Summary
According to a post on X by @theo, Gemini 4 Carbon is "unacceptably slow" in practice. The post times one task at 22m21s on Carbon low versus 9m33s on Claude Opus 5.5 high. It also argues that Claude Opus 5.5 xhigh is cheaper per real-world task than any Carbon effort level, disputing claims that Carbon is the most cost-efficient flagship. @martin_casado takes the other side, but the snippet cuts off before his full argument.
AI-assisted summary based on the listed source.
What happened
@theo calls Carbon "unacceptably slow" in practice, timing a task at 22m21s on Carbon low versus 9m33s on Claude Opus 5.5 high, and argues Opus 5.5 xhigh is cheaper per real-world task than any Carbon effort level, disputing claims that Carbon is the most cost-efficient flagship. On the other side, @martin_casado...
Why it matters
Teams choosing between models need to weigh speed, effort level and cost per task, not just headline claims. These are single-task timings from one post, so they do not show how Carbon performs across a wider range of work. Watch for more side-by-side timing and cost data from other developers, and for the full reasoning behind Casado's view.
Signal Intelligence
Signal Strength 95%
Technical label WATCH
Public Interest 59
Category CREATOR TOOLS
Reader Depth PRACTICAL
Signal Strength reflects source quality, relevance, freshness and evidence. Public Interest helps organize discovery; it is not proof of truth.
Public Interest components
Recognizable Entity Score 90
Practical Impact Score 38
Novelty Interest Score 94
Consequence Score 18
Curiosity Score 0
Shareability Score 72
Why this is here
VQV surfaced this signal because it is recent, relevant to Consumer AI, connected to Scobleizer News Pulse (X).