I had the same thought. Cursor 1.0 was cheap and blazingly fast. 1.5 seems to keep the speed, but who knows how much better it is, and it's no longer cheap.
We've found it to be a strong mix of speed and intelligence. It scores higher than Sonnet 4.5 on Terminal-Bench 2, maybe we will post more on this later.
You should! This blog post doesn't really give any reason to use it besides "it's better on Cursor's internal benchmark". A full model card would be great.
Yeah, please do. Because when the AI labs you are competing with are posting extensive benchmarks and you just say "well we used our own internal benchmark" it is a bit sus, especially given the fact that the price has tripled.
I’m a big fan of Composer 1, because it’s just so freaking fast, but I do find the quality is a bit behind Opus 4.5, and maybe around Sonnet 4.5?
If 1.5 is close enough to Opus that I can daily drive it, that would be huge.
More expensive than Sonnet 4.5, but no comparison benchmarks. I think I’ll pass.
I had the same thought. Cursor 1.0 was cheap and blazingly fast. 1.5 seems to keep the speed, but who knows how much better it is, and it's no longer cheap.
We've found it to be a strong mix of speed and intelligence. It scores higher than Sonnet 4.5 on Terminal-Bench 2, maybe we will post more on this later.
You should! This blog post doesn't really give any reason to use it besides "it's better on Cursor's internal benchmark". A full model card would be great.
The way benchmarks for Composer have been presented since v1 feels unusually cautious. To users, that reads as “the model isn’t very good”.
Yeah, please do. Because when the AI labs you are competing with are posting extensive benchmarks and you just say "well we used our own internal benchmark" it is a bit sus, especially given the fact that the price has tripled.