[ashwindharne]

I do find that having inference happen ~50% faster is much more valuable to my workflow than a single digit accuracy increase. If I'm going to have to check that the changes are correct anyways, getting more iterations in faster feels much better than incremental accuracy.

There's definitely a tipping point though. If the accuracy gains are so high that I can check its work less carefully or less often, the benefits of inference speed are effectively nil.

[godot]

I've been using Cursor pretty extensively in the past few months and I use it to code pretty hard problems sometimes, and a while ago when the options were between claude 3.5 sonnet vs gemini 2.5 pro, there was such a significant difference in quality that claude 3.5 often straight up failed -- the code it wrote woudln't work, even after retrying over and over again, and gemini 2.5 pro often was able to solve it correctly. In a particular project I even had to almost exclusively use gemini 2.5 pro to continue to make any progress despite having to wait out the thinking process every time (gemini was generally slower to begin with, and then the thinking process often took 30-90 seconds).

[Mo3]

Yup, same. My Google API costs were way too high. Sonnet and Opus 4 are much better now so they take care of most of my "easier" tasks. Gemini 2.5 Pro is still somehow better for larger scopes so I have it do all the pre-planning and larger tasks

[bhaktatejas922]

exactly. The point is that none of the users even realize a model is doing the apply - it should be so accurate and fast that it feels like its not there

[walthamstow]

Agreed. Sonnet 4 is supposedly better than Sonnet 3.5, but in Cursor 3.5 is much faster so that's what I use