Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Claude Opus 5 built a substantially better extreme-ocean project than GPT-5.6 Sol on the same prompt, spending almost 10x more while autonomously expanding and refining far beyond what was asked with no loop instruction.

0xMarioNawfal

264,370 subscribers

48,758 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Kommentare

Profilbild von Shinra

Shinravor 27 Tagen

By the way, Grok would have handled it much better.

Profilbild von AI Model Ranking

AI Model Rankingvor 27 Tagen

👀

Profilbild von 90S KID

90S KIDvor 27 Tagen

No loop instruction and it kept going anyway. We used to call that a runaway process.

Profilbild von John

Johnvor 27 Tagen

Crazy man the future is gonna be wild

Profilbild von Glitch Truth

Glitch Truthvor 27 Tagen

10x more work, way better output. Usually that doesn't happen. Claude's not doing 10 times the thinking, it's more checking, more steps before answering. Costs more, locks in the right answer. GPT does fewer checks, answers faster. Same brain, different way of working.

Profilbild von vøv △

vøv △vor 27 Tagen

no loops, just vibes. insane

Profilbild von heroyuma🦖

heroyuma🦖vor 26 Tagen

$Abyssal 3v3MymJvAoH2P4kb3uc2XqDX5LSK3ZyR1E3DuqSkpump Wow, how is this still only at 2K? 👀

Profilbild von Alex

Alexvor 27 Tagen

spending 10x and autonomously expanding scope without being asked is interesting, but did the output actually need all that? cost isn't bad if the result is 10x better, but if it's marginally better you just paid a Claude tax

Ähnliche Videos

Same prompt. GPT-5.6 Sol vs Opus 5. All in Three.js. Opus produced the better raw visuals. The ocean, waves and atmosphere look noticeably richer. But it also: → cost ~10x more → took much longer → needed an extra prompt just to fix the camera controls Sol got surprisingly close on the first attempt, much faster and far cheaper. Opus wins visual fidelity. Sol wins the actual engineering test.

Same prompt. GPT-5.6 Sol vs Opus 5. All in Three.js. Opus produced the better raw visuals. The ocean, waves and atmosphere look noticeably richer. But it also: → cost ~10x more → took much longer → needed an extra prompt just to fix the camera controls Sol got surprisingly close on the first attempt, much faster and far cheaper. Opus wins visual fidelity. Sol wins the actual engineering test.

Token Gremlin

12,914 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

Command Code

179,535 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"

Melvyn • Builder

22,254 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Tested FlappyBench with GLM 5.3, Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol 3 models. Same prompt with /design command. Scored on features, UX/UI, and cost. 🔹 Fable 5 → 9.5/10 · $0.420 🔹 GLM 5.3 → 9/10 · $0.018 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 Results: → Fable 5 wins on quality, but costs 23x more than GLM 5.3 → GLM 5.3 gives better output than GPT 5.6 Sol at 8x cheaper → Optimizing for cost? Go for GLM 5.3. Otherwise, Fable 5 if quality matters

Tested FlappyBench with GLM 5.3, Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol 3 models. Same prompt with /design command. Scored on features, UX/UI, and cost. 🔹 Fable 5 → 9.5/10 · $0.420 🔹 GLM 5.3 → 9/10 · $0.018 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 Results: → Fable 5 wins on quality, but costs 23x more than GLM 5.3 → GLM 5.3 gives better output than GPT 5.6 Sol at 8x cheaper → Optimizing for cost? Go for GLM 5.3. Otherwise, Fable 5 if quality matters

Command Code

22,860 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Crazy. Opus 5 outperformed Fable 5 on 3d modeling at 2/3 the price We tested Opus 5, Fable 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol on the same prompt: build an explorable Japanese suburban street in Three.js, full 3D, rendered like a hand-drawn anime background. All on Max effort. Opus 5 took the longest but delivered the most varied scenery: clean dark outlines, flat cel-shaded color bands, dense street details down to the vending machine signage. Fable paid more attention to details, and while GPT 5.6 Sol was 3-4x cheaper and the fastest, but the render shows it: sparse, washed out, barely styled. Opus 5: 1hr 21min · $26.7 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $35 GPT 5.6 Sol: 41min · $7.1

Crazy. Opus 5 outperformed Fable 5 on 3d modeling at 2/3 the price We tested Opus 5, Fable 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol on the same prompt: build an explorable Japanese suburban street in Three.js, full 3D, rendered like a hand-drawn anime background. All on Max effort. Opus 5 took the longest but delivered the most varied scenery: clean dark outlines, flat cel-shaded color bands, dense street details down to the vending machine signage. Fable paid more attention to details, and while GPT 5.6 Sol was 3-4x cheaper and the fastest, but the render shows it: sparse, washed out, barely styled. Opus 5: 1hr 21min · $26.7 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $35 GPT 5.6 Sol: 41min · $7.1

