[HN Gopher] Cerebras Code
___________________________________________________________________
Cerebras Code
Author : d3vr
Score : 428 points
Date : 2025-08-01 22:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cerebras.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cerebras.ai)
| namanyayg wrote:
| I was waiting for more subscription base services to pop up to
| compete with the influence provider on a commodities level.
|
| I think a lot more companies will follow suit and the competition
| will make pricing much better for the end user.
|
| congrats on the launch Cerebras team!
| sophia01 wrote:
| My understanding is that the coding agents people use can be
| modified to plug into any LLM provider's API?
|
| The difference here seems to be that Cerebras does not appear to
| have Qwen3-Coder through their API! So now there is a crazy fast
| (and apparently good too?) model that they only provide if you
| pay the crazy monthly sub?
| baq wrote:
| define 'crazy'.
|
| it's two kilotokens per second. that's _fast_.
| ttoinou wrote:
| I'd say super fast
| bangaladore wrote:
| It's more than 10x faster than the fastest alternative. And
| roughly 50x the average alternative.
|
| Certainly, somewhere between fast and crazy.
| amelius wrote:
| It generates code faster than I can inspect it.
|
| In other words, it's needlessly fast.
| pxc wrote:
| You might be able to use the extra time to have it do
| things like run some formatters, linters, run the code in a
| VM before you inspect it, or modify it for compliance with
| a style guide that you've written, and continually revise
| it for up to 5 tries until the conditions are met,
| something like that.
|
| So maybe there's something useful to do with the extra
| speed. But it does seem more "useful" for vibe coding than
| for writing usable/good code.
| pxc wrote:
| You can still get it pay-as-you-go on OpenRouter, afaict, and
| the billing section of the Cerebras Cloud account I just
| created has a section for Qwen3-Coder-480B as well.
| sophia01 wrote:
| Yeah just checked apparently it is available as a preview
| (not on main models/pricing page).
| social_quotient wrote:
| Exactly! You can use tools like
| https://github.com/musistudio/claude-code-router which let you
| use other LLMs.
|
| The way I would use this $50 Cerebras offering is as a delegate
| for some high token count items like documentation, lint
| fixing, and other operations as a way not only to speed up the
| workflow but to release some back pressure on Anthropic/claude
| so you don't hit your limits as quickly... especially with the
| new weekly throttle coming. This $50 dollar jump seems very
| reasonable, now for the 1k completions a day, id really want to
| see and get a feel for how chatty it is.
|
| I suppose thats how it starts but id the model is competent and
| fast, the speed alone might force you a bit to delegate more to
| it. (Maybe sub agent tasks)
| JackYoustra wrote:
| I've been waiting on this for a LONG time. Integration with
| Cursor when Cerebras released their earlier models was patchy at
| best, even through openrouter. It's nice to finally see official
| support, although I'm a bit worried about long-term the time for
| bash mcp calls ending up dominating.
|
| Still, definitely the right direction!
|
| EDIT: doesn't seem like anything but a first-party api with a
| monthly plan.
| ktsakas wrote:
| Does it work with claude-code-router? I was getting API errors
| this week trying to use qwen3 Cerebras through OpenRouter with
| Claude code router.
| amirhirsch wrote:
| API Error: 422 {"error":{"message":"Error from provider:
| {\"message\":\"body.messages.0.system.content: Input should be
| a valid string\",\"type\":\"invalid_request_error\",\"param\":\
| "validation_error\",\"code\":\"wrong_api_format\"}
| amirhirsch wrote:
| i ended up getting it working through copying the transformer
| in this issue: https://github.com/musistudio/claude-code-
| router/issues/407
|
| It hits the request per minute limit instantly and then you
| wait a minute.
| nubela wrote:
| Did you make payment? I also found it unusable due to rate
| limits. Not sure if it is because I was on the free trial.
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| I really wish Qwen3 folks put up an Anthropic-compatible API
| like the Kimi and GLM/Zai folks cleverly did -- this makes
| their models trivially usable in Claude Code, via this dead-
| simple setup:
|
| https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-o...
| thanhhaimai wrote:
| > running at speeds of up to 2,000 tokens per second, with a
| 131k-token context window, no proprietary IDE lock-in, and no
| weekly limits!
|
| I was excited, then I read this:
|
| > Send up to 1,000 messages per day--enough for 3-4 hours of
| uninterrupted vibe coding.
|
| I don't mind paying for services I use. But it's hard to take
| this seriously when the first paragraph claim is contradicting
| the fine prints.
| amirhirsch wrote:
| the distinction is from weekly limits of claude code.
| sneilan1 wrote:
| Claude code weekly limits are hard to distinguish. It's not
| easy to understand their usage limits. I've found when I run
| into too much opus usage, I switch to sonnet but I've never
| ran into a usage limit with sonnet 4 yet.
