| ▲ | postalcoder 4 hours ago |
| I think the most important thing here is not absolute performance. It's that organizations now have access to a Fable-ish model without Fable's 30-day data retention requirement[0]. > "Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access."[1] On the Opus model release page, the reason why Fable doesn't have an ARC-AGI score is because of that retention policy[2]. 0: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retenti... 1: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 2: https://xcancel.com/arcprize/status/2064399134099153344 |
|
| ▲ | alvis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Also the cost per task. It appears to be significantly cheaper, cheaper than sonnet! |
| |
| ▲ | x313 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The numbers from Anthropic seem heavily cherry-picked, Artificial Analysis has Opus 5 at 1.25x the cost of Sonnet and 2x the cost of GPT 5.6 and K3. https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=cost-per-task | | |
| ▲ | SwellJoe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't understand how the K3 numbers keep coming out cheap for people. I recently started to add it to my security auditing benchmarks and found it was going to cost about twice as much as Opus 4.8. It blew through the $100 budget I'd set at like 11%. In the tasks I'm doing it seems crazy expensive because it chews so much, burning a tremendous amount of tokens. | | |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the way people usually compare pricing is fundamentally flawed. You can't compare token prices because different models use different tokenizers, and you can't compare tokenizer-normalized token prices because different models at different settings use more or fewer tokens to complete the same task at a different level of quality. Based on my entirely subjective experience, the $100 Moonshot plan using only K3 is comparable to the $200 Anthropic deal using the whole Fable allocation and Opus 4.8 for the rest. | | |
| ▲ | SwellJoe an hour ago | parent [-] | | I got the $19 plan, and it's anemic. One tiny task blew through the 5-hour budget and 19% of the weekly budget. A completely useless amount of usage. OpenAI's $20 plan feels like 100x more generous (I don't think I'm exaggerating here). Someone in another thread said their plans are cheaper in China, maybe that's the difference, I dunno. But, I'm finding Kimi K3 terrifyingly expensive in the way that Fable and GPT 5.5 Pro are at token rates. Not as expensive as those, but expensive enough to where if you don't put a budget cap on it, you might wake up bankrupt if you leave a task running overnight. Not because of the per-token cost, but because how many tokens it's going to burn. | | |
| ▲ | nullify88 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | In the $19 plan, I've been able to reverse engineer both an android APK and firmware (in Ghidra and Radre) for a baby rocker and build a quick PoC application in my session limit. And then further refined the app in another session at another point in time without leaving Opus. I dont consider that to be a tiny task. How are you blowing through your usage? | | |
| ▲ | SwellJoe 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I have no idea. Seems like normal stuff. I used Kimi Code with K3 to add support for Kimi Code to flar (https://swelljoe.com/post/i-let-every-agent-implement-its-ow...), a task I've done with almost every major model/agent combo. Most show up as a blip on the usage chart...it's basically usually one file, a README update, and adding the agent name to the CLI. Then, I added it to my benchmark of security vulnerability auditing capability, and it burned a bazillion tokens, burned through the 5-hour limit, burned through $100 in extra usage I'd allocated, and was only 11% finished. That's more expensive than any model I've tested other than GPT 5.5 Pro on this task. These are things I've done with a bunch of other models, I feel like I have a notion of what they ought to cost, and with K3, they end up being crazy expensive. (And it seems to be a function of how many tokens it burns accomplishing the tasks.) |
| |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, the OpenAI plans are much more generous than both Moonshot's and Anthropic's. It's the only provider of the three where the $20 plan is at all usable for programming. | |
| ▲ | try-working an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have the second largest Kimi plan, the Chinese version. When K2.6 was their latest model, the quota was good; it was like GPT $100 is now or what the $20 version was in December. When K2.7 was released, they cut quota by 80%. I can't tell how much they have further cut it after the K3 release because it's barely worth using at all. I just use it in my model router since I have the annual plan paid for. It's just not a serious model or company. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Testing at max effort likely doesn't produce optimal results. | |
| ▲ | reinitctxoffset 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I haven't done any capability testing yet, but it's the best-aligned thing Anthropic have done all year by a mile. Opus 4.8 was a shill, Fable 5 was downright terrifying. Someone with good intentions got their hands on this release, maybe Olah himself. I talk a lot of shit about those guys, and they deserve it, but it's only journalism-adjacent when it's balanced. I relish the opportunity to be balanced. https://cdn.s4.gl/opus-5-standard-realignment-trajectory-rub... | | |
