Claude Code 借助 gzip 压缩实现最高 3 倍提速
Claude Code is 3x Faster, Thanks to a 34 Year Old Tool
Anthropic 提升了 Claude Code 在多个平台上的延迟，相比 8 月，本地会话快 3 倍、云会话快 2.8 倍，API、chat 和 Cowork 平台快 1.5 倍。Anthropic 在 X 上表示，Claude Code 现在会在每一轮对话发送前用 gzip 压缩，让内容更快到达模型，云会话也在用户开始输入时即启动。这些数据按首 token 等待时间的 p90 衡量，不含模型处理时间；Claude API 的数字则采用含模型处理时间的 p50 首 token 时间。
推荐理由
AI 评分 65
原文给出了各平台提速倍数和 p90 首 token 等待的测量口径，可据此判断延迟优化落在哪一环。
主题
正文
当前显示原文，中文全文译文尚未就绪。
Anthropic has improved the latency of Claude Code across multiple platforms.
Compared to August, it is now 3x faster on local sessions, 2.8x faster on cloud sessions, and 1.5x faster on API, chat, and Cowork platforms.
The company used gzip, a data compression utility released in 1992, to improve performance.
“Claude Code now gzips the conversation it sends on every turn, so it reaches the model faster,” said Anthropic in a post on X. “Cloud sessions also start up as soon as you start typing.”
These improvements are measured at the 90th percentile (p90) for the wait before the first token, excluding model processing time—meaning it likely isolates delays from factors such as conversation transmission and session startup.
The Claude API figure is different, as it measures median (p50) time to first token, including model processing time.
Gzip was created by Jean-Loup Gailly and Mark Adler as a free alternative to Unix's compress utility, whose LZW algorithm was subject to patents. First released in October 1992, gzip remains widely used to compress data for storage and transmission.
These improvements follow last month’s 3x performance boost for Claude on desktop and web
Anthropic said a two-week engineering sprint merged more than 3,000 changes to speed up Claude’s web and desktop interfaces.
At the 75th percentile, loading Claude.ai to a typeable page fell from 3.1 seconds to 0.55 seconds.
Recently, Anthropic launched newer variants of the Opus, Sonnet, and Haiku models
Opus 5.5 targets agentic coding and professional knowledge work, performing at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 on most tasks while costing 40% less to run than Opus 5.
On the other hand, Sonnet 5.5 runs more than 30% faster and costs up to 30% less for most work, while Haiku 5.5 targets high-volume, cost-sensitive workloads.