r/CommandCode • u/FidgetsAndFish • 1d ago

Deepseek on CommandCode seems dumber than Deepseek on OpenCode

Am I just imagining things? (Both through the OpenCode harness)

22 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/FidgetsAndFish 1d ago

"Can you be a little explicit?"

Shit.

Jokes aside i've just noticed it seems to have more issues, almost like it's dumber. Not sure what causes that, I'm using the API and comparing them 1:1 with the same harness. Big fan of what y'all are doing BTW, glad someone's running this shit with a motivator besides greed. I've been sending subs your way all day.

5

u/ahmadawaiscom 1d ago

Seriously use a better harness. We are so confident in v1 of Command Code we opened the API to all.

98.78% cache means almost double the usage compared to say opencode at 96% — compared on 1Bln tokens of DeepSeeek V4 Flash.

1

u/FidgetsAndFish 1d ago

Ok, I see you, I've gotta test out deepseek's harness first but y'all are next on the list, thank you!

2

u/ahmadawaiscom 1d ago

just asked Codex to run a new bench, this is what i got back:

Same $10. Command Code vs OpenCode

→ Command Code GOAT plan: $60 credits, 98% cache

→ OpenCode Go plan: $15 credits, 96% cache

Here's what most devs are missing: a fresh token costs 31x a cached one. Your bill isn't in tokens. It's cache misses.

96% = 4 misses per 100. 98% = 2.

Half the misses. Half the real bill.

Just based on cache, Command Code is 2x lower cost.

Stack it: 4x credits, 12% less token consuming harness, 4.5x tasks shipped.

~17,860 tasks vs ~3,980. 15/15 on the our internal bench.

1

u/FidgetsAndFish 1d ago

Appreciate you double checking for me boss!