GMI Cloud

54,140 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I gave Kimi K3, Gemini 3.7 Flash, GPT 5.6 Sol, and Claude Opus 5 a dice and asked them to draw a herbivorous animal integrated with it here's how they imagined the animal fused with the dice

I gave Kimi K3, Gemini 3.7 Flash, GPT 5.6 Sol, and Claude Opus 5 a dice and asked them to draw a herbivorous animal integrated with it here's how they imagined the animal fused with the dice

Ann Nguyen

412,729 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

We are officially in the era where one prompt can ship a complete playable game in <50 bucks! Asked Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol to clone Terraria, max effort level Both are playable and offer a smooth experience GPT 5.6 Sol did it at roughly 1/4 the cost and in 2/3 the runtime: - GPT 5.6 Sol: ~$35, ~1h 20m - Claude Fable 5: ~$120, ~2h Tho Fable still produced the strongest results 🥲

We are officially in the era where one prompt can ship a complete playable game in <50 bucks! Asked Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol to clone Terraria, max effort level Both are playable and offer a smooth experience GPT 5.6 Sol did it at roughly 1/4 the cost and in 2/3 the runtime: - GPT 5.6 Sol: ~$35, ~1h 20m - Claude Fable 5: ~$120, ~2h Tho Fable still produced the strongest results 🥲

GMI Cloud

130,582 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Previewing Ultrafast mode for OpenAI's GPT 5.6 Sol, powered by Cerebras. GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast generates responses at up to 750 tokens per second. That's the full, GPT-5.6-Sol model -- up to 14× faster than the same model on Standard processing. It speedran Humanity’s Last Exam in 11h 11m, nearly 7× faster than Claude Fable 5 with comparable accuracy.

Previewing Ultrafast mode for OpenAI's GPT 5.6 Sol, powered by Cerebras. GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast generates responses at up to 750 tokens per second. That's the full, GPT-5.6-Sol model -- up to 14× faster than the same model on Standard processing. It speedran Humanity’s Last Exam in 11h 11m, nearly 7× faster than Claude Fable 5 with comparable accuracy.

Cerebras

1,290,274 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 both models were tested on the same reasoning with the same prompt > 5.6 Sol one shotted everything in 70 minutes in devin > Fable 5 one-shotted everything in 90 minutes in claude code really surprised by Sol results here which one do you think won?

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 both models were tested on the same reasoning with the same prompt > 5.6 Sol one shotted everything in 70 minutes in devin > Fable 5 one-shotted everything in 90 minutes in claude code really surprised by Sol results here which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

79,418 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5. I put both through my hardest frontend test: a 3D globe dashboard. Same prompt. Same reference image. Sol on the left. Fable on the right. GPT-5.6 Sol is a major leap from 5.5. Fable 5 still wins on spacing, balance, and first-pass polish. For me, Sol comes close at half the cost.

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5. I put both through my hardest frontend test: a 3D globe dashboard. Same prompt. Same reference image. Sol on the left. Fable on the right. GPT-5.6 Sol is a major leap from 5.5. Fable 5 still wins on spacing, balance, and first-pass polish. For me, Sol comes close at half the cost.

Kai

199,763 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I gave a lil slice of lime and asked Gemini 3.7 Flash, Kimi K3, Claude Opus 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol to draw a human pose integrated with the object and here is how the human pose looks through their eyes 😆

I gave a lil slice of lime and asked Gemini 3.7 Flash, Kimi K3, Claude Opus 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol to draw a human pose integrated with the object and here is how the human pose looks through their eyes 😆

Ann Nguyen

578,506 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Opus 5.5 killed the game. We had it and GPT-6 Sol both draw Dario in Canva with ego (lite). Claude Opus 5.5: 1h 23m, $6.31 GPT-6 Sol: 26m, $14.97 Opus took 3x longer, cost less than half, and drew a much better Dario.

Opus 5.5 killed the game. We had it and GPT-6 Sol both draw Dario in Canva with ego (lite). Claude Opus 5.5: 1h 23m, $6.31 GPT-6 Sol: 26m, $14.97 Opus took 3x longer, cost less than half, and drew a much better Dario.

ego

171,700 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

OFFICIALLY SAYING KIMI K3 IS BETTER THAN CLAUDE FABLE-5 AND GPT-5.6-SOL FOR FRONTEND DEVELOPMENT Tried building a macOS-style UI for an AI operating system with Kimi K3. This whole thing took about 15 minutes from a single prompt.

