On benchmarks GPT 5.2 was roughly equivalent to Opus 4.5 but most people who've used both for SWE stuff would say that Opus 4.5 is/was noticeably better

▲ CraigJPerry 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's an extended thinking mode for GPT 5.2 i forget the name of it right at this minute. It's super slow - a 3 minute opus 4.5 prompt is circa 12 minutes to complete in 5.2 on that super extended thinking mode but it is not a close race in terms of results - GPT 5.2 wins by a handy margin in that mode. It's just too slow to be useable interactively though.

	▲	ifwinterco 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Interesting, sounds like I definitely need to give the GPT models another proper go based on this discussion

▲ elAhmo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mostly used Sonnet/Opus 4.x in the past months, but 5.2 Codex seemed to be on par or better for my use case in the past month. I tried a few models here and there but always went back to Claude, but with 5.2 Codex for the first time I felt it was very competitive, if not better.

Curious to see how things will be with 5.3 and 4.6

▲ georgeven 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interesting. Everyone in my circle said the opposite.

▲ MadnessASAP 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

My experience is that Codex follows directions better but Claude writes better code.

ChatGPT-5.2-Codex follows directions to ensure a task [bead](https://github.com/steveyegge/beads) is opened before starting a task and to keep it updated almost to a fault. Claude-Opus-4.5 with the exact same directions, forgets about it within a round or two. Similarly, I had a project that required very specific behaviour from a couple functions, it was documented in a few places including comments at the top and bottom of the function. Codex was very careful in ensuring the function worked as was documented. Claude decided it was easier to do the exact opposite, rewrote the function, the comments, and the documentation to saynit now did the opposite of what was previously there.

If I believed a LLM could be spiteful, I would've believed it on that second one. I certainly felt some after I realised what it had done. The comment literally said:

  // Invariant regardless of the value of X, this function cannot return Y

And it turned it into:

  // Returns Y if X is true

▲ krzyk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It probably depends on programming language and expectations.

	▲	ifwinterco 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is mostly Python/TS for me... what Jonathan Blow would probably call not "real programming" but it pays the bills They can both write fairly good idiomatic code but in my experience opus 4.5 is better at understanding overall project structure etc. without prompting. It just does things correctly first time more often than codex. I still don't trust it obviously but out of all LLMs it's the closest to actually starting to earn my trust

▲ SatvikBeri 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I pretty consistently heard people say Codex was much slower but produced better results, making it better for long-running work in the background, and worse for more interactive development.