| sneilan1 wrote:
| 1,000 messages per day should be plenty as a daily development
| driver. I use claude code sonnet 4 exclusively and I do not
| send more than 1,000 messages per day. However, that is my
| current understanding. I am certainly not pressing enter 1,000
| times! Maybe there are more messages being sent under the hood
| that I do not realize?
| thanhhaimai wrote:
| The issue is not about whether the limit is too high or too
| low. What turned me back was that they claimed "no weekly
| limits" as a selling feature, without mentioning that they
| change it to a "daily limits".
|
| I understand it's a sale tactics. But it seems not
| forthcoming, and it's hard for me to trust the rest of the
| claims.
| twothreeone wrote:
| I don't see what's hard to understand about this.. other
| providers have weekly limits and daily limits. If you max
| out your daily every day you might still hit your weekly
| after 3-4 days of usage, meaning you cannot send more for
| the rest of the week. This is saying that no such weekly
| limit exists on top of the daily. E.g. see
| https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/28/anthropic-unveils-new-
| rate...
| brandall10 wrote:
| Claude Code does not have a daily limit, it has 5 hour
| windows that reset. On the $100 plan it's pretty hard to
| hit a window limit w/ Sonnet unless you're using
| multiple/subagents. The $200 is better suited to those
| who do that or want to use a significant amount of Opus.
|
| Also the weekly limit selling point is silly - it almost
| certainly only impacts those who are abusing, ie. running
| 24/7.
| b2m9 wrote:
| At this point I'm afraid to ask, but I will do I anyways:
|
| How do Claude's rate limits actually work?
|
| I'm not a Pro/Max5/Max20 subscriber, only light API usage
| for Anthropic - so it's likely that I don't really
| understand the limits there.
|
| For example, community reports that Anthropic's message
| limit for Max 5 translates to roughly 88k token per
| 5-hour window (there's variance, but it's somewhere in
| this 80-120k ballpark based on system load; also assuming
| Sonnet, not Opus). A normal user probably won't consume
| more than 250k token per day with this subscription.
| That's like 5M token for a month of 20 active days -
| which doesn't justify the 100 USD subscription cost. This
| also doesn't square with Anthropic's statement that users
| can consume 10000+ USD of usage on the Max 20 tier.
|
| I'm clearly misunderstanding Claude's rate limits here.
| Can someone enlighten me? Is the 5-hour window somehow
| per task/instance and not per account?
| ixel wrote:
| With Anthropic's Claude subscriptions - while many people
| appear to use tokens as an idea of the usage limit, I
| doubt that's what is really used by Anthropic. Why do I
| say this? Well, there are multiple models, Haiku, Sonnet
| and Opus, we all know that Opus is the most expensive and
| burns through the usage limit of the subscription the
| fastest of all. I'd theorise that Anthropic have some
| kind of internal credit value (perhaps as simple as $
| USD) which they allocate with some variance based on
| things like overall system load.
|
| Anyway, my personal experience on Max 20x is that, with
| Opus at least, on a busy day in the past I can burn
| through between 150 to 200 million tokens in a day using
| Claude Code for development stuff. Split that up into 5
| hour windows, and assume I'm possibly using 2 or 3
| windows in a day, that still works out to a lot of
| tokens, well into the millions. So, the 88k tokens per
| 5-hour window on Max 5x, I'm not sure if it's really as
| small as that. Maybe the apparent reductions recently in
| usage limits have made it drop to around that ballpark.
| Originally I saw Max 5x as a heavy usage Sonnet plan,
| with Max 20x being a heavy usage Opus plan, however with
| the new and additional weekly usage limit happening on
| August 28th I think I'd see the plans as potentially
| moderate to heavy usage Sonnet for Max 5x, and heavy
| usage Sonnet with multiple concurrent agents for Max 20x.
|
| TLDR: I strongly imagine that Claude subscription usage
| limits are based on some kind of internal credit value,
| perhaps $ USD, not specifically tokens, and depending
| which model you use is how fast this "credit" will be
| depleted.
|
| The usage limits are currently for an account, based on a
| 5-hour window, from the first message that was sent in a
| new 5-hour window. From August 28th there's an additional
| weekly limit which looks like it will primarily make Opus
| usage restricted.
| brandall10 wrote:
| It's probably best to look at it as credit based, which
| map to a certain scale of particular tokens (ie. an Opus
| token takes 5x the credits of a Sonnet token).
| asaddhamani wrote:
| Claude now does have a weekly limit so if you are able to
| hit your weekly (undisclosed, dynamic) limit in 2 days,
| you're unable to use the services for the next 5 days.
| That is what Cerebras is referencing with no weekly
| limits. Claude has session count limits, dynamic limits
| within each session, and now weekly limits on top of all
| that.
