Model Comparison
Cursor vs GPT-5.2 Codex
Cursor: StandardGPT-5.2 Codex: Heavy
Side-by-side environmental impact comparison. GPT-5.2 Codex uses 3.3x more energy per query.
GPT-5.2 Codex uses 3.3x more energy than Cursor
4.0 Wh vs 1.2 Wh per query · 1.7 g vs 0.50 g CO₂ · 15 mL vs 5 mL water
Cursor
Anysphere
Energy per query1.2 Wh
CO₂ per query0.50 g
Water per query5 mL
VS
GPT-5.2 Codex
OpenAI
Energy per query4.0 Wh
CO₂ per query1.7 g
Water per query15 mL
Cursor
ProviderAnysphere
CategoryCode Assistant
Inference LocationMulti-cloud (Azure, AWS)
Confidenceestimated
Efficiency TierStandard
GPT-5.2 Codex
ProviderOpenAI
CategoryCode Assistant
Inference LocationAzure / Multi-cloud
Confidenceestimated
Efficiency TierHeavy
Frequently Asked Questions
Which uses more energy, Cursor or GPT-5.2 Codex?
GPT-5.2 Codex uses 3.3x more energy per query than Cursor. Cursor uses 1.2 Wh per query, while GPT-5.2 Codex uses 4.0 Wh.
What is the carbon footprint difference between Cursor and GPT-5.2 Codex?
GPT-5.2 Codex uses 3.5x more CO₂ per query than Cursor. Cursor emits 0.50 g of CO₂ per query compared to GPT-5.2 Codex's 1.7 g.
Which is more environmentally friendly, Cursor or GPT-5.2 Codex?
Cursor is the more environmentally friendly option, using 1.2 Wh per query compared to GPT-5.2 Codex's 4.0 Wh. That makes GPT-5.2 Codex roughly 3.3x more energy-intensive.
Calculate your footprint with these models
See how your daily usage of Cursor and GPT-5.2 Codex adds up over time. Our calculator estimates energy, carbon, and water impact.
Calculate My Compute