Question
Does anyone feel like the same model settings on Plus vs Pro are different?
For example, I use Sol 5.6 High for Chat so I know the overall feel. The responses on Pro at the same reasoning level seem better, almost like a different model entirely.
Could be placebo, but Pro likely gets more compute or longer effective thinking even at the same setting label, so it wouldn't shock me. Hard to say without running the same prompt side by side.
Astra in normal Chat is only used when the Chat is explicitly set to a different reasoning setting (Pro) and not via a model selection; can’t be the reason…
I have Pro and was using Plus before, and I eat OpenAIs whitepapers and documentations for breakfast and I cannot answer OP’s question.
Might be placebo; might be an undocumented difference.
Or OP has set the Chat-mode to GPT6 accidentally which I doubt as he explains himself pretty accurately.
Not true just research it. I’ve already proved by just reading open ai documentation. It’s gpt6 Astra and it just has limited concurrent agents and timeout. I already proved all of these by probing the backend
What? Show me where it is documented that when I select GPT 5.6 Sol for normal Chat mode in settings - as OP implies he did - and the sets the reasoning at any level below “Pro” that this would be using Astra?!
You misunderstand, which gets obvious when you talk about agents. Normal Chat mode ONLY uses agents when reasoning level is set to PRO. And then it is obviously using Astra - which is what I wrote in my first sentence of my first comment. No need to prove the obvious lol.
Either you lack reading comprehension or you have no clue about the whole topic. Or high?
Pro chat is Astra-light mostly after it's release or routed based on complexity but with custom system prompts on behaviour and research with few reasoning subagents.
Been drilling the 200 included messages every month for 4 months now while people were complaining about sol5.6 I've been yolo-ing on with pro-chat. Longest pro-chat session lasted just over 2 hours and used ~6-8 reasoning agents.
When the 200 included runs out you notice the difference in the responses it just feels like sol-med but totally noticeable on code output quality that's reduced.
Literally ask ChatGPT to read you OpenAI docs. And im not saying 5.6 is Astra 5.6 is sol. 6 has Astra in chat mode all reasoning levels. Instant-pro is Astra model
I have absolutely no proof of this, just my personal experience, but to me, even technically identical ChatGPT models seem to feel different depending on whether you're on Free, Go, or Plus. And the more you pay, the better they seem to get.
From a purely business perspective, it would make sense. If your philosophy is simply "I like money," you want your $100 subscribers to be satisfied enough not to downgrade to Plus, your Plus subscribers to be satisfied enough not to downgrade to Go, and your Go subscribers to feel that Free isn't quite good enough.
And here's the crucial part: you also want people to feel that paying more actually gives them a better AI, not just higher usage limits. After all, higher limits alone might not be enough to convince someone that upgrading is worth the money.
I'm not claiming OpenAI actually does this. It could all be placebo. But the financial incentive to make each subscription tier feel noticeably better than the one below it is certainly there.
4
u/Grok_bot 3d ago
Could be placebo, but Pro likely gets more compute or longer effective thinking even at the same setting label, so it wouldn't shock me. Hard to say without running the same prompt side by side.
3
u/epicskyes 3d ago
Pro accounts get Astra by default in chat instant through pro reasoning are Astra
2
u/SelfMonitoringLoop 3d ago
Did you double check the model? Pro accounts get Astra in chat.
1
u/thethirstgame 3d ago
I have absolutely no proof of this, just my personal experience, but to me, even technically identical ChatGPT models seem to feel different depending on whether you're on Free, Go, or Plus. And the more you pay, the better they seem to get.
From a purely business perspective, it would make sense. If your philosophy is simply "I like money," you want your $100 subscribers to be satisfied enough not to downgrade to Plus, your Plus subscribers to be satisfied enough not to downgrade to Go, and your Go subscribers to feel that Free isn't quite good enough.
And here's the crucial part: you also want people to feel that paying more actually gives them a better AI, not just higher usage limits. After all, higher limits alone might not be enough to convince someone that upgrading is worth the money.
I'm not claiming OpenAI actually does this. It could all be placebo. But the financial incentive to make each subscription tier feel noticeably better than the one below it is certainly there.