| brandall10 wrote:
| Please read my full comment.
|
| Cerebras is jumping on a marketing faux-pas by Anthropic.
| I say this for the point you bring up about monthly
| session limits - no one on the Claude subreddit has yet
| to report being hit by this despite many going way over
| that. These are checks to deal w/ abusive accounts.
| d3vr wrote:
| > no one on the Claude subreddit has yet to report being
| hit by this despite many going way over that
|
| Because it hasn't gone into effect yet: "From August 28,
| we'll introduce new weekly limits that'll mitigate these
| problems while impacting as few customers as possible."
| [0]
|
| [0] https://xcancel.com/AnthropicAI/status/19498985148443
| 07953#m
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| It's not hard to understand, but I think there's a
| compelling argument to be made that the "daily AND
| weekly" limits is surely user hostile and differing
| limits across different pricing tiers can make it harder
| to tell at a glance what you actually need. It's not that
| Cerebrus has a feature worth advertising, it's that
| everyone else has introduced an anti-feature that has
| become the norm.
| twothreeone wrote:
| I don't know, I thought it was useful info given the
| context of the market. When I buy any service in general
| (e.g. a phone line) I'd like to know the highlights that
| differentiate that particular provider from others. And
| it didn't seem to me like this was front and center to
| their marketing, it sure seems like their output speed is
| the killer feature. This was just another item mentioned
| at the end of a sentence which also says a number of
| other things and just provides additional clarity about
| the endpoint.. -\\_ (tsu)_/-
| SamDc73 wrote:
| Still not sure if it's 1000 messages or calls though, if
| messages that's good.
| diggan wrote:
| Neither, it seems. The blog post says "Send up to N
| messages per day", but the FAQ (https://cerebras-
| inference.help.usepylon.com/articles/346886...) says:
|
| > How do you calculate messages per day? Actual number of
| messages per day depends on token usage per request.
| Estimates based on average requests of ~8k tokens each for
| a median user.
|
| So seems there is a token limit? But they're not clear what
| exactly that is? Haven't tried to subscribe, just going by
| public information available.
| bluelightning2k wrote:
| Logically it can only be API call based, as you bring your
| own IDE plugin. So there's no possibility it's based upon
| any UI level concept such as top level messages. The
| subscription wouldn't even necessarily know.
| itsafarqueue wrote:
| Your "one enter" press might generate dozens or even hundreds
| of messages in an agent. Every file read, re-read, read a bit
| more, edit, whoops re-edit, ls, grep, etc etc counts as a
| message.
| superasn wrote:
| Pretty sure this is there to prevent this[1] from happening to
| them
|
| [1] https://www.viberank.app/
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| That's a CO2 emissions leader board!
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| That's almost no CO2 emissions at all. Here is a CO2
| emissions leaderboard (need to sort by the correct column):
| https://celebrityprivatejettracker.com/leaderboard/
| wraptile wrote:
| The number one has 32k which is equivellent of 64,000
| commercial transantlantic flight trips (per person). For
| reference, 2024 had a record flights summer of 140k.
| yowlingcat wrote:
| A commercial transatlantic flight costs $0.50 per person?
| HighGoldstein wrote:
| For a moment I thought it might be the presidential
| plane, which would explain the emissions, but no, for
| some reason Trump's personal plane is a whole ass Boring
| 757
| sunaookami wrote:
| Inference != training
| echelon wrote:
| Oh my god. That's insane.
|
| The anti-AI people would be pulling their pitchforks out
| against these people.
|
| Would there be any way of compiling this without people's
| consent? Looking at GitHub public repos, etc.?
|
| I imagine a future where we're all automatically profiled
| like this. Kind of like perverse employee tracking software.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| The pro-AI people are as well, as these people are all on
| the Claude Max plan, and they're just burning through
| resources for internet lols, while ruining the fun for the
| rest of us. It's the tragedy of the commons at work.
| kristjansson wrote:
| It's a true statement - no weekly limits, just a daily limit.
| Easier to work with when you can only get locked out of your
| tool for 23h59m
| brandall10 wrote:
| The CC weekly limits are in place to thwart abuse. This bit
| of marketing isn't particular useful as that limit primarily
| impacts those who are running it at all hours.
|
| OTOH, 5 hour limits are far superior to daily limits when
| both can be realistically hit.
| bluelightning2k wrote:
| What a productive second you must have had
| bongodongobob wrote:
| The weekly limit is the daily limit x 7.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| You're going to send 1,000 messages in 1 minute?
| newswasboring wrote:
| Slightly funny in light of this
| https://www.catherinejue.com/fast
| attentive wrote:
| To put this into perspective, github copilot Business license
| is 300 "premium" requests a MONTH.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| But one premium request includes all subrequests from tool
| use and/or internal follow up requests.