| |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can't believe they released the charts they did. It basically shows that Sol absolutely demolishes Fable at every part of the cost curve for coding for the same level of quality. Opus is competitive. It just has a higher level of quality / higher cost to start. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If fable costs more to run than the markup they still come out ahead. |
| |
| ▲ | qsera 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can't help but read these comments in the voice of a TV commercial.... | | |
| ▲ | iambateman 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ask your doctor if Opus 5 is right for you. Side effects include occasional hallucination, security breaches and unwanted React apps. Some developers have reported receiving entire apps from untrained executives who may or may not know what they’re doing. Stop using Opus immediately if you experience signs of dizziness or vomiting. Opus 5…the people’s favorite. | | |
| |
| ▲ | benjiro29 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also the cost per task. https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/vals_index !!! Vals !!! Vals Index Opus 4.8 > 5.0 goes from $2.90 to $8.54, for 4% gain ... That is a massive cost increase. Sure, 20% cheaper then Fable, but that is a 3x price increase compared to Opus 4.8 in that test. https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5#price-cos... !!! artificial analysis !! Cost per task is second highest, right below Fable. * Fable: $2.75 * Opus 5.0: $2.03 * Opus 4.8: $1.80 * GPT 5.6 Sol: $1.04 * Kimi K3: $0.95 Looks like interest levels of cherry picked cost in their report. Cheaper model, clearly NOT. More expensive in both benchmarks. | |
| ▲ | manojlds 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Opus 4.8 was already shown to be cheaper than Sonnet 5 when Sonnet 5 was released (by Anthropic) | |
| ▲ | artursapek 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's definitely not cheaper than Sonnet on my benchmark, but it's cheaper than Fable and outperforms it. Which is big IMO. https://revise.io/errata-bench |
|
|
| ▲ | abixb 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So the rumors were right, Opus 5 was indeed being polished up for release. Huge improvements in GDPval-AA v2 too -- great for some of the knowledge work-based agentic workloads I run. Also glad they still kepy Fable 5 on "credits only" access. I think we're going to start seeing model providers gate top-of-the-line models behind pay-as-you-go API rates/credits while subsidizing other models on monthly subscriptions. |
| |
| ▲ | jpk2f2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's still available on at least some subs, they emailed me recently notifying me that I still have access. | | |
| ▲ | saratogacx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My understanding is that you get $20 in api credits each month and a one time $100 until mid September. So you can still use the model with a subscription but you aren't getting any kind of discount. I burned through $45 in 3 prompts to fix some bugs in my code (Some kind of tricky to isolate). That thing burns through cash so fast I don't see myself using it outside of maybe building execution plans for other systems | | |
| ▲ | tackta 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I am on the pro plan and got the $100 credit. I have moved on from Fable anyway so just going to view this next 6 weeks as I have a massive amount of Opus 5 to use. I had a hard time finding anything that would let Fable express its increased intelligence. The few conversations I had this afternoon with Opus 5 were pretty impressed. If Opus stays one click back from the frontier model, I will remain a happy customer. |
| |
| ▲ | mcv 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think I saw that Max and Enterprise keep access, but Pro has to use credits, but I think I got $85 in credits. |
| |
| ▲ | ciefa 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fable 5 is included for 50% of the limits in Max. Only below Max one has to use credits. | |
| ▲ | Wowfunhappy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fable 5 is still included in Max subscriptions! | | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | collabs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Max is an individual subscription though and does not come with the guarantees that team or enterprise do? | | |
| ▲ | ValentineC 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Team Premium has Fable 5 too. | | |
| ▲ | bakies 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Doesn't team bill API rates? | | |
| ▲ | einsteinx2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No that’s enterprise accounts. Team accounts are similar to regular Pro and 5x Max accounts in both price and features. | | |
| ▲ | ValentineC 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Team is 1.25x the price of personal accounts, but supposedly also gives 1.25x more usage. |
|
| |
| ▲ | eterm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And Teams Premium was previously needed for any claude-code at all. |
| |
