正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Advanced Frontier LLM Benchmark - Üç Cisim & Gravity Choreography 🚀 - Modeller: Grok 4.6 / AI at Meta Muse Spark 1.3 / Claude Fable 5.1 / Google Gemini Gemini 3.8 Flash - Effort: Max & Very high - Agent: Cursor & Opencode Task: Görev, modele tek bir HTML...

AlicanKiraz0's profile picture

Alican Kiraz

38,679 subscribers

18,781 次观看 • 9 天前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Latest models on the self-portrait test 👀 Gemini 3.8 Flash, Muse Spark 1.3, Claude Fable 5.1 and Tencent Hy4. Gemini 3.8 Flash looks cool 😎
0:23

Latest models on the self-portrait test 👀 Gemini 3.8 Flash, Muse Spark 1.3, Claude Fable 5.1 and Tencent Hy4. Gemini 3.8 Flash looks cool 😎

TypingMind

25,774 次观看 • 7 天前

Ran FlappyBench on Muse Spark 1.3, Gemini 3.8 Flash, and Grok-4.6 with the same /design prompt. 🔹 Muse Spark 1.3: 9/10 · $0.072. Nailed UI in 2 iterations with lowest cost 🔹 Grok-4.6: 9/10 · $0.095 · Matched Muse’s output, but cost 2x more 🔹 Gemini 3.8 Flash: 7/10 · $0.205 · Most expensive and not fully finished
0:26

Ran FlappyBench on Muse Spark 1.3, Gemini 3.8 Flash, and Grok-4.6 with the same /design prompt. 🔹 Muse Spark 1.3: 9/10 · $0.072. Nailed UI in 2 iterations with lowest cost 🔹 Grok-4.6: 9/10 · $0.095 · Matched Muse’s output, but cost 2x more 🔹 Gemini 3.8 Flash: 7/10 · $0.205 · Most expensive and not fully finished

Command Code

36,392 次观看 • 8 天前

Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash - Anime animation test We know Fable 5.1 is the most capable model for reasoning but now Google launched Gemini 3.8 flash Did it do a good job?
0:30

Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash - Anime animation test We know Fable 5.1 is the most capable model for reasoning but now Google launched Gemini 3.8 flash Did it do a good job?

maxfusion.ai

48,200 次观看 • 9 天前

meta muse just mogged fable 5.1 tested fable 5.1 and muse spark 1.3 with same prompt at highest reasoning available and results came out really different > muse spark 1.3 completed task in one minute and costed almost nothing > fable 5.1 completed task in 70 minutes and costed $13 it's clear that meta is stepping up their game in ai, they don't wanna left behind which one did better here?
0:25

meta muse just mogged fable 5.1 tested fable 5.1 and muse spark 1.3 with same prompt at highest reasoning available and results came out really different > muse spark 1.3 completed task in one minute and costed almost nothing > fable 5.1 completed task in 70 minutes and costed $13 it's clear that meta is stepping up their game in ai, they don't wanna left behind which one did better here?

J A Z I I

75,553 次观看 • 9 天前

GLM 5.3 vs Fable 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Max vs Grok 4.6 Same task. Who won?
0:39

GLM 5.3 vs Fable 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Max vs Grok 4.6 Same task. Who won?

Mario Nawfal

102,885 次观看 • 27 天前

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash just one shot Minecraft. It built this in 11 minutes and cost less than $0.25. Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash completely failed on this same exact prompt. DeepSeek cooked.
0:58

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash just one shot Minecraft. It built this in 11 minutes and cost less than $0.25. Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash completely failed on this same exact prompt. DeepSeek cooked.

BridgeMind

44,762 次观看 • 1 天前

Someone ran this test Muse Spark 1.1 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Select your model wisely!
1:01

Someone ran this test Muse Spark 1.1 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Select your model wisely!

0xMarioNawfal

73,224 次观看 • 2 个月前

GLM 5.3 Max vs Fable 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Max vs Grok 4.6 GLM 5.3 is a massive jump over 5.2. Still not beating Fable 5 for me, but it’s way closer now. And vs Grok 4.6? I’d take GLM 5.3 pretty easily on this test.
0:33

GLM 5.3 Max vs Fable 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Max vs Grok 4.6 GLM 5.3 is a massive jump over 5.2. Still not beating Fable 5 for me, but it’s way closer now. And vs Grok 4.6? I’d take GLM 5.3 pretty easily on this test.