| Palmik wrote:
| Yes, to differentiate from Claude Code which has 5-hour-window
| limits as well as weekly limits on top
| weitendorf wrote:
| We're just doing usage-based pricing for our ai devtools
| product because it's the only way to square the circle of "as
| much access to an expensive thing as you want, at a reasonable
| price".
|
| It's harder to set up, lends itself to lower margins, and
| consumers generally do prefer more predictable/simpler pricing,
| but so many ai devtools products have pissed their users off by
| throttling their "unlimited"/plan-based pricing that I think
| it's now seen as a yellow flag
| dude250711 wrote:
| [flagged]
| fishsticks89 wrote:
| It will just be replaced by more vibe code in the future. Code
| is like toilet paper now.
| reactordev wrote:
| Nah, we'll have a Legacy Coder agent to fix vibe coding agents
| so you'll be supervising those. Yey...
| andrewmutz wrote:
| If you review every change as it goes, vibecoded results are
| often better than human-only and written much faster
| jbc1 wrote:
| If you're reviewing every change then what does "vibe coding"
| even mean?
| chpatrick wrote:
| It's not like human code doesn't need review.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| the usage of vibe coding in my experience is towards
| those folks who run whatever the AI produced and if it
| does what they expect without throwing errors they ship
| it. If it throws errors they plug that back into the
| chatbot until the code stops throwing errors.
|
| The whole point of vibe coding is its working faster than
| you would on your own. If you're reviewing it carefully
| and understand how it works, you might as well have
| written it by hand.
| tjr wrote:
| Even if it appears to do what you want, but you don't
| actually read and understand the code, how do you know it
| doesn't do something else also? Maybe something you don't
| want?
| jdiff wrote:
| Irrelevant in vibe coding. If it walks like a duck and
| quacks like a duck, you don't go looking for extra heads,
| eyes, fingers, tongues, or tails. You ship it then throw
| repl.it under the bus when it blows up.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken, vibe coding is supposed to be when you
| don't review at all, you just let'r rip. Reviewing the AI's
| code is just... Like if coding was riding a bike, and you
| got an electric bike. Kind of. It doesn't seem like vibes
| to me.
| 0xfaded wrote:
| This is me seeing co-workers PRs :(
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| I call this "half vibe coding" (needs a better term). For
| instances where you know how you'll solve a problem but don't
| want to type it all out it's great. I tend to comb through
| the output. Even the SOTA models will make pretty bad
| performance mistakes, poor maintenance decisions, etc. But
| it's super useful for getting over the hump of getting
| started on something.
| dxxvi wrote:
| I agree 100%.
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't be snarky._"
|
| " _Don 't be curmudgeonly._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| sneilan1 wrote:
| I'm so excited to see a real competitor to Claude Code! Gemini
| CLI, while decent, does not have a $200/month pricing model and
| they charge per API access - Codex is the same. I'm trying to get
| into the https://cloud.cerebras.ai/ to try the $50/month plan but
| I can't even get in.
| bangaladore wrote:
| Unless I'm misunderstanding something. Cerebras Code is not
| equivalent to Claude Code or Gemini CLI. It's a strange name
| for a subscription to access an API endpoint.
|
| You take your Cerebras Code endpoint and configure XYZ CLI tool
| or IDE plugin to point at it.
| sneilan1 wrote:
| Oh so this is not an integrated command line tool like Claude
| code? I assumed it was something where Cerebras released a
| decent prompt and command line agent setup. A lot of the
| value of Claude Code is how polished it is and how much work
| went into the prompt design.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| There is i believe a forked Gemini Code which will work
| like Claude Code, or so it looks like on Youtube.
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| Yes it's called OpenCode and today I was surprised to
| learn it works with Claude Pro/Max subscriptions:
|
| https://opencode.ai/docs/
| dcre wrote:
| OpenCode is not a fork of the Gemini CLI. It is its own
| thing.
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| Ah I see, didn't know
| unshavedyak wrote:
| https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen3-Coder is the gemini code
| fork i was referring to i think. Not positive
| wordofx wrote:
| This doesn't feel like a competitor. Amp does tho.
| flashblaze wrote:
| I don't hear about Amp often. Have you tried it? How does it
| compare to Claude Code?
| wordofx wrote:
| It's really good. Was discussing it with a friend recently
| who said he thinks it works out cheaper because it takes
| less loops to get things right. I've been having better
| success with it so would recommend it over Claude Code for
| now.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| 2k tokens/second is insane. While I'm very much against vibe
| coding, such performance essentially means you can get near-
| github copilot level speed with drastically better quality.
|
| For in-editor use that's game changing.
| itsafarqueue wrote:
| At full pace that means 62 mins until you hit the daily cap.
| kvemkon wrote:
| Reminds me of high write speed on SSD (1.5 GB/s continuously
| to TLC) means 1 TB SSD warranty expires instead of 5 years
| just in less than 5 days (600 TB written).
