4 ms·
> Claude Opus 5 is not more capable overall than our most capable general-access model, Claude Fable 5 Ok then so what's the point?
by datakan 3mo ago
> Claude Opus 5 is not more capable overall than our most capable general-access model, Claude Fable 5
Ok then so what's the point?
- LeoPanthera 3mo agoPresumably, it’s cheaper.
- afavour 3mo agoThe cost?
- merb 3mo agoSame as 4.8
- Infinity315 3mo agoThis is useful to me since I delegate most coding tasks to Opus and use Fable for planning.
- serf 3mo agoit's nice to know how to work the thing that fable fails down to when it dislikes your prompt.
- albert_e 3mo agoFable 5 is NOT included in Claude Pro subscription
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- tamimio 3mo agoAren’t they planning to remove it even from max and keep it only credit based? OpenAI will be happy if that would happen
- javawizard 3mo agoReally? It's better than Opus 4.8, that's the point. When they release new versions of Sonnet, no-one expects them to be better than Opus.
- pferde 3mo agoThe illusion of progress and advancement, to appease shareholders, and slightly postpone the looming bubble pop.
- CaptWorld 3mo agoWhy are we still talking like ai is majorly used for increasing shareholder value only? Its coding performance is top notch and quality is increasing at a rapid pace. It wasn't even half this good a year back. It even is useful for a subset of math problems.
- zormino 3mo agoPeople don't seem to be able to reconcile the fact that there is likely an overbuild and overspend on AI that may be inflating a bubble, and that AI is actually incredibly useful and getting really really good for certain tasks. Both camps are right, except for when they say the other is wrong.
- vidarh 3mo agoFable is twice the price.
- varispeed 3mo agoIf Fable gets correct answer quicker, then you might pay less than doing back and forth with Opus, plus you lose more of your own time. I see no reason for using less able models in my workflows. There is this saying, penny wise and pound foolish
- SubiculumCode 3mo agosame as it ever was. It seems your argument implies a belief that you should always use the best model. Others think that not all tasks require the absolute most powerful, expensive, model.
- stuartjohnson12 3mo agofable on longer coding tasks with fable subagents will easily chew through hundreds of dollars in a single run.
- signalchain 3mo ago[flagged]
- sambaumann 3mo agoThe CursorBench plot, for example, shows that fable does have slightly better performance, but Opus is pretty close, and is less expensive per task
- 8note 3mo agoless expensive per task might also mean less of your own time
- vidarh 3mo agoIf doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Not only is it not a given that they'll get the correct answer for a lot of simpler tasks in fewer tokens, but smaller models are often available at far higher tokens/second inference. There are certainly tasks where fable will be faster and/or cheaper, but there are plenty of tasks where even Haiku is as fast or faster and cheaper, or where you can e.g. get away with models like gpt-oss that you can get from inference providers providing 10x+ the token/second speed. If you don't use enough tokens that relying only on Fable becomes a problem, then keep using just Fable. Personally, for my $200/week Max subscription I'd run out of the weekly quota for Fable in a day. At API pricing I'd go bankrupt if I tried doing the things I do with cheaper models using Fable.
- occz 3mo agoPricing, presumably
- danielbln 3mo agoCost.
- cmrdporcupine 3mo agoTo have an answer to "Sol" GPT 5.6 which is far more cost effective and available than Fable.
- viccis 3mo agoThis is confusing to me because in their blogpost they show model benchmarks and it spanks Fable pretty soundly in most tests.
- simianwords 3mo agoYou are being downvoted for a fair question and others are extremely wrong and confident. The point is that Opus 5 is the best they can do without needing classifiers and absurdly broad safeguards.