OmedTheVibeCoder

16,648 次观看 • 28 天前

Muse Spark 1.1 costs $0.20 Grok 4.5 costs $0.51 GPT 5.6 Sol costs $1.93 Fable 5 costs $5.20 Select your model wisely!
1:01

Muse Spark 1.1 costs $0.20 Grok 4.5 costs $0.51 GPT 5.6 Sol costs $1.93 Fable 5 costs $5.20 Select your model wisely!

Shub

592,137 次观看 • 2 个月前

Dostlar yeni LLM Coding Benchmark çıktılarımız hazır. 🎉 Bu kez yine zorlu alanları bir araya getiren Trail ile Çift sarkaç: Euler vs RK4 entegrasyonu task'ını test ettim.Bu task ile modellerin hibrit; algoritma, matematik, coding ve Frontend yeteneklerini ölçümledim. Tüm modelleri opencode kullanarak kodlama yaptırdım. Aynı zamanda hepsinde en üst thinking eforu kullandım. Bu kez skorlamada Fiyat/Performans ve Kalite/Performans skalasında yaptım. Değerlendirmeyi modellerin isimlerini görmeden GPT 5.6 Pro yaptı. Testte yer alan Modeller; - DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 - Gemini 3.6 Flash - Grok 4.5 - Sonnet 5 - GPT5.6-Luna - GPT5.6-Sol - Opus 5 - Kimi K3 - Qwen 3.8 Kalite/Performans - Genel sıralama - Opus 5 — 96.32/100 - $1.4660 - GPT5.6-Sol — 93.85/100 - $0.3627 - GPT5.6-Luna — 92.15/100 - $0.2373 - Kimi K3 — 91.70/100 - $0.3312 - Qwen3.8 — 89.95/100 - $0.2807 - Sonnet 5 — 88.16/100 - $0.4429 - DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 — 85.12/100 - $0.0994 - Gemini 3.6 Flash — 83.24/100 - $0.0637 - Grok 4.5 — 79.82/100 - $0.4768 Fiyat/performans - Genel sıralama - DeepSeek V4 Flash - 88.00 - GPT5.6-Luna - 87.04 - Qwen 3.8 - 85.75 - Kimi K3 - 84.91 - Gemini 3.6 Flash - 83.57 - GPT5.6-Sol - 82.91 - Grok 4.5 - 81.87 - Sonnet 5 - 80.66 - Opus 5 - 80.22 Genel Değerlendirme: - Prod fiyat/performans kazananı: Qwen3.8. - Maksimum kalite, maliyet önemsiz: Opus 5. - En düşük bütçede yeterli ve tam özellikli çıktı: DeepSeek V4 Flash - En dengeli orta nokta: GPT5.6-Luna ve Kimi K3 Teknik Alan Spesifik Başarı: - En iyi saf numerical integrator: Opus 5 = GPT5.6-Sol - En doğru built-in validator: GPT5.6-Luna - En iyi standart runtime performansı: DeepSeek V4 Flash ve Kimi K3 - En iyi görsel kalite: Opus 5 - En iyi UI/ürün: GPT5.6-Sol - En iyi mimari: Opus 5 - En iyi ekonomik F/P: DeepSeek V4 Flash - En iyi production F/P: GPT5.6-Sol - En pahalı marjinal kalite artışı: Opus 5 - En ciddi validator hatası: Grok 4.5 - En yüksek hot-path/GC riski: Gemini 3.6 Flash
0:58

