10 ms·

would love to see some comparison numbers to Gemini and Claude, especially with this claim: "The most advanced agentic coding model for professional software e

• koakuma-chan 9mo ago
  I can confirm GPT 5.2 is better than Gemini and Claude. GPT 5.2 Codex is probably even better.
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  • cj 9mo ago
    Gemini 2.5 or 3? (3 was released yesterday)
    • koakuma-chan 9mo ago
      I tried Gemini 3 Flash, and I am unimpressed. It's maybe a competitor to Cursor's Compose-1, but completely different league from GPT 5.2
      • HarHarVeryFunny 9mo ago
        Surely Gemini 3.0 Pro would be the appropriate comparison. If you want to compare the weakest models from both companies then Gemini Flash vs GPT Instant would seem to be best comparison, although Claude Opus 4.5 is by all accounts the most powerful for coding. In any case, it will take a few weeks for any meaningful test comparisons to be made, and in the meantime it's hard not to see any release from OpenAI since they announced "Code Red" (aka "we're behind the competition") a few days ago as more marketing than anything else.
        • BeetleB 9mo ago
          Gemini 3.0 Flash outperforms Pro in many tasks - I believe the coding benchmark was one of them.
          • HarHarVeryFunny 9mo ago
            Presumably that would reflect Gemini 3.0 Flash having more extensive RL for coding training than Pro ? Maybe we can expect a "Gemini 3 Pro Coding" model in the future? Opus 4.5 seems different - Anthropic's best coding model, but also their frontier general purpose model.
        • koakuma-chan 9mo ago
          That's what I said in my original message. By my account, GPT 5.2 is better than Gemini 3 Pro and Opus 4.5 Gemini 3 Pro is a great foundation model. I use as a math tutor, and it's great. I previously used Gemini 2.5 Pro as a math tutor, and Gemini 3 Pro was a qualitative improvement over that. But Gemini 3 Pro sucks at being a coding agent inside a harness. It sucks at tool calling. It's borderline unusable in Cursor because of that, and likely the same in Antigravity. A few weeks ago I attended a demo of Antigravity that Google employees were giving, and it was completely broken. It got stuck for them during the demo, and they ended up not being able to show anything. Opus 4.5 is good, and faster than GPT-5.2, but less reliable. I use it for medium difficulty tasks. But for anything serious—it's GPT 5.2
          • postalcoder 9mo ago
            Agreed. Gemini 3 is still pretty bad at agentic coding. Just yesterday, in Antigravity, while applying changes, it deleted 500 lines of code and replaced it with a `<rest of code goes here>`. Unacceptable behavior in 2025, lol.
            • misiti3780 9mo ago
              lol
          • 9mo ago
      • walthamstow 9mo ago
        Glad I'm not alone in thinking Flash 3 was like Composer 1 in speed but smarter
    • Tostino 9mo ago
      3 has been out for at least a couple weeks for me.
      • koakuma-chan 9mo ago
        He meant 3 Flash, which came out recently
  • nunodonato 9mo ago
    I'm gonna call bs on these kind of comments. "better" on what? Coding models shouldn't even be compared isolated. A big part of making it work in a real/big codebase is the tool that calls the model (claude code, gemini-cli, etc). I'll bet claude code will still keep stealing your lunch every day of the week against any competitor out there
    • koakuma-chan 9mo ago
      I haven't used CC in a few months, what killer features have they added? I am using Cursor, it's clunky, but not that clunky so as to completely destroy model performance. I am pretty sure for my tasks (undocumented, buggy, legacy JavaScript project) GPT-5.2 is > all on any decent harness, because it doesn't give up or half-ass. It can run for 5 minutes or for 50 minutes, depending on your request.
      • nunodonato 9mo ago
        it's not about features (although they've added plenty), its the internal tooling and the way the model is prompted.
        • koakuma-chan 9mo ago
          The only thing I know that CC has that Cursor hasn't, is the ability to spawn agents. You can just prompt CC "spawn 10 agents" and it will make 10 subagents that run concurrently. But otherwise, I don't know what CC does that Cursor doesn't. On the contrary, AFAIK, CC doesn't index your codebase, and Cursor does.
          • NoveltyEngine 9mo ago
            Surely CC has a lower price? How much do you have to pay Cursor for equivalent to what's provided in a 20x Claude Max plan?
            • koakuma-chan 9mo ago
  • speedgoose 9mo ago
    It’s significantly slower though. At least for my use cases I rather ask Claude 4.5 opus and switch to GPT if Claude is stuck.