The transition from task-specific artificial intelligence toward general-purpose foundation models raises fundamental questions about their capacity to support the integrated reasoning required in clinical medicine, where diagnosis demands synthesis of ambiguous patient narratives, laboratory data, and multimodal imaging. This landscape commentary provides the first controlled, cross-sectional evaluation of the GPT-5 family (GPT-5, GPT-5 Mini, GPT-5 Nano) against its predecessor GPT-4o across a diverse spectrum of clinically grounded tasks, including medical education examinations, text-based reasoning benchmarks, and visual question-answering in neuroradiology, digital pathology, and mammography using a standardized zero-shot chain-of-thought protocol. GPT-5 demonstrated substantial gains in expert-level textual reasoning, with absolute improvements exceeding 25 percentage-points on MedXpertQA. When tasked with multimodal synthesis, GPT-5 effectively leveraged this enhanced reasoning capacity to ground uncertain clinical narratives in concrete imaging evidence, achieving state-of-the-art or competitive performance across most VQA benchmarks and outperforming GPT-4o by margins of 10-40% in mammography tasks requiring fine-grained lesion characterization. However, performance remained moderate in neuroradiology (44% macro-average accuracy) and lagged behind domain-specific models in mammography, where specialized systems exceed 80% accuracy compared to GPT-5's 52-64%. These findings indicate that while GPT-5 represents a meaningful advance toward integrated multimodal clinical reasoning, mirroring the clinician's cognitive process of biasing uncertain information with objective findings, generalist models are not yet substitutes for purpose-built systems in highly specialized, perception-critical tasks.