Remix.run Logo
▲ Tiberium 7 hours ago

Somehow GPT 6.1 Sol (medium) is cheaper per task ($0.21 vs $0.26) and faster per task (2.9 vs 4.9 minutes) vs v4.1 Flash 1017 (max). I hope AA adds other reasoning effort results of Deepseek so it'd be more realistic to compare it with other models, because IMO using models at max effort is very unrealistic for most people, they then take a huge amount of time and tokens for a small performance uplift.

▲kadoban 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wonder what AA's funding and affiliations are. I get the sense that they have their hand on the scale at least a bit.

▲lifeisloving 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Well yes, thats the entire business model of benchmarking companies. If you pay attention to AA, some models are on the leaderboard second they're released while others come days later, which to me implies that theres some level of coordination happening with them and a few labs.

https://fixupx.com/aarnogau/status/2076059071246193012

▲andai 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, this always bugged me. Then again, unlike American models, surely Chinese models are far too expensive for them to test them at every difficulty ;)

▲oefrha 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t know about 1017 but according to my limited testing of 0910 and previous v4-flash-0731 on some of my use cases, max simply used a lot more tokens (almost twice as many IIRC) for little to no benefit over high. So yeah I really don’t see a reason to use max.

▲amunozo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And not only your testing, I have seen that claim a lot of time online. I never tested it, though.

▲lhl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For DS41F (both the original and 1017) I've found low (25/100) reasoning to be the optimal for my tasks at least (max doesn't tend to better, and if you can't do it w/ low imo you should just switch to a smarter model). At low it's about 1/3-1/2 max's token count (and price and speed).

▲crossroadsguy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A bit like influencers of the benchmarking world. Milking it while all this trends. Are there financial/tie-up disclosures that are audited for benchmarks?

▲kristopolous 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AA prices are always kind of hand wavy for open models. I mean if you rent a cheap gpu and run inference yourself...or heck, what about a cpu instance with a bunch of ram, you can do that with llama.cpp for under a $1/hour. Ok not that, so are we talking about the median spot price per token from a basket of inference providers? Which ones? They actually vary quite a bit, even on openrouter, for this particular deepseek checkpoint it's between $0.15 and $1.20 ... that's like 8x spread...

They have some math here https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology but ok how are the prices weighted among the providers... and even if you do that 7:2:1 math it doesn't match the providers. Specifically the model in question: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/deepseek-v4-1-flash-101... doesn't match the first listed provider https://deepinfra.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Do the math yourself, it's actually $0.08 not the AA claimed $0.10 (and that's the more expensive of the two pricing tiers). That's a pretty large error bar.

Also many of the providers are now doing "peak" and "offpeak" pricing (deepseek.com itself for instance) so it can differ dramatically. These "peak" times depend on where the service is most popular. You can basically ride "off-peak" pricing by cascading from global provider to global provider.

The majority of the time taken in an inference call is doing the inference so the extra latency of traveling across an ocean is actually a fairly small wall-clock tax here. People still seem to be partial to nearby servers for ai-related workloads but really, try some decent ones 10,000 km away, you probably won't notice.

I know AA thinks highly of the price metric (I've been to their events, even have their hat, they brag about it) but I have learned to ignore it as noise.

It's an especially strange metric with open-weights decision models. I mean I can run those on my laptop ... cost is very abstract there.

But for closed-source models with only a handful of providers (sometimes just 1) great, the price is a very reasonable number.

For the open models a more useful thing would be like "100 tok/s spot price build" and then it's using pcpartpicker or something in some kind of partnership and can query a build for buying a machine right now that can achieve a certain benchmark number and maybe something for less interactive workloads like "5 tok/s". Of course getting some base unit of power cost in there might be important as well since the power bill is the majority of what you pay for when you rent a commodity gpu.

▲RussianCow 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's an especially strange metric with open-weights decision models. I mean I can run those on my laptop ... cost is very abstract there.

Almost no one is running DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on their laptop, so comparing based on API pricing seems perfectly reasonable to me.

▲kristopolous 7 hours ago | parent [-]

well no of course not ... but they do this for qwen 3.8 27b, and decision models like this https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/artificial-analysis-d...

this one is especially annoying ... i can run these on lots of hardware but there's vast differences in many aspects.

Whether I'm getting a good deal isn't what I'm thinking about if I'm getting garbage results. It's more about why am I wasting my time on the wrong tool.

I mean what I really want is a more reliable classic eval benchmark for the decision models that I can easily deploy, like the official ollama ones: https://ollama.com/library?sort=newest

perplexity has a 27b decision then there's a 3b from liquidai and another 600M one. Then there's one called kev and bespoke has nimble-v3. clef from cloudflare is there along with strands-decider from aws. Then there's laya and tev1 ... I mean the AA page seems to be the only real third party doing benchmark and evals on it but most of these are missing from it. It has a lot to be desired.

And you go over to HF and it's even more mysterious https://huggingface.co/models?pipeline_tag=text-classificati...

Maybe an agentic eval framework that tests anything that hits 100 downloads would be a decent weekend project...

Also there's like wildly different tasks. choices versus noul have way different performances and also if you are doing things like text classification such as using it for theme extraction, I mean this does work with nimble-v3 but d1 gives mostly noise and pplx-decider is in between and their performance degradation curves are dramatically different depending on the input-token length.

This is all going to be bitter lessoned eventually but I can't just sit on my hands and wait around 12 months.

So now I have a proxy that looks at the input size and do dynamic routing and sometimes fire off both and do ensemble weightings ... I mean why do I have to be clever here, this is a generic problem.

I had to discover all this myself and I really shouldn't have to do that...I guess I'm just expecting some quant results from AA that they aren't in the business of providing.

▲Tiberium 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was quite sure they use the API pricing (by default) for open weight models that have official providers? Deepseek does have their own API.

▲throwawaythekey 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they need another version of the charts with "subscription prices" at least. Lots of people are not paying API rates.

▲slopinthebag 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

this matches my experience tbh. 6.1 sol on medium is quite good at getting things right the first time without overthinking and i prefer it over xhigh or max usually. so i'm not surprised it ends up cheaper.