Thread

GPT 6.1 Sol: Near-Astra intelligence for a fifth of the price

1066 points · 953 comments · crorella

Aboutplants · 1790703271 · focus · HN ↗
“OpenAI's new Pro 500 plan offers OpenAI's highest usage allowance and comes with access to its new "Ultrafast" feature — it also costs $500 per month.
At the same time, OpenAI is also making its existing $200 Pro plan less appealing. In Codex and Work, $200 Pro subscribers will see their included usage decrease from 20x of what the company offers to Plus users, down to 10x of that same allowance. In ChatGPT, meanwhile, GPT-6 Pro message caps will decrease from 200 to 100 per week.”
<a href="https://www.engadget.com/2272106/openai-adds-dollar500-pro-subscription-nerfs-its-existing-dollar200-tier/" rel="nofollow">https://www.engadget.com/2272106/openai-adds-dollar500-pro-s...
Yikes
1. honkycat · 1790704150 · focus · HN ↗
  Wow, canceling my sub. Lets see how Claude is doing these days.
  I can justify $200/mo but more than double is not appealing to me.
  1. WinstonSmith84 · 1790704455 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, here is a breaking-news for you: the 20x from Claude is not a 20x on the weekly usage, it's a 20x on the 5h usage, while the weekly usage is simply double the $100 plan...
    Basically OpenAI aligned with Anthropic on the weekly usage with the caveat that OpenAI doesn't have a 5h limit.
    diffuse_l · 1790705004 · focus · HN ↗
    OpenAI 20x wasn't 20x even before that change. I got a lot more from Claude 5x than Codex 20x...
    spiderice · 1790705131 · focus · HN ↗
    You are literally completely flipping reality. Codex was, in fact, 20x. It was Claude that was not 20x until they got caught.
    diffuse_l · 1790705957 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm describing what I got from 20x Codex vs Claude 5x. Codex is just not worth the money, at least for me. What's flipped is the value you get for each of those
    cmrdporcupine · 1790705133 · focus · HN ↗
    "For antitrust reasons, it’s helpful for the US government to mediate or at least enable these discussions — they don’t need to participate, but do need to issue a narrow waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations. " - Dario a couple weeks ago.
    Yes, he was talking about safety, but IMHO they're likely already IMHO pushing the boundaries of cartel type behaviour. And they will use safety as the cover to make it happen.
    I suspect we'll see serious price fixing and the DOJ do nothing about it because of the inroads these people have with the Trump regime.
    enraged_camel · 1790705252 · focus · HN ↗
    You are painting half of the picture, perhaps on purpose? The other half is this: Opus 5.5 is significantly better than both Sol 6.1 and Astra, and with the newly increased limits across the board, it is quite difficult to run out (unless you're spamming agents at Max effort). So it is a much, much better deal than OpenAI's Pro 100.
    WinstonSmith84 · 1790705645 · focus · HN ↗
    > Opus 5.5 is significantly better than (..) Sol 6.1
    Come on .. this is barely released and you can already make that assessment?
    And no, the $200 Anthropic plan is not significantly better than the $200 OpenAI plan, it's just the same Marketing non-sense and anybody shall now rather stick to the $100 plan of both of these provider if the monthly budget is $200. Anthropic doesn't have a Luna Max equivalent, and frankly Sol 6.1 is yet to be thoroughly tested.
    [deleted] · 1790708261 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    MCArth · 1790705257 · focus · HN ↗
    If you've used both you know the OpenAI plans don't compare to Anthropic plans _at all_. Claude code subscriptions are probably worth 4x as much in API spend compared to the same OpenAI subscription tier.
    nostrebored · 1790710350 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you have probably started using OpenAI recently -- one draw used to be that it was really, really hard to ever hit limits. If you did, you probably had usage resets available.
    I think this is still true provided you're not using Astra.
    machomaster · 1790717469 · focus · HN ↗
    The shitty thing about OpenAI's resets is that, unlike Anthropic, they also reset the limit (on the next natural weekly reset). It means that of you pushed the reset button 5 days into the week, you only get 2 days' (2/7 of weekly) worth of extra tokens.
    cromka · 1790761583 · focus · HN ↗
    Most recent two resets were banked?
    machomaster · 1790811836 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, as I mentioned as well.
    An example. Let's assume that the work is evenly divided between days.
    Imagine you want to work twice as much.
    1. How efficiently can you use the reset credits if they would not reset the normal reset time?
    Work with your normal weekly quota 3.5 days, press reset, work with new tokens for the rest of the week. Efficiency 100%.
    2. With natural reset time going forward 7 days after each artificial reset.
    You work for 3.5 days, press the reset, work for 3.5 days, wait for another 3.5 days for the natural reset, work for 3.5 days, press manual reset, work for 3.5 days, wait for 3.5 days... You can calculate the number for decreased efficiency yourself.
    cromka · 1790851614 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh right, I missed your point. Yeah I guess those resets are only for when your workload required you to use all the allowance before end of week. Then you reset and are back to fresh "regular" (non-overloaded) week. But I agree it would be nicer if it worked like you wish.
    andriy_koval · 1790713075 · focus · HN ↗
    people say this, but I am wondering if there is benchmark/dashboard which actually measures this?
    the_duke · 1790708608 · focus · HN ↗
    It used to be bad, but right now with the 200$ Claude sub I find it pretty hard to blow past the session limit.
    You have to do a lot of things in parallel.
    InsideOutSanta · 1790709790 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, Fable is essentially unusable, it just burns through quota, but Opus 5.5 is great. The $200 plan goes a long way.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.