| knicholes wrote:
| It says it works with your favorite IDE-- How do you (the reader)
| plan to use this? I use Cursor, but I'm not sure if this replaces
| my need to pay for Cursor, or if I need to pay for Cursor AND
| this, and add in the LLM?
|
| Or is VS code pretty good at this point? Or is there something
| better? These are the only two ways I'd know how to actually
| consume this with any success.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| any plugin that allows using an OpenAI compatible endpoint
| should work fine (eg; RooCode, Cline, etc. for VSCode).
|
| Personally, I use code-companion on neovim.
|
| Maybe not the best solution for vibe coders but for serious
| engineers using these tools for AI-assisted development, OpenAI
| API compatibility means total flexibility.
| HardCodedBias wrote:
| This has to be a monstrous money loser.
|
| If they can maintain this pricing level, and if Qwen3-Coder is as
| good as people say then they will have an enormous hit on their
| hands. A massive money losing hit, but a hit.
|
| Very interesting!
|
| PS: Did they reduce the context window, it looks like it.
| kristopolous wrote:
| They are a hardware company. They have a custom chip they are
| running it on.
|
| The $200/month is their "poor person" product for people who
| can't shell out $500k on one of their rigs.
|
| https://www.cerebras.ai/system
| HardCodedBias wrote:
| I know. These things are unbelievable machines. The people at
| Cerebras are fearless wrt. taking on difficult hardware
| challenges.
|
| But this will certainly be a money loser. They have likely
| been waiting for an open source model that somewhat conforms
| to their hardware's limitations and which gives acceptable
| recommendations.
|
| It looks like they have found it with QWEN. We'll see!
| bdcravens wrote:
| OpenAI lost around $5B last year.
|
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CCQsQnCMWhJcCFY9x/openai-
| los...
| UnPerson-Alpha2 wrote:
| Honest ? What are you thinking in terms of cost structure that
| makes you sure it is a money loser? Can you break down your
| assumptions.
| agentastic wrote:
| Why?
|
| For $200plan, it has 40M token cap per day, so assuming the API
| pricing, the max usage per day is $12/day or 360 per month.
| (Assuming user max-out usage every day or doesn't hit the
| 1000message limit first)
|
| relatively standard subscription pricing vs API pricing, i
| believe they are making money from this and counting on people
| compare this to Claude Code, which is a much more generous
| offer.
| supernova8 wrote:
| How is this even possible?
| kristopolous wrote:
| It's their own hardware :
| https://www.cerebras.ai/blog/cerebras-cs3
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Incase i'm missing something, why wouldn't it be possible?
|
| Claude and Gemini have similar offerings for a similar/same
| price, i thought. Eg if Claude Code can do it for $200/m, why
| can't Cerebras?
|
| _(honest question, trying to understand the challenge for
| Cerebras that you 're pointing to)_
|
| _edit_ : Maybe it's the speed? 2k tokens/s sounds... fast,
| much faster than Claude. Is that what you're referring to?
| UnPerson-Alpha2 wrote:
| He just wrote another way of making an exclamation, like
| "wow, incredible!".
| meepmorp wrote:
| They make frisbee-sized CPUs.
| clbrmbr wrote:
| At $200/month the comparable should be Opus 4 not Sonnet 4.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Not really. With Opus 4 you will burn into the thousand a month
| with serious usage. I tested it yesterday and 5 hours of use
| was 60$. If I extrapolate that you will easily hit 1K+.
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| Are you comparing using opus via API based usage vs opus via
| the $200/mo plan?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I didn't know anthropic offered a fixed price version.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Super curious to see some comparisons to claude code. Especially
| Opus, since they're primarily comparing it to Sonnet in that
| graph.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| For those that have tried this, what kind of time-to-first-token
| latency are you seeing?
| txyx303 wrote:
| feels very low compared to claude/gpt for me
| anonym29 wrote:
| I had 9 seconds, earlier with Cline. That said, resulting
| output file I had requested generation of was over 122KB in
| 58.690 seconds, so I was approaching 2KB per second even
| factoring in high TTFT.
| M4v3R wrote:
| The high TTFT (around 5-6 seconds) is what kills the excitement
| for this for me. Sure, when it starts outputting its crazy fast
| so it's good for generating single file prototypes, but as soon
| as you try to use it in Cline or any other agentic loop you'll
| be waiting for API requests constantly and it's a real
| bottleneck.
| hollerith wrote:
| TTFT == time to first token.
|
| (I would've just said, "the throughput is fantastic, but the
| latency is about 3 times higher than other offerings".)
| crawshaw wrote:
| If you would like to try this in a coding agent (we find the
| qwen3-coder model works really well in agents!), we have been
| experimenting with Cerebras Code in Sketch. We just pushed
| support, so you can run it with the latest version, 0.0.33:
| brew install boldsoftware/tap/sketch CEREBRAS_API_KEY=...
| sketch --model=qwen3-coder-cerebras -skaband-addr=
|
| Our experience is it seems overloaded right now, to the point
| where we have better results with our usual hosted version:
| sketch --model=qwen
| lvl155 wrote:
| Their hardware is incredible. Why aren't more investors lining up
| for this in this environment?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are
| facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that
| one of them is wrong.
| thfuran wrote:
| Neither do perfectly efficient, perfectly rational markets.
| sejje wrote:
| A perfectly efficient market would be a bad premise, sure.
| orbifold wrote:
| In this case the hardware is a nightmare to program.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Bingo
| arisAlexis wrote:
| Or just bad marketing vs the Goliath (Nvidia)
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Kurt Godel would like a word
| no_flaks_given wrote:
| This model is super quantized and the quality isn't great, but
| that's necessary because just like everyone else except for
| Nvidia and AMD
|
| They shat the bed. They went for super crazy fast compute and
| not much memory, assuming that models would plateu at a fee
| billion parameters.
|
| Last year 70b parameters was considered huge, and a good place
| to standardize around.
|
| Today we have 1t parameter models and we know it still scales
| linearly with parameters.
|
| So next year we might have 10T parameter LLMs and these guys
| will still be playing catch up.
|
| All that matters for inference right now is how many HBM chips
| you can stack and that's it
| smallerize wrote:
| Cerebras doesn't normally quantize the models. Do you have
| more information about this?
| d3vr wrote:
| It's FP8 [0]
|
| [0]: https://xcancel.com/CerebrasSystems/status/19513503371
| 867015...
| lxe wrote:
| Is this available as cline/roo-code integration? I think it might
| be on openrouter too.
| d3vr wrote:
| Cline support added in v3.20.4:
| https://github.com/cline/cline/releases/tag/v3.20.4
|
| Roo Code support added in v3.25.5:
| https://github.com/RooCodeInc/Roo-Code/releases/tag/v3.25.5
|
| Cerebras has also been added as a provider for Qwen 3 Coder in
| OpenRouter:
| https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3-coder?sort=throughput
| d3vr wrote:
| BTW you can also go through HuggingFace: https://huggingface.
| co/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct?i...
| scosman wrote:
| Groq also probably has this in the works. Fun times.
| Consumer-Basics wrote:
| Verified or just a thought?
| Flux159 wrote:
| Tried this out with Cline using my own API key (Cerebras is also
| available as a provider for Qwen3 Coder via via openrouter here:
| https://openrouter.ai/qwen/qwen3-coder) and realized that without
| caching, this becomes very expensive very quickly. Specifically,
| after each new tool call, you're sending the entire previous
| message history as input tokens - which are priced at $2/1M via
| the API just like output tokens.
|
| The quality is also not quite what Claude Code gave me, but the
| speed is definitely way faster. If Cerebras supported caching &
| reduced token pricing for using the cache I think I would run
| this more, but right now it's too expensive per agent run.
| Havoc wrote:
| This seems to be rate limited by message not token so the lack
| of cache may matter less
| Flux159 wrote:
| The lack of caching causes the price to increase for each
| message or tool call in a chat because you need to send the
| entire history back after every tool call. Because there
| isn't any discount for cached tokens you're looking at very
| expensive chat threads.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| Yes, but the new "thing" now is "agentic" where the driver is
| "tool use". So at every point where the LLM decides to make a
| tool use, there is a new request that gets sent. So a simple
| task where the model needs to edit one function down the
| tree, there might be 10 calls - 1st with the task, 2-5 for
| "read_file", then the model starts writing code, 6-7 trying
| to run the code, 8 fixing something, and so on...
| itsafarqueue wrote:
| Yup. If you've ever watched a 60+ minute agent loop
| spawning sub agents, your "one message" prompt leaves you
| several hundred messages in the hole.
| andhuman wrote:
| No it's by token. The FAQ says this:
|
| > Actual number of messages per day depends on token usage
| per request. Estimates based on average requests of ~8k
| tokens each for a median user.
|
| https://cerebras-
| inference.help.usepylon.com/articles/346886...
| jtbayly wrote:
| How did you find that? Are you sure it applies to Cerebras
| Code Pro or Max?
| sysmax wrote:
| Adding entire files into the context window and letting the AI
| sift through it is a very wasteful approach.
|
| It was adopted because trying to generate diffs with AI opens a
| whole new can of worms, but there's a very efficient approach
| in between: slice the files on the symbol level.
|
| So if the AI only needs the declaration of foo() and the
| definition of bar(), the entire file can be collapsed like
| this: class MyClass { void foo();
| void bar() { //code } }
|
| Any AI-suggested changes are then easy to merge back (renamings
| are the only notable exception), so it works really fast.
