upvote
Why they should go with Chinese models if they have a line up of gpt models and a very good partnership with someone who lives in the same jurisdiction and not in the country that convinces their citizen that it’s a good idea to go on war with western world ? Just curious ?
reply
Why would they offer a coding subscription and start competing with some of their biggest customers; when they are capacity-bound and companies like OpenAI will take however many wafers that Cerebras sells to them?

OpenAI's Sol ultrafast (powered by Cerebras) is still in preview, presumably because they're overall capacity bound.

reply
I don’t think they will until they change the architecture.

They don’t have a prefix cache like other providers, or at least don’t have a discount in their billing structure. Each message charges for the whole context window. It’s wildly more expensive for long multi turn scenarios with lots of tool calls (coding). It’s better for short few turn tasks.

Edit: I don’t know if they actually have a proper cache. This could just be a billing artifact.

reply
Cerebras supports prompt caching and has a doc about it. A fairly standard automatic prefix-based implementation with 5min expiry.

They do not seem to discount cached input for the self-serve Developer tier. Maybe they do for enterprise rate cards?

https://inference-docs.cerebras.ai/capabilities/prompt-cachi...

reply
> GPT-OSS 120B which is nigh useless nowadays:

I still think that was a really great model that got overlooked. It was really great in terms of latency/throughput while still being fairly intelligent.

I was planning on using it for a design tool, but moved over to luna since it's comparable speeds and cost for a lot more intelligence.

reply
> I was planning on using it for a design tool, but moved over to luna since it's comparable speeds and cost for a lot more intelligence.

Everyone should occasionally go back to the old models to see how much worse they were, like even a year ago you could generate results but they were typically full of bugs and you have to fix a non-insignificant amount of it all manually: https://blog.kronis.dev/blog/i-blew-through-24-million-token...

Admittedly that post was before agentic development truly took off and that 3k EUR figure when paying per API tokens would nowadays be closer to like 6k EUR for the volume of work I do, but still.

It's the same how Qwen 2.5 was pretty problematic for anything remotely serious, same with Qwen 3 Coder Next (80B), and at least the most recent versions are getting better but still not quite good enough in real world use cases outside of benchmarks. They've come a long way, regardless!

reply
As MoE with 5B active parameters it's pretty fast. But you still need a lot of vRAM, or have to run small quantitations. Qwen models just gave you more bang for your buck, and the gap became worse with every qwen release
reply
gpt-oss-120b is absolutely unusable over Cerebras. It fails to call tools half the time and just continues to think about what tool it'll call repeatedly. Like it says it'll call a tool and then it doesn't, and then it says it'll call the tool again and then it doesn't, and it just does that in a loop forever. It's awful. Also forgets to end the thinking block too. Even if the model itself was just-okay for its time, even at 1000t/s+ it's not worth it. And it's EXPENSIVE, like $5 per minute expensive
reply