Model Comparison
Cursor vs Qwen3-Coder 480B
Cursor: StandardQwen3-Coder 480B: Standard
Side-by-side environmental impact comparison.
Both models use roughly the same energy per query
1.2 Wh vs 1.2 Wh per query · 0.63 g vs 0.50 g CO₂ · 4 mL vs 5 mL water
Cursor
Anysphere
Energy per query1.2 Wh
CO₂ per query0.50 g
Water per query5 mL
VS
Qwen3-Coder 480B
Alibaba
Energy per query1.2 Wh
CO₂ per query0.63 g
Water per query4 mL
Cursor
ProviderAnysphere
CategoryCode Assistant
Inference LocationMulti-cloud (Azure, AWS)
Confidenceestimated
Efficiency TierStandard
Qwen3-Coder 480B
ProviderAlibaba
CategoryCode Assistant
Inference LocationAlibaba Cloud / self-hosted
Confidenceestimated
Efficiency TierStandard
Frequently Asked Questions
Which uses more energy, Cursor or Qwen3-Coder 480B?
Cursor and Qwen3-Coder 480B use roughly the same amount of energy per query. Cursor uses 1.2 Wh per query, while Qwen3-Coder 480B uses 1.2 Wh.
What is the carbon footprint difference between Cursor and Qwen3-Coder 480B?
Qwen3-Coder 480B uses 26% more CO₂ per query than Cursor. Cursor emits 0.50 g of CO₂ per query compared to Qwen3-Coder 480B's 0.63 g.
Which is more environmentally friendly, Cursor or Qwen3-Coder 480B?
Both models have very similar environmental footprints. Cursor uses 1.2 Wh per query while Qwen3-Coder 480B uses 1.2 Wh.
Calculate your footprint with these models
See how your daily usage of Cursor and Qwen3-Coder 480B adds up over time. Our calculator estimates energy, carbon, and water impact.
Calculate My Compute