Hacker News Reader

Comment by sinak | Hacker News Reader

Looks like this model is meaningfully less good than gpt-image-2. Arena.ai score is 1263 vs 1380.

https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text-to-image

Everything is less good than gpt-2-image and I suspect that will be the case for awhile, until potentially Nano Banana Pro 2.

However, cost is significantly lower in this case. A Pro image here is $0.04, a gpt-2-image high is $0.21 and lower resolution.

Gpt 2 image is unlimited on a chatgpt pro plan

Which makes it a clear price win if you already subscribe to Pro for some other reason, otherwise the price crossover where ChatGPT Pro unlimited beats the per-image pricing cited here is 80+ images/day.

gpt-2-image has such a yellow tinge though. It stands out badly on nearly any screen. The image quality is great otherwise, but I generally prefer nano banana for its color balance.

True but it’s at least addressable with some basic tone-mapping changes. It’s easier to correct an issue like this than to deal with an image that simply doesn’t follow your prompt.

Here's a quick trend of the "piss filter" in the gpt image series:

https://imgpb.com/vCZidh

Not a great test case, considering how much of the artwork in-distribution for that type of image will have age-yellowed lacquer.

Oh yeah, that’s a good point I’ll generate some images of a theoretical earth with a solar system bathed in the light of a K-type orange dwarf star instead. :)

I have some other examples of it as well that aren't going to be potentially contaminated by that late 18th century / early 19th century tintype-esque training data.

https://imgpb.com/vTUHo

As I’ve said before, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in Arena’s scoring system. They have MAI Image 2.5 ranked above Gemini Nano Banana Pro, and maybe that’s true on paper but good luck using it. Microsoft’s censorship makes Google feel like the wild west by comparison.

They also have Meta’s Muse Image ranked above NB Pro, which is just patently absurd. In my own GenAI benchmark it only managed a lackluster 7 passes out of 15. Even the open‑weight Ideogram 4 scored higher than that.

For reference, here’s GPT‑Image‑2, NB Pro, and Muse compared:

https://genai-showdown.specr.net/?models=nbp,g2,mi

The photo rankings on this page are so absurd that the only reasonable explanation is that they were judged by an AI.

The rankings are for prompt adherence, not subjective quality.

Less than 10% is meaningful?

If these were processors, I wouldn’t spend another hundred on the faster one…

The scores are pairwise ELO rankings, not simple metric scores.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com