OFFICIALLY SAYING KIMI K3 IS BETTER THAN CLAUDE FABLE-5 AND GPT-5.6-SOL FOR FRONTEND DEVELOPMENT Tried building a macOS-style UI for an AI operating system with Kimi K3. This whole thing took about 15 minutes from a single prompt.

aditya

556,355 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 Ox Alpha might actually be AGI I gave it and GPT-5.6 Sol (Ultra) the exact same prompt to build a website with cursor-reactive magnetic motion. Ox Alpha delivered faster and, in this test, far more accurately. the motion feels better, the graphics look cleaner, and even the font choices are way ahead of what GPT-5.6 Sol gave me. I’ll drop the exact prompt I used in the comments for anyone who wants to try it.

🚨 Ox Alpha might actually be AGI I gave it and GPT-5.6 Sol (Ultra) the exact same prompt to build a website with cursor-reactive magnetic motion. Ox Alpha delivered faster and, in this test, far more accurately. the motion feels better, the graphics look cleaner, and even the font choices are way ahead of what GPT-5.6 Sol gave me. I’ll drop the exact prompt I used in the comments for anyone who wants to try it.

m0h

59,959 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,919 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

wow... GPT 5.6 Sol Passed the Replit Benchmark. In one prompt 5.6 on Codex created a full Replit clone with DB, Sandboxes, and an agent that builds and edits full web apps. Only Fable and GPT 5.6 have passed this benchmark. 5.6 is much better at designing iOS apps than 5.5 as well.

wow... GPT 5.6 Sol Passed the Replit Benchmark. In one prompt 5.6 on Codex created a full Replit clone with DB, Sandboxes, and an agent that builds and edits full web apps. Only Fable and GPT 5.6 have passed this benchmark. 5.6 is much better at designing iOS apps than 5.5 as well.

Riley Brown

123,642 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.

AI/ML API

149,158 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kirill

65,087 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

i just compared DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash against Opus 5 gave same prompt to both models to build ocean sandbox using three.js DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash was almost 90% cheaper and 50% faster than Opus 5 💀 maybe the benchmarks are not broken.. do you think DeepSeek is better?

i just compared DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash against Opus 5 gave same prompt to both models to build ocean sandbox using three.js DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash was almost 90% cheaper and 50% faster than Opus 5 💀 maybe the benchmarks are not broken.. do you think DeepSeek is better?

Tim Jayas

28,561 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

Fable 5.1 charges 6× more than GPT-5.6 Sol anthropic's Fable 5.1 went live. we threw it straight at openai's GPT-5.6 Sol. same prompts, one shot. the test: five self-contained three.js scenes, one continuous project — a futuristic mansion on a private island. exterior orbit, grand hall with a diamond chandelier, pool with a water park, garage with 10 lambos, helicopter landing on the roof cost: Claude Fable 5.1 — $5.69 GPT-5.6 Sol — $0.88 what we saw: • fable goes for realism — waves, depth, a sand ring around the island. sol goes low-poly and clean, and its style never breaks across all 5 scenes • fable's chandelier is thousands of individual crystals. sol's hall is honestly just a staircase and a wall • fable's helicopter touches down on the lit helipad much smoother than sol's • fable built a triple-slide water-park tower — and shipped the pool with no water. sol's park is tiny — but the pool is full 6× the price buys you 6× the detail — and the same one-shot bugs. what's your choice? try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com

Fable 5.1 charges 6× more than GPT-5.6 Sol anthropic's Fable 5.1 went live. we threw it straight at openai's GPT-5.6 Sol. same prompts, one shot. the test: five self-contained three.js scenes, one continuous project — a futuristic mansion on a private island. exterior orbit, grand hall with a diamond chandelier, pool with a water park, garage with 10 lambos, helicopter landing on the roof cost: Claude Fable 5.1 — $5.69 GPT-5.6 Sol — $0.88 what we saw: • fable goes for realism — waves, depth, a sand ring around the island. sol goes low-poly and clean, and its style never breaks across all 5 scenes • fable's chandelier is thousands of individual crystals. sol's hall is honestly just a staircase and a wall • fable's helicopter touches down on the lit helipad much smoother than sol's • fable built a triple-slide water-park tower — and shipped the pool with no water. sol's park is tiny — but the pool is full 6× the price buys you 6× the detail — and the same one-shot bugs. what's your choice? try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com

AI/ML API

404,542 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen