- 139comments
- 24comments
- 44comments
- 42comments
- 13comments
- 280comments
- 33comments
- 3comments
- 7comments
- 106comments
- 92comments
- 1comments
- 7comments
- 5comments
- 7comments
- 25comments
- 834comments
- 15comments
- 290comments
- 61comments
- 9comments
- 55comments
- 78comments
- 254comments
- 101comments
- 16comments
- 261comments
- 30comments
- 1comments
- 33comments
For anyone else looking for the pricing: https://platform.stepfun.ai/docs/en/guides/pricing/details#p...
I regularly hit 200-300M cached reads every day on some of the models I use. It has exceeded 7-800M on a couple of occasions. At $0.04/M, that is $8-12 per day only for cached reads.
Unless you meant step-3.7-flash, the input cache hits are $0.05 per mil for step-5-preview.
Pretty decent "API" rates for ~500M+ tokens on Step Fun 5, a Kimi K3 / GLM 5.3 level model?
Their "Step Plan" is ridiculous, by comparison: ~$60 usage on $6.99/mo; ~$220 on $9.99/mo. https://platform.stepfun.ai/docs/en/step-plan/overview
Huh wonder why they skipped 4?
Sometimes 4 is skipped due to being considered unlucky.
In China and in places influenced by Chinese culture, due to homonymy between "4" and death.
Sounds like death in Chinese.
Finally FireRed is being used as a benchmark again! I believe Astra can beat it in 18 hours. Not sure how that compares.
I guess being Chinese company they decided to skip version 4, while also giving impression to be on the similar iteration with leading companies (claude opus 5). I wonder if other Chinese labs like Kimi/Moonshot will follow suit.
Moonshot has already teased K3.1 so not likely
K3.1 would likely be a deeper/longer post-train from K3, so that’d make sense.
It’s all marketing anyways, but that’s at least how a lot of labs have been naming things (sometimes).
Their posisitoning is nice. Instead of saying they are cheaper and a bit less performant (in terms of intelligence), they say they are best among the cheaper and a bit less performant ones.
How about adding a contested historical facts benchmark?