8 ms·
It looks like the vision costs the same for GPT-4o vs mini. Both start with 150x150px and if you click the (i) it says mini uses way more base tokens and way m
by mucle6 2y ago
It looks like the vision costs the same for GPT-4o vs mini.
Both start with 150x150px and if you click the (i) it says mini uses way more base tokens and way more tile tokens, it still costs the same...
- minimaxir 2y agoGood catch: the calculators here are bizarre. For GPT-4o, a 512x512 image uses 170 tile tokens. For GPT-4o mini, a 512x512 image uses 5,667 tile tokens. How does that even work in the context of a ViT? The patches and its image encoder should be the same size/output. Since the base token counts increase proportionally (which makes even less sense) I have a hunch there's a JavaScript bug instead.
- MasterScrat 2y agoIt almost sounds shady... "it's 30x cheaper per token but you now need 30x more tokens per image"? Has anyone already validated this based on billed cost? running a batch myself to check EDIT: Ok so I captioned 500 images in "low resolution" mode with GPT-4o-mini Each one took approximately: "completion_tokens=84, prompt_tokens=2989, total_tokens=3073" Reported GPT-4o-mini cost is $0.25 Using GPT-4o this would cost me $1.33 (also in "low resolution" mode), with this breakdown: "completion_tokens=98, prompt_tokens=239, total_tokens=337"
- MasterScrat 2y agoOk I now understand better what happened: The price for using images as part of your prompt has indeed not changed between GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4o Yet overall, captioning 500 images now costs me 5x less. This is because when I'm captioning an image, I'm providing both an image and a text prompt. The cost of using the image in the prompt stays the same, but the cost of the text dramatically dropped.