|
| I am currently working on an editor that combines this approach
| with the ability to step back-and-forth between the edits, and
| it works really well. I absolutely love the Cerebras platform
| (they have a free tier directly and pay-as-you-go offering via
| OpenRouter). It can get very annoying refactorings done in one
| or two seconds based on single-sentence prompts, and it usually
| costs about half a cent per refactoring in tokens. Also great
| for things like applying known algorithms to spread out data
| structures, where including all files would kill the context
| window, but pulling individual types works just fine with a
| fraction of tokens.
|
| If you don't mind the shameless plug, there's a more
| explanation how it works here:
| https://sysprogs.com/CodeVROOM/documentation/concepts/symbol...
| postalcoder wrote:
| this works if your code is exceptionally well composed.
| anything less can lead to looney tunes levels of goofiness in
| behavior, especially if there's as little as one or two lines
| of crucial context elsewhere in the file.
|
| This approach saves tokens theoretically, but i find it can
| lead to wastefulness as it tries to figure out why things
| aren't working when loading the full file would have solved
| the problem in a single step.
| sysmax wrote:
| It greatly depends on the type of work you are trying to
| delegate to the AI. If you ask it to add one entire feature
| at a time, file level could work better. But the time and
| costs go up very fast, and it's harder to review.
|
| What works for me (adding features to huge interconnected
| projects), is think what classes, algorithms and interfaces
| I want to add, and then give very brief prompts like "split
| class into abstract base + child like this" and "add
| another child supporting x,y and z".
|
| So, I still make all the key decisions myself, but I get to
| skip typing the most annoying and repetitive parts. Also,
| the code don't look much different from what I could have
| written by hand, just gets done about 5x faster.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Yep and it collapses in the enterprise. The code you're
| referencing might well be from some niche vendor's bloated
| library with multiple incoherent abstractions, etc. Context
| is necessarily big
| sysmax wrote:
| Ironically, that's how I got the whole idea of symbol-
| level edits. I was working on project like that, and
| realized that a lot of work is actually fairly small
| edits. But to do one right, you need to you need to look
| through a bunch of classes, abstraction layers, and
| similar implementations, and then keep in your head how
| to get an instance of X from a pointer to Y, etc. Very
| annoying repetitive work.
|
| I tried copy-pasting all the relevant parts into ChatGPT
| and gave it instructions like "add support for X to Y,
| similar to Z", and it got it pretty well each time. The
| bottleneck was really pasting things into the context
| window, and merging the changes back. So, I made a GUI
| that automated it - showed links on top of
| functions/classes to quickly attach them into the context
| window, either as just declarations, or as editable
| chunks.
|
| That worked faster, but navigating to definitions and
| manually clicking on top of them still looked like an
| unnecessary step. But if you asked the model "hey, don't
| follow these instructions yet, just tell me which symbols
| you need to complete them", it would give reasonable
| machine-readable results. And then it's easy to look them
| up on the symbol level, and do the actual edit with them.
|
| It doesn't do magic, but takes most of the effort out of
| getting the first draft of the edit, than you can then
| verify, tweak, and step through in a debugger.
| hooo wrote:
| Totally agree with your view on the symbolic context
| injection. Is this how things are done with code/dev AI
| right now? Like if you consider the state of the art.
| seunosewa wrote:
| They search for the token of interest, e.g. grep -n then
| they read that line and the next 50 lines or so. They
| continue until they get to the end.
| BenGosub wrote:
| If they say it costs $50 per month, why do you need to make
| additional payments?
| davidweatherall wrote:
| $50 per month is their SaaS solution that let's you make 1000
| requests per day. The openrouter cost is the raw API cost if
| you try to use qwen3-coder via the pay as you go model when
| using Cline
| seunosewa wrote:
| The Cerebras.ai plan offers a flat fee of $50 or $200.
|
| The API price is not a reason to reject the subscription price.
| dedene wrote:
| The flat fee is for a fixed max amount of tokens per day. Not
| requests, tokens.
| beastman82 wrote:
| the API price is not very relevant to this flat fee service
| announcement.
|
| In fact it seems obvious that you should use the flat fee model
| instead
| waldrews wrote:
| Does caching make as much sense as a cost saving measure on
| Cerebras hardware as it does on mainstream GPU's? Caching
| should be preferred if SSD->VRAM is dramatically cheaper than
| recalculation. If Cerebras is optimized for massively parallel
| compute with fixed weights, and not a lot of memory bandwidth
| into or out of the big wafer, it might actually make sense to
| price per token without a caching discount. Could someone from
| the company (or otherwise familiar with it) comment on the
| tradeoff?
| cellis wrote:
| What are the token prices?