| ▲ | d4rkp4ttern 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | what guarantees are these? You mean data retention, use for training etc? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | abratabia 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | krzyk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And to the guardrails of Fable: https://x.com/cheatyyyy/status/2080693704290140330 |
| |
| ▲ | kodablah an hour ago | parent [-] | | That tweet says: > Opus 5 can silently fallback to Opus 4.8 (without any notice) on the serverside if you hit a guardrail But https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16049681-why-claude-s... says (emphasis mine): > These checks cause Claude to _visibly_ fallback from Opus 5 to Opus 4.8 [...] You'll see a notice explaining that the model switched, and the response will be labeled with the model that answered. So who is right? I know for Fable I am visibly told, is this tweet trying to say it is silent against what Anthropic is saying? | | |
| ▲ | solenoid0937 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Is some random guy on Twitter right, or official support docs that explicitly describe this scenario? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gonzalohm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't understand how the data retention works. My company has an enterprise license with no data retention but if I ask Claude about past conversations, it remembers. So surely the information is being stored somewhere |
| |
| ▲ | NiloCK 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Opus 4.7+ and Fable are both much more aggressive than prior models with respect to writing memories to a location that's effectively quasi-private for them. It's device-local (so passes retention constraint), and you can see it, but only if you go looking for it. It's a funny design/affordance. I do see them often writing memories of things that that feel unlikely to be important going foward / with other tasks, but I don't see them clearly getting tripped up by them as prior models used to. (eg: Since you're running Ubuntu in Canada, here are some drills you can try to help your kid hit a baseball more consistently.) | |
| ▲ | persedes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You most likely are referring to the local jsonl files where claude has your sessions etc stored. | | |
| ▲ | mh- 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It could just be the memory features. In my enterprise-seated account I see slightly different options available (vs. my personal account) in the Capabilities section: Search and reference chats
Allow Claude to search for relevant details in past chats.
Generate memory from chat history (Legacy)
Allow Claude to remember relevant context from your chats. Memory includes your entire chat history with Claude.
The first option was defaulted to on, if I recall. | | |
| ▲ | gonzalohm an hour ago | parent [-] | | But it kind of conflicts with the contract we have with them. My company has an enterprise contract that says "no data retention" but then each user can decide to enable it unilateral? |
|
| |
| ▲ | bathtub365 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Likely in memory files stored locally | | |
| ▲ | gonzalohm an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm talking about the website. It's not local because I can see my chats in any device |
| |
| ▲ | manojlds 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Claude Code? It stores a memory.md file. |
|
|
| ▲ | arrowleaf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Updated over 2 weeks ago I hope we get clarification on this, I can't find anything claiming that it is compatible with ZDR. |
| |
| ▲ | collinrapp 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if you scroll to the bottom of their [1] link to the Opus 5 announcement, under “Getting started,” it explicitly says: > Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access. | |
| ▲ | solenoid0937 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's in the article. |
|
|
| ▲ | doctorpangloss 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| do you mean, that organizations now have access to Fable-ish pelican drawing? |
|
| ▲ | hnscum 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | gigatexal 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| insane pricing: "
Claude Opus 5 is available today on all platforms, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens (the same as Opus 4.8)" |
| |
| ▲ | gigatexal 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | "insane" that they kept the price the same and didn't jack it up, my bad for the ambiguity. | |
| ▲ | RazorBucksICO 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think for the value of the outputs that’s still a good deal. Keeping the same price as the prior model makes sense to me. That is if the model size is about the same in the cost to serve has not substantially changed. Now I would have expected efficiency gains for inference, but there is no way to know as a customer. At the end of the day, they have established a strong brand and if they can get away with a 95%+ gross margin on inference entirely from the status premium, then I suppose that’s good for them. Apple does the same thing, and I don’t fault them for it. | |
| ▲ | oblio 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why is it insane if it's the same as the previous version? |
|
