Cursor because of that, and likely the same in Antigravity. A few weeks ago I attended a demo of Antigravity that Google employees were giving, and it was completely broken. It got stuck for them during the demo, and they ended up not being able to show anything. Opus 4.5 is good, and faster than GPT-5.2, but less reliable. I use it for medium difficulty tasks. But for anything serious—it's GPT 5.2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | BeetleB 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gemini 3.0 Flash outperforms Pro in many tasks - I believe the coding benchmark was one of them. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||