Dostlar yeni LLM Coding Benchmark çıktılarımız hazır. 🎉 Bu kez yine zorlu alanları bir araya getiren Trail ile Çift sarkaç: Euler vs RK4 entegrasyonu task'ını test ettim.Bu task ile modellerin hibrit; algoritma, matematik, coding ve Frontend yeteneklerini ölçümledim. Tüm modelleri opencode kullanarak kodlama yaptırdım. Aynı zamanda hepsinde en üst thinking eforu kullandım. Bu kez skorlamada Fiyat/Performans ve Kalite/Performans skalasında yaptım. Değerlendirmeyi modellerin isimlerini görmeden GPT 5.6 Pro yaptı. Testte yer alan Modeller; - DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 - Gemini 3.6 Flash - Grok 4.5 - Sonnet 5 - GPT5.6-Luna - GPT5.6-Sol - Opus 5 - Kimi K3 - Qwen 3.8 Kalite/Performans - Genel sıralama - Opus 5 — 96.32/100 - $1.4660 - GPT5.6-Sol — 93.85/100 - $0.3627 - GPT5.6-Luna — 92.15/100 - $0.2373 - Kimi K3 — 91.70/100 - $0.3312 - Qwen3.8 — 89.95/100 - $0.2807 - Sonnet 5 — 88.16/100 - $0.4429 - DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 — 85.12/100 - $0.0994 - Gemini 3.6 Flash — 83.24/100 - $0.0637 - Grok 4.5 — 79.82/100 - $0.4768 Fiyat/performans - Genel sıralama - DeepSeek V4 Flash - 88.00 - GPT5.6-Luna - 87.04 - Qwen 3.8 - 85.75 - Kimi K3 - 84.91 - Gemini 3.6 Flash - 83.57 - GPT5.6-Sol - 82.91 - Grok 4.5 - 81.87 - Sonnet 5 - 80.66 - Opus 5 - 80.22 Genel Değerlendirme: - Prod fiyat/performans kazananı: Qwen3.8. - Maksimum kalite, maliyet önemsiz: Opus 5. - En düşük bütçede yeterli ve tam özellikli çıktı: DeepSeek V4 Flash - En dengeli orta nokta: GPT5.6-Luna ve Kimi K3 Teknik Alan Spesifik Başarı: - En iyi saf numerical integrator: Opus 5 = GPT5.6-Sol - En doğru built-in validator: GPT5.6-Luna - En iyi standart runtime performansı: DeepSeek V4 Flash ve Kimi K3 - En iyi görsel kalite: Opus 5 - En iyi UI/ürün: GPT5.6-Sol - En iyi mimari: Opus 5 - En iyi ekonomik F/P: DeepSeek V4 Flash - En iyi production F/P: GPT5.6-Sol - En pahalı marjinal kalite artışı: Opus 5 - En ciddi validator hatası: Grok 4.5 - En yüksek hot-path/GC riski: Gemini 3.6 Flash

Alican Kiraz

14,983 次观看 • 1 个月前

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is a very interesting model. I just tested it on the BridgeBench lava lamp test and it took LONGER to complete than Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 Astra. It ran at 344 toks/sec, spent 23.5M tokens with a cache hit rate of 99.7%, and cost $0.33. Even though it runs so fast it ends up completing tasks very slowly. The lava lamp that it produced was better than Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash.
1:15

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is a very interesting model. I just tested it on the BridgeBench lava lamp test and it took LONGER to complete than Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 Astra. It ran at 344 toks/sec, spent 23.5M tokens with a cache hit rate of 99.7%, and cost $0.33. Even though it runs so fast it ends up completing tasks very slowly. The lava lamp that it produced was better than Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash.

BridgeMind

123,641 次观看 • 2 天前

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?
0:25

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?

Bhavy☄️

33,971 次观看 • 8 天前

1/ we just publicly released Muse Spark 1.3 max! we see significantly stronger coding and agentic performance on muse spark 1.3 max, so would strongly recommend trying it out even if you've already tried muse spark 1.3 high or muse spark 1.3 xhigh.
0:10

1/ we just publicly released Muse Spark 1.3 max! we see significantly stronger coding and agentic performance on muse spark 1.3 max, so would strongly recommend trying it out even if you've already tried muse spark 1.3 high or muse spark 1.3 xhigh.

Alexandr Wang

320,191 次观看 • 7 天前

Grok 4.6 just launched. You’ve seen snowboarding games from Fable, Codex, Kimi. I built one too with 4.6 from scratch. Details. Grok Voice. Mountain. Speed. Same idea. Better model. 🏂
2:25

Grok 4.6 just launched. You’ve seen snowboarding games from Fable, Codex, Kimi. I built one too with 4.6 from scratch. Details. Grok Voice. Mountain. Speed. Same idea. Better model. 🏂

Dan

181,485 次观看 • 1 个月前

Fable 5.1 orchestrates GPT-5.6 Luna agents. Via the 'fable-advisor' plugin for Claude Code. 1. Fable 5.1 orchestrates 2. GPT-5.6 Luna implements 3. Fable 5.1 reviews Think of it like in-context distillation: give Luna the intelligence of Fable 5.1 at a fraction the cost.
0:30

Fable 5.1 orchestrates GPT-5.6 Luna agents. Via the 'fable-advisor' plugin for Claude Code. 1. Fable 5.1 orchestrates 2. GPT-5.6 Luna implements 3. Fable 5.1 reviews Think of it like in-context distillation: give Luna the intelligence of Fable 5.1 at a fraction the cost.

