| ▲ | 2001zhaozhao 3 hours ago |
| The title is misleading. The only thing they seem to have done was add a $100 plan identical to Claude's, which gives 5x usage of ChatGPT Plus. There is still a $200 plan that gives 20x usage. |
|
| ▲ | jstummbillig 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That is not the "only" thing: You get access to GPT-5.4 pro. |
| |
| ▲ | giwook 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just to clarify, one does not get access to the pro model on the Pro plan? | | |
| ▲ | carbocation 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The $20 Plus plan still exists, and does not give access to the pro model. The $200 Pro plan still exists, and does give access to the pro model. What is new is a $100 Pro plan that does give access to the pro model, with lower usage limits than the $200 Pro plan. | | |
| ▲ | dimmke 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is still worse than Anthropic's right? Because you get access to their top model even at the $20 price point | | |
| ▲ | Tiberium 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not worse, Anthropic simply has no equivalent model (if you don't consider Mythos) of GPT 5.4 Pro. Google does though: Gemini 3.1 Deep Think. GPT 5.4 Pro is extremely slow but thorough, so it's not meant for the usual agentic work, rather for research or solving hard bugs/math problems when you provide it all the context. | | |
| ▲ | giwook 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm genuinely asking, when you say Gemini 3.1 DT is an equivalent model of GPT 5.4 Pro, is there a specific benchmark/comparison you're referring to or is this more anecdotal? And do you mean to say that you don't really use GPT 5.4 Pro unless it's for a hard bug? Curious which models you use for system design/architecture/planning vs execution of a plan/design. TIA! I'm still trying to figure out an optimal system for leveraging all of the LLMs available to us as I've just been throwing 100% of my work at Claude Code in recent months but would like to branch out. | | |
| ▲ | simianwords 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Pro and DT model are equivalents because - internally same architecture of best of N - not available in the code harness like Codex, only in the UI (gpt has API) - GPT-5.4 pro is extremely expensive: $30.00 input vs $180.00 output - both DT and Pro are really good at solving math problems |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So, reading the tea leaves, they're either losing subscribers for the $200 plan, or they're not following the same hockey stick path of growth they thought they were... maybe? Edit: I wonder if this is actually compute-bound as the impetus | | |
| ▲ | tedsanders 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nope, it's just that a lot of people (especially those using Codex) asked us for a medium-sized $100 plan. $20 felt too restrictive and $200 felt like a big jump. Pricing strategy is always a bit of an art, without a perfect optimum for everyone: - pay-per-token makes every query feel stressful - a single plan overcharges light users and annoyingly blocks heavy users - a zillion plans are confusing / annoying to navigate and change This change mostly just adds a medium-sized plan for people doing medium-sized amounts of work. People were asking for this, and we're happy to deliver. (I work at OpenAI.) | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the response. I tried to phrase my postulations as just that, I didn’t intend to be an accusatory. You like the job? How’s the day-to-day go? Yanking tickets or more organic? |
| |
| ▲ | alyxya 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Plenty of people wanted to spend more than $20 but less than $200 for a plan. It's long overdue IMO. |
|
| |
| ▲ | patates 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Plus plan doesn't get the pro model, which is (AFAICT) the same 5.4 model but thinks like a lot. | |
| ▲ | jgalt212 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're trying to make words mean what we all think they mean. Stop foisting your Textualism upon us! |
| |
| ▲ | J_Shelby_J an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Will they fix the pro model so it actually finishes the last step instead of hanging for 10-20m doing nothing? It’s only use case now is when you can walk away for an hour. | |
| ▲ | taoh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Does GPT-5.4 pro give a much better result in some circumstances? What're their typical uses in your experience? | | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you want it to deeply research something pro is great. I had a problem I just couldn’t find with my oven so I gave it a lot of information and it went off on its own for about 2 hours and then gave me what I needed to fix the problem (fan was turning off too quickly which was causing the panel to overheat). I have no idea how it figured it out and I couldn’t find anything after hours of googling so it was very impressive. I even went and googled for it once I knew what the problem was and I still couldn’t find the solution that it came up with. | | |
| ▲ | taoh 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for sharing this experience. Does it cost a lot of token in the deep analysis - which will make the $100 plan much quicker to drain all budgets. | | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it’s going to be very hard to blow through your tokens just using chat. I mostly bought the plan so I could use Codex and on the $200 a month plan I’ve basically been using it 15 hours a day almost nonstop and I don’t run out of tokens for the week. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | exitb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Notably, up until now Pro had 6x usage of Plus. So the title is only slightly misleading. On the other hand, the benchmark of Plus usage seems to be to be all over the place, so it’s difficult to say now how does the usage compare to the old Pro. |
|
| ▲ | strongpigeon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You’re right. I missed the “From $100”. Edited title. |
|
| ▲ | selectively 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Oh. Yikes. |
