| ▲ | ianberdin 6 hours ago | |
Here's the benchmark: https://playcode.io/blog/macbook-svg-benchmark#compare If we compare medium or high, then yes, Fable 5.2 is significantly better than Opus 5.5. But it's better not because it's much smarter, but because you can see it's allowed to spend more tokens. At high, Fable 5.2 wrote 76,158 tokens for $3.05. Opus 5.5 wrote 19,767 for $0.40. If you compare by token count, it's just spending more. The most interesting one was to compare them at max. Streamed, Fable 5.2 spent the whole 128K output ceiling on thinking and returned nothing. Given 300K on the Batch API, it finished at 250,082 tokens. Opus 5.5 Max needed 255,957. It turns out it's basically the same as Opus 5.5 Max. I don't see much difference. There's a little bit of a difference, but I think Opus 5.5 actually drew slightly better and is twice as cheap: $5.12 against $10.00 at the standard price. If you look closely, the icons are extremely similar. Fable 5.2: https://playcode.io/marketing/assets/static/claude-fable-5-2... Opus 5.5: https://playcode.io/marketing/assets/static/claude-opus-5-5-... It really looks like they're just tuning the effort level, that's basically it. At different effort levels, they just gave it more context, and the model got smarter. For now, my recommendation is still to do everything on Opus 5.5 Max. The model won't write that many tokens in agent mode. It only does that when there are no tools at all. | ||
| ▲ | user43928 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
The more I think about it the more disappointed I am with this release. For Anthropic's IPO, I expected a larger version of Opus 5.5 with great capabilities. This isn't that. It's barely better at all, to the point where it's likely not even worth using with the speed and cost trade off. I thought the Opus 5.5 improvements would scale to a larger model, clearly this hasn't happened. Scaling it up brought only marginal improvement. It's even still making the same dumb errors as Opus 5.5, such as forgetting to pass the flag to run only the fast tests and waiting 1h, or randomly stopping to ask me if it should first implement A or B, when both are required. Not a great story for their IPO.. | ||
