Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I used the new system tonight and it felt like a definite downgrade. Generated a few non-working basic apps, couldn’t handle CSS in a NextJS environment. Terminal context didn’t work. And it went back to not reasoning through the problem until resolution. And kept slowing down.

    I’m assuming major release vs stable, but this is pretty lackluster so far. Switched back to Sonnet reasoning. Here’s to improving!

    by toobulkeh
  • I think both Cursor and Cognition and going in the same direction of SWE-grep[0].

    SWE-grep was able to hit ~700tokens/s and Cursor ~300token/s, hard to compare the precision/recall and cost effectiveness though, considering SWE-grep also adopted a "hack" of running it on Cerebras.

    I'm trying to kickstart a RL-based code search project called "op-grep" here[1], still pretty early, but looking for collaborators!

    [0]: https://cognition.ai/blog/swe-grep [1]: https://github.com/aperoc/op-grep

    by SafeDusk
  • excited to see how far you get with opgrep!
    by swyx
  • For anyone else who was wondering, it looks like the within-Cursor model pricing for Cursor Composer is identical to gemini-2.5-pro, gpt-5, and gpt-5-codex: https://cursor.com/docs/models#model-pricing

    ($1.25 input, $1.25 cache write, $0.13 cache read, and $10 output per million tokens)

    by neuronexmachina
  • I'm curious if their near-term expectation is that this is be better than these models or is this a model they tend to use in Auto mode, or if the focus is really if you want speed...? I guess my question is why would I actively chose this over Auto?
    by lubujackson
  • Here's the Composer 1 pelican riding a bicycle: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2025/cursor-1-pelica...
    by simonw
  • honestly better than I expected
    by jeffnv
  • I love Cursor. I've tried Copilot/Claude/etc. but keep coming back to Cursor. I just want to work, and Cursor tab complete is dang accurate, esp. for refactoring tasks.
    by nu11ptr
  • I tried going back to VS Code + Copilot a month ago. I only lasted 4 days because it was to bad. It was super slow and gave poor suggestions, but mostly it just flat out did not suggest anything. Cursor feels snappy in comparison and the suggestions are more often than not useful. The most annoying thing about Cursor tab complete, is that it is so fast that when I am doing something unusual then it will keep on jumping in with useless suggestions. They have a snooze function for this though.
    by Sammi
  • One thing no competitor is serious on is average response completion time. Cursor lapped everyone there
    by OsrsNeedsf2P
  • There are lots of good models we like here. But we agree that getting the right point on the smart+fast graph can make agentic coding feel really good.

    (Cursor researcher)

    by srush
  • People on here love to be contrarian about Cursor, but I’ve tried all the popular alternatives (Copilot, Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cline) and found Cursor’s overall experience to just be unmatched. A big part of that is its speed, another its reliability.

    It’s the only coding agent I’m actually really motivated to use out of the box because it really does make me feel more productive while the others keep messing up the project, from way too large changes I didn’t ask for all the way to constant syntax and request errors.

    It’s the only coding agent I’ve used that feels serious about being a product rather than a prototype. Their effort in improving their stack is totally paying off.

    by solarkraft
  • You tried Claude and still prefer cursor?
    by ramon156
  • > I’ve tried all the popular alternatives (Copilot, Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cline)

    Can't help but notice you haven't tried Zed!

    by rtfeldman
  • Yep, it just works seamlessly. Sure, it hangs sometimes, but their UI allows you to retry or undo changes to an earlier point in the conversation easily. The autocompletion is nice as well and pretty satisfying to tab through the small and menial things when refactoring.
    by psygn89
  • I used Cursor for the total of one day (paid for a year subscription), discovered Claude Code later that day and havent opened Cursor since.

    Note, later I started using Codex and now Codex is my daily driver, Claude Code for problems where Codex fails (not many), and again Cursor is never used.

    They were the first mover but Codex (in my opinion) blows Cursor up into 1000 tiny pieces. It's just so, so much better.

    by saberience
  • I too have tried them all and have settled with Cursor being the best. That said I see the current space split between folks like me who know generally what I want built and appreciate a tool that helps me get to goal quicker and on the otherwise of the spectrum, folks who want the tool to orchestrate most of the engineering. I have no opinion on which is better but for me I sit on the first camp. In that camp Cursor is by far the best tool.
    by infecto
  • I dropped cursor for the precise reason you mention: reliability.

    Countless times my requests in the AI chat just hang there for 30+ seconds more until I can retry them.

    When I decided to give Claude Code a try (I thought I didn't need it because I used Claude in Cursor) I couldn't believe how faster it was, and literally 100% reliable.

    EDIT: given today's release, decided to give it a go. The Composer1 model _is_ fast, but right at the second new agent I started I got this:

    > Connection failed. If the problem persists, please check your internet connection or VPN

    by pqdbr
  • While I am excited to see a new model, I am skeptical when there is so much vagueness - charts with "frontier models" without actually spelling out which ones, charts with no numbers (time axis, or in one chart - entirely).
    by stared
  • There is a footnote that should help with the models. Training is a harder thing to report on, but roughly our finding here is that RL scales.
    by srush
  • Maybe I'm an outlier but Sonnet 4.5 quality is about as low as I'm willing to go.

    It's generation speed is not the problem or the time sink.

    It's wrestling with it to get the right output.

    ---

    And just to clarify as maybe I misunderstood again but people are comparing cursor to Claude Code and codex etc here- isn't this whole article all cursor just using different models?

    by jasonjmcghee
  • gpt-5-high is as low as i can go :]
    by NaomiLehman
  • The reason I pulled out the comparison is to highlight how serious they are about all the important parts that make or break the AI coding experience - speed being very important to me. I’d rather catch my model doing the wrong thing quickly than having a higher chance of one-shotting it at the cost of having to do a lot of specification upfront.
    by solarkraft
  • Same... I've found that using a non-Claude model just ends up being more expensive and not worth it. "Auto" tokens are hardly free, and I've had plenty of experiences putting "Auto" to work on a "simple" seeming task to have it consume like 1 USD of tokens quite quickly while producing nothing of value, when I'd replay with Claude 4.5 Sonnet non-thinking and it would provide a solid solution for 0.5 USD.
    by timcobb
  • Agree that Sonnet 4.5 is an excellent model. Would be curious to hear your experience using Composer though, it's quite good.
    by srush
  • There’s two different kinds of users, on one side people are more hands off and want the model to autonomously handle longer tasks on its own with minimal guidance, and on the other side is users who want to interactively collaborate with the model to produce desired results. Speed matters much more for the second case, where you know what you want and just want the model to implement whatever you had in mind as quick as possible. Intelligence/ability matters more for the first case when you don’t have full understanding of all the code. I think it’s context dependent for me where more serious work tends to be more interactive. The intelligence of a model doesn’t make up for issues due to lack of context to me.
    by alyxya
  • > Sonnet 4.5 quality is about as low as I'm willing to go.

    literally a 30 day old model and you've moved the "low" goalpost all the way there haha. funny how humans work

    by swyx
  • Hi everyone,

    I am an ML researcher at Cursor, and worked on this project. Would love to hear any feedback you may have on the model, and can answer question about the blog post.

    by srush
  • There is a youtube livestreamer building with it now, if you are looking for direct feedback: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bDPMVq69ac
    by MysticFear
  • Is it true that Cheetah is Grok Code Fast 2? Does this mean that the new Cursor model is also based on Grok?
    by dfltr