Join the discussion

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

  • Hacker News
  • I'm saddened that Gemma4 is replaced by Qwen 3.8 on PayGo plan. Gemma4 31B is not coding model but it is excellent at intent understanding and task execution used in agentic software. This just shows that real world dominant usage for llms so far is to code generate. And not to augment business products. They must had barely anyone using Gemma to remove it from that tier.
  • I used their Coding Plan for a few months. It is genuinely difficult to keep up with the models. The output is so fast. Qwen 3.8 27B is likely one of the strongest models they've hosted so far.

    Edit: it looks like this is only available on a API token pricing. Does anyone know if they have rolled out prompt caching yet? It used to get pretty expensive for agentic coding tasks with no prompt caching.

  • Just tried it on a medium size coding/debug problem on an existing codebase, observations: - Input doesn't look faster than other models, it spends a lot of time reading Read about 5M tokens - Output is awesome, super fast as you expect from the 1500t/sec I think that's correct - Tool call is failing more than say DS4, which leads to time wasted on retries (complex tools like browser control for example) - Shell commands are still somewhat of a bottleneck

    The net effect is that I spend about the same time waiting, and I still need to read that output so, at least for coding, it actually reconciles me with the 100-200t/sec you can get on DS4 or the like. Maybe that's a good sweet spot after all and faster t/sec is not where the bottleneck is.

    Also maybe my setup (OMP) doesn't do the cache correctly but that's a huge cost driver... so atm it's quite pricy

  • I just did a little anecdotal test. Had pi + cerebras review a recent commit and asked a few quick followups on it. Worked great.

    The Cerebras session cost me $1.60 and took a total of 5.1 mins. I did get a few brief 429 rate limit errors in there. The p50 speed was 890 tok/s and 0.64s TTFT.

    Using OpenRouter averages, that would've cost $0.29 (no cache discount at Cerebras!) and would've taken about 14.4 minutes.

    So on this one short session, cerebras was 5.6x more expensive in exchange for being 2.8x faster. Or, another way, $1.32 buys back about 9 minutes of your time. Not a bad trade IMHO but the cache situation is a real bummer. The longer your session the more relatively expensive Cerebras gets. The "good" news is you're also limited by its short context window.

    (Also, I used to be on the Cerebras coding plan and the support is pretty bad for end users. My guess is these public endpoints are really just product demos for potential enterprise customers.)

    by eli
  • It would be great if they made their inference capacity for this model available via OpenRouter; the fastest provider on OpenRouter right now is at ~80tps https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3.8-27b#providers

    They do appear to host other models on OpenRouter so maybe Qwen3.8 will be there soon: https://openrouter.ai/provider/cerebras

  • Just a couple days ago I learned about ninfer (https://github.com/Neroued/ninfer) and on RTX 5090 I can now get ~200 tok/s and over 400 tok/s on concurrent requests which is plenty fast for a local model of this strength.
  • I was wondering whether this was any good for programming, but it is too fast for its own good. There is a limit of 450,000 tokens per minute. I hit this limit in about 90 seconds and burned through $1.10 while doing so. This is because cached tokens count towards the token limit.

    For comparison, I ran the same task with DeepSeek-V4-Flash, which finished in 172 seconds and cost $0.024 with a final context window size of 55217 tokens, while Qwen3.8-27B was not even close to being done with a 64178 context window.

    This is a very efficient way to burn your money, but I would not recommend it for programming.

    On the positive side, I got a $5 signup bonus, so it wasn't my own money.

  • 150k TPM limit on public endpoint means that it's likely unusable for many coding tasks. When we've tried Cerebras in the past, our problem has always been rates. We'd love to not deal with dedicated and to have access to a more flexible rate pool.

    Even trying it out, it seems like our account has gotten moved to some limbo where we can no longer add billing information.

    ``` Billing access restricted Self-serve billing is not available on Enterprise accounts. Please contact your team for further questions. ```

    We have no team (they removed themself from our slack channel after we talked about rate limits). Perplexingly, none of this even shows up in the request, which gives:

    ``` {"message":"Model does not exist or you do not have access to it.","type":"not_found_error","param":"model","code":"model_not_found"} ```

    When the error is really about billing.

    I always want to like Cerebras, but I get the vibe that as a tokens in tokens out consumer you are not valued at all.

Explore Birbla archives