Dan McAteer

154,209 次观看 • 9 天前

Literal robots building your page as you scroll. Fable modeled the arm via Blender MCP, Grok 4.6 + Fable for the code. HTML in Canvas, so all interactive.
0:50

Literal robots building your page as you scroll. Fable modeled the arm via Blender MCP, Grok 4.6 + Fable for the code. HTML in Canvas, so all interactive.

Zsolt Kacso

13,144 次观看 • 25 天前

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 Built a car racing game with a UX-over-UI focus, using /design command. Parameters we reviewed: Car speed, crash behavior, scoring, smoothness, and feel. Results: Grok 4.5: best overall performance Fable 5: a close second, nearly matching Grok 4.5 GPT-5.6 Sol: great UI, weak gameplay (excess drift and friction) Ranking (based on actual gameplay): - Grok 4.5: 9/10 - Fable 5: 8/10 - GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 (UI was 10/10, gameplay wasn't)
0:30

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 Built a car racing game with a UX-over-UI focus, using /design command. Parameters we reviewed: Car speed, crash behavior, scoring, smoothness, and feel. Results: Grok 4.5: best overall performance Fable 5: a close second, nearly matching Grok 4.5 GPT-5.6 Sol: great UI, weak gameplay (excess drift and friction) Ranking (based on actual gameplay): - Grok 4.5: 9/10 - Fable 5: 8/10 - GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 (UI was 10/10, gameplay wasn't)

Command Code

79,680 次观看 • 2 个月前

Muse Spark 1.3 is not that good, and Gemini Flash 3.8 is just pure benchmark-maxxing. Gemini even choked on the first run and needed a second attempt just to produce a working scene. By stripping colliders and enforcing rigorous backend-level logic in 3D space, this benchmark immediately separates true reasoning from trained test shortcuts.
0:28

Muse Spark 1.3 is not that good, and Gemini Flash 3.8 is just pure benchmark-maxxing. Gemini even choked on the first run and needed a second attempt just to produce a working scene. By stripping colliders and enforcing rigorous backend-level logic in 3D space, this benchmark immediately separates true reasoning from trained test shortcuts.

OmedTheVibeCoder

29,403 次观看 • 9 天前

Muse Spark 1.3 Ultra Contributor vs Fable 5.1 xHigh Same prompt, both ran for roughly 2 hours The prompt had a self improvement rule: if the independent judges scored the result below 9.5/10, it had to keep improving and try again, What shocked me most was that Muse Spark just NEVER stopped, It went through 20 self improvement loops, launching 3 agents each time basically 60+ agent runs over 2 hours And the cost?, Less than $1, Yes, under $1… in Ultra mode ,This completely exceeded my expectations Huge credit to Meta, this thing is a work of art
0:24

Muse Spark 1.3 Ultra Contributor vs Fable 5.1 xHigh Same prompt, both ran for roughly 2 hours The prompt had a self improvement rule: if the independent judges scored the result below 9.5/10, it had to keep improving and try again, What shocked me most was that Muse Spark just NEVER stopped, It went through 20 self improvement loops, launching 3 agents each time basically 60+ agent runs over 2 hours And the cost?, Less than $1, Yes, under $1… in Ultra mode ,This completely exceeded my expectations Huge credit to Meta, this thing is a work of art

Iam_

150,083 次观看 • 9 天前

Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.5 We put three top-tier models to build a same game challenge. Used Command Code /design, and the exact same prompt. Result: Grok 4.5 genuinely plays like a polished mobile game. Fable 5 and GPT 5.5 feel too fast. Everything feels rushed, lacks finish. Ranking based on DX & Features: → Grok 4.5: 9/10 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 → GPT 5.5: 7/10
0:39

Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.5 We put three top-tier models to build a same game challenge. Used Command Code /design, and the exact same prompt. Result: Grok 4.5 genuinely plays like a polished mobile game. Fable 5 and GPT 5.5 feel too fast. Everything feels rushed, lacks finish. Ranking based on DX & Features: → Grok 4.5: 9/10 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 → GPT 5.5: 7/10

Command Code

912,752 次观看 • 2 个月前