| ▲ | mythz 5 hours ago |
| Ok speed (202.7 tok/s) and value (1.25 -> 2.50) look great, with pretty decent intelligence. |
|
| ▲ | pzo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The problem with speed is that they usually are very fast for first few weeks and then suddenly much slower. They did such trick when they advertised Grok 4 fast ( dropped from 200 tps to 60tps) |
| |
|
| ▲ | Cakez0r 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 202.7 tok/s is only OK speed? Which providers are you using that are significantly better than that? |
| |
| ▲ | mythz 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I said speed was great, Cerebas and Groq can provide better performance, likewise Fast versions of Cursor's Composer and Claude. The reported speed like benchmarks is only a reported number on paper, we'll see how it holds up in real world usage, so far OpenRouter is only reporting 73tps [1] https://openrouter.ai/x-ai/grok-4.3 | | |
| ▲ | lukewarm707 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | i really don't trust openrouter numbers. i use byok and see responses fail on openrouter while they work perfectly at the provider. the provider is often listed as 'down' and it's very clearly up on the original api and serving requests. cerebras quotes oss 120b at 3000tps and it is under 800 on openrouter. same with fireworks, i am getting much higher numbers not on openrouter. but recently i think fireworks deepseek is kind of spotty, the main provider i know that just doesn't go down is vertex and they charge 2-3x the rest |
| |
| ▲ | mritchie712 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | for reference, it's the 2nd fastest model tracked in the "Highlights" section of https://artificialanalysis.ai/ | | |
| ▲ | Cakez0r 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, it's incredibly fast. Openrouter is clocking 60 tokens per second, which is on par with the likes of sonnet, opus, GPT 5.5. | |
| ▲ | goldenarm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That section misses Cerebras and Groq which are up to 5x faster. | | |
| ▲ | Havoc 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Very different tech and limitations though so wouldn’t make sense to compare 1:1 I think | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | catcowcostume 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | kuboble 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't remember the source of the quote. But debating whether the models are intelligent is slim to debating whether a car can walk. You can offload to the model a lot of work that until recently we thought requires intelligence. The more and better of those tasks the model can do, it's fair to call it intelligence* | | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra |
| |
| ▲ | MrDrDr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Please elaborate. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Some people have this strange idea that only "whatever humans do" counts as intelligence, despite the fact that a) we don't really have a clue what humans do, and b) "intelligence" is definitely not that strictly defined. I think they're just trying to feel like they know some important truth that other people don't. | |
| ▲ | nesk_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Prediction is not intelligence. | | |
| |
| ▲ | exe34 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What does intelligence mean to you? |
|