| anonym29 wrote:
| $2/Mtok in and out but no caching discounts
| deevus wrote:
| I'm finding myself switching between subscriptions to ChatGPT, T3
| Chat, DeepSeek, Claude Code etc. Their subscription models aren't
| compatible with making it easy to take your data with you. I wish
| I could try this out and import all my data.
| atkailash wrote:
| I use regular cerebras for plan stage in cline, so I'm very
| excited to try this out
| attentive wrote:
| Attn: Cerebras
|
| Any attempt to deal with "<think>" in the code gets it replaced
| with "<tool_call>".
|
| Both in inference.cerebras.ai chat and API.
|
| Same model on chat.qwen.ai doesn't do it.
| unraveller wrote:
| Some users who signed up for pro ($50 p.m.) are reporting further
| limitations than those advertised.
|
| >While they advertise a 1,000-request limit, the actual daily
| constraint is a 7.5 million-token limit. [1]
|
| Assumes an average of 7.5k/request whereas in their marketing
| videos they show API requests ballooning by ~24k per request.
| Still lower than the API price.
|
| [1]
| https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1mfeazc/cerebra...
| itsafarqueue wrote:
| Bait and switched their FAQ after the fact too. Come on
| Cerebras, it's only VC money you're burning here in the first
| place, let's see some commitment to winning market share.
| :money: :fire:
| apwell23 wrote:
| shocking..
| esafak wrote:
| They should just host all the latest open source models FTW.
| segmondy wrote:
| FYI, you are probably going to use up your tokens because there's
| a total limit of tokens per day, so in about 300 requests it's
| feasible to use it all up. See
| https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1mfeazc/cerebra...
| exclipy wrote:
| Windsurf also has Cerebras/Qwen3-Coder. 1000 user messages per
| month for $15
|
| https://x.com/windsurf/status/1951340259192742063
| bluelightning2k wrote:
| This is awesome. I still use windsurf and like it. Their tab
| model is really good
| another_twist wrote:
| How does context buildup work for the code generating machines
| generally ? Do the programs just use human notes + current code
| directly ? Are there some specific ranking steps that need to be
| done ?
| jedisct1 wrote:
| I'm a little bit confused.
|
| I subscribed to the $50 plan. It's super fast for sure, but rate
| limits kick in after just a couple requests. completely defeating
| the fact that responses are fast.
|
| Did I miss something?
| saberience wrote:
| Ok it's fast, but rate limits seem to kick in extremely quickly
| and the results are less good than Claude Code and it ends up
| more expensive?
|
| Who is the intended audience for Cerebras?
| ritenuto wrote:
| While I'm also curious, I'm fine with having a mostly inferior
| alternative too. This is a dynamic market with some big players
| already; having more options is beneficial. If only as a way to
| prevent others from doing a rug pull.
| ixel wrote:
| The usage limit on Cerebras Code is rather limited, $50 plan
| apparently gives you 7.5 million tokens per day which doesn't
| last long. This also isn't clearly advertised on the plans prior
| to purchasing.
| d3vr wrote:
| Yeah really disappointing, hopefully they'll reconsider this
| limit because it really isn't usable, especially with "agentic
| tools" (e.g: opencode) ..
| romanovcode wrote:
| > and no weekly limits!
|
| No weekly limits so far. Just you wait if you get same or more
| traction as Claude you are going to go same playbook as they did.
| scosman wrote:
| Anyone get this working in Cursor? I can connect openrouter just
| fine, but Cerebras just errors out instantly. Same url/key works
| via curl, so some sort of Cerebras/Cursor compatibility issue.
| dlojudice wrote:
| Same here. Got this msg on the Celebras discord:
|
| > Yeah I filed a ticket with Cursor
|
| > They have problems with OpenAI customization
| hereme888 wrote:
| So for <$1.7/day I can hire a programmer at a sort-of Claude
| Sonnet 4 level? I know it's got its quirks, limits, and needs
| supervision, but it's like 20x cheaper than an average
| programmer.
| tbarbugli wrote:
| ofc it depends where you would hire, for me (NL) its above 100x
| more efficient
| rbitar wrote:
| This token throughput is incredible and going to set a new bar in
| the industry. The main issue with the cerebras code plan is that
| number of requests/minute is throttled, and with agentic coding
| systems each tool call is treated as new "message" so you can
| easily hit the api limits (10 messages/minute).
|
| One workaround we're doing now that seems to work is use claude
| for all tasks but delegate specific tools with
| cerebras/qwen-3-coder-480b model to generate files or other token
| heavy tasks to avoid spiking the total number of requests. This
| has cost and latency consequences (and adds complexity to the
| code), but until those throttle limits are lifted seems to be a
| good combo. I also find that claude has better quality with tool
| selection when the number of tools required is > 15 which our
| current setup has.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-02 23:02 UTC)