Anthropic 发布 Claude Fable 5.2，登顶 Artificial Analysis 智能指数
Anthropic 的新旗舰模型，科学推理和编程基准刷了一堆纪录，比如 HLE-Diamond 拿到 80%。有意思的是调低 effort 档反而更划算，输出 token 用得更少还能赢 Opus 5.5。做科学计算、代码开发的团队值得看下这笔成本账。
Anthropic 发布 Claude Fable 5.2，在 Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5 上以 65 分登顶，比 Gemini 4 Carbon（high，60 分）高 5 分，比 Claude Opus 5.5（max，59 分）高 6 分。提升主要来自科学推理、知识问答和 FrontierCode 2.0 编程测试。定价为每百万输入/输出 tokens $8/$40，比 Fable 5.1 降价 20%，但 max 档下单任务成本约 $26.5，是 Opus 5.5（$10.0）的约 2.6 倍。
具体成绩上，Fable 5.2 在 9 项评估中的 5 项刷新纪录：HLE-Diamond 达 80%（此前 Gemini 4 Carbon 最佳为 69%）、AA-Omniscience v1.1 达 67 分（此前 54）、Terminal-Bench-Science 达 73%、CritPt v2 hard 子集达 77%、FrontierCode 2.0 达 49%。但代理知识工作与终端编程进步有限：AA-Briefcase 达 1785 Elo，仍在 Opus 5.5（1800）的置信区间内；Terminal-Bench 4.0 得 60%，与 Opus 5.5 持平，落后于 Kimi K3.1 Pro（67%）。上下文窗口为 100 万 tokens，支持图像与文本输入，并提供 low 到 max 五档 effort 设置。
值得注意的是，较低 effort 档位也能保持领先：high 档得分 62，超过所有其他模型任意档位的成绩，且每任务输出约 98k tokens，低于 Opus 5.5 max 档的 173k，能在更低成本下超过 Opus 5.5。
Anthropic has released Claude Fable 5.2, taking the #1 spot on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5 at 65, led by gains in science, knowledge, and coding
At max effort it scores 65, 5 points ahead of Gemini 4 Carbon (high, 60) and 6 ahead of Claude Opus 5.5 (max, 59). Gains are driven by scientific reasoning, knowledge and FrontierCode 2.0, and roughly matching Opus 5.5 on AA-Briefcase and Terminal-Bench 4.0.
Priced at $8/$40 per 1M input/output tokens, a 20% reduction from Fable 5.1, Claude Fable 5.2 averages a Cost per Task of $26.5 with max effort, a ~2.6x increase compared to Opus 5.5 (max, $10.0) and ~2x compared to Fable 5.1 (max, $12.99)
Key takeaways:
➤ Claude Fable 5.2 leads 5 of the 9 evaluations in the Intelligence Index: At max effort, Fable 5.2 scores 65, ahead of Gemini 4 Carbon (high, 60), Claude Opus 5.5 (max, 59) and GPT-6 Astra (max, 57), and ~15 points above Claude Fable 5.1 (max, 49). It sets the highest scores on HLE-Diamond (80%, previous best 69% from Gemini 4 Carbon), AA-Omniscience v1.1 (67, previous best 54 from Gemini 4 Carbon), Terminal-Bench-Science (73%, previous best 65% from Gemini 4 Carbon), CritPt v2 hard subset (77%, previous best 72% from GPT-6 Astra) and FrontierCode 2.0 (49%, previous best 46% from Claude Opus 5.5)
➤ Less progress in agentic knowledge work and terminal coding: Claude Fable 5.2 improves on Fable 5.1 across capabilities, but sometimes only to Opus 5.5 levels. It reaches 1785 Elo on AA-Briefcase, within the confidence interval of Opus 5.5 (1800) and just behind Claude Sonnet 5.5 (1813). On GDP.pdf it reaches 24% all-pass against 26% for Opus 5.5. On Terminal-Bench 4.0 it scores 60%, level with Opus 5.5 and behind Kimi K3.1 Pro (67%), Gemini 4 Carbon (65%) and Sonnet 5.5 (64%). AutomationBench-AA is an exception, at 76% against 70% for Opus 5.5, narrowly behind Gemini 4 Carbon, 78%
➤ Lower efforts still take leading positions: With high and xhigh effort, Claude Fable 5.2 scores 62, ahead of every other model at any effort, using 98k output tokens per task against 173k for Opus 5.5 (max). At max effort Fable 5.2 costs ~2.6x more than Opus 5.5, but at lower effort settings it can outperform Opus 5.5 at lower cost per task
Other model details:
➤ Context window: 1 million tokens with image and text input
➤ Pricing: $8/$40 per 1M input/output tokens; cache writes $10 with 5-minute TTL, $16 with 1-hour TTL, and cache reads $0.20
➤ Effort settings: five (low, medium, high, xhigh, max). Intelligence Index evaluations were run at all five with Anthropic's default fallback enabled
Congratulations to @AnthropicAI on this impressive release!
本条情报归属 AITOP「模型」核心栏目，重点聚焦北美前沿实验室与硅谷科技巨头。在跨区域产业观察坐标中，该动态直接关联「中美大模型技术代差与商业化对照」「AI 开发者工具链、Coding Agent 与工程化实践」研究主线，反映出当前技术演进与商业落地的最新风向。涉及核心实体与技术议题包括：Claude Fable 5.2、Anthropic、Gemini 4 Carbon、推理模型，读者可通过下方标签进入对应专题页查阅历史脉络与关联对比。
信源核验说明：本文原始线索采编自「Artificial Analysis」（@ArtificialAnlys），经 AITOP 多维评分管线结构化提炼。
