Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It doesn't look competitive along any dimension: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/step-5#intelligence-com...

Better luck next time.



Artificial Analysis has some very specific biases or perspectives on what they are measuring, so I wouldn't take their benchmarks as the final word on model quality.

Composite indices are only useful for model companies which want to build one horizontal capability for N use cases, or naive users who don't want to bother with the effort of carefully pairing models with use cases. If you're a power user looking to understand and make deliberate choices, then you want pointed evaluations -- not general composite indices. You wouldn't hire the same person to do your taxes and mow your lawn, so why is it any different with LLMs? Only if you come at the problem with the folklore around "AGI" do you start making composite benchmarks.

As I mentioned in a sibling comment... Back in their 3.5/3.7 era [1], Stepfun had a small+fast model, specifically eschewing knowledge, and instead focused on "general intelligence" like managing tool calls, orchestrating sub-agents, etc. Could be a very good substrate for running a personal assistant (time will tell what's the right approach); so I'm curious to try that out and see how they've come along since then.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47069179


> carefully pairing models with use cases

I've always wondered if there were niches that some models are better at. I use them for software, electrical and mechanical engineering plus other things. What are some notable subject-specific differences you found?


It's fast. The average speed is 115 tokens/sec according to OpenRouter. I haven't tested the model to see how it is in practice, but I'd certainly pay a little extra for faster inference.

Edit: Though the average latency of 1.5s isn't very low, so it might not be that fast in practice for agentic work. Also, I don't know how much thinking it does, as that's generally been the drawback to Chinese models.


Using Artificial Analysis

Model | Reasoning | Intelligence Index | Artificial Analysis million output tokens for the intelligence index -|-|-|- Step 5 | ? | 44 | 160 GLM 5.3 | Max | 45 | 210 MiMo V2.6 Pro | ? | 46 | 140 Kimi K3 | Max | 44 | 160 Qwen Max 0902 | ? | 45 | 190 DeepSeek 4.1 Flash | Max | 39 | 250 GLM 5.3-flash | Max | 42 | 180 GPT-6 Astra | Low | 46 | 10

It looks reasonable by open model standards. This doesn't capture the fact that DeepSeek and Step 5 have much higher token/s than the rest, other than MiMo Ultraspeed. MiMo V2.6 is either slow but cheap, or fast but expensive. Just based on these numbers, it looks good. Astra-low is one of the fastest and cheapest because it doesn't use many tokens, but I've never tried it. I liked DeepSeek and GLM when I used them.


Come on... That chart shows Sonet 5.5 as better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. I have observed the opposite.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: