Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Compared MiniMax M3 against three other frontier open-source models: DeepSeek V4, Qwen 3.7 Max, and MiMo 2.5 Pro MiniMax M3 crashed others on: 1. collision physics 2. 3D pinball generation It was the only model that produced a result for the 3D pinball test For human motion rendering and... show more

GMI Cloud

5,717 subscribers

51,116 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Gaming Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

MiniMax M3 is now available on AI/ML API! To test it, we asked several leading models to oneshot Doodle Jump from the scratch. The results ended up looking far closer than the price tags. MiniMax M3: $0.05 Qwen 3.7 Max: $0.08 DeepSeek V4 Pro: $0.10 GPT-5.5: $0.42 Curious which one you'd pick in a blind comparison. We also offer it 50% off for a limited time. Find docs, guides for setting it up & prompt below

MiniMax M3 is now available on AI/ML API! To test it, we asked several leading models to oneshot Doodle Jump from the scratch. The results ended up looking far closer than the price tags. MiniMax M3: $0.05 Qwen 3.7 Max: $0.08 DeepSeek V4 Pro: $0.10 GPT-5.5: $0.42 Curious which one you'd pick in a blind comparison. We also offer it 50% off for a limited time. Find docs, guides for setting it up & prompt below

AI/ML API

549,042 views • 4 months ago

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

17,145 views • 2 months ago

glm 5.3 vs qwen 3.8 vs gemini 3.7 vs deepseek v4 flash four models designed and built three structures each on a physics-backed site, with no dimensions anywhere in the brief the setup: our own agent loop on OpenRouter, a construction site as the tool set – footings, walls, arches, roofs, scaffold, a lamp. the site enforces physics and nothing else: unsupported brick falls, a roof needs walls under it, a worker reaches 3.2 m above whatever he stands on, an arch needs centring until the keystone is set, concrete cures before it carries. no budget ceiling – material cost is tallied and reported, never blocked. tasks: 1. house – a plot and a palette, no plan. shape, height and material are the model's call 2. lighthouse – a headland cut by a gully, with a rock stack standing 30 m offshore. the lamp must burn, it must be the highest thing built, and the keeper must be able to walk to it 3. bridge – a river with one islet and banks at different heights. cross it however you want models: Z.ai glm 5.3 flash, Qwen qwen 3.8 flash, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 flash vision all twelve objects were finished and signed off by the models themselves. tallest lighthouse is qwen's at 38.4 m, planted on the offshore stack with a bridge run out to it – the only model that read the site that way. deepseek signed off its bridge on an empty riverbed: 0 bricks, 107 minutes, $1.16m of material tallied - total cost, three builds #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.201 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.871 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – $1.058 #4 deepseek v4 flash – $1.567 - wall clock, three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 91m #2 glm 5.3 flash – 228m #3 deepseek v4 flash – 502m #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 912m - total tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,567,052 #2 glm 5.3 flash – 4,732,748 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – 13,469,333 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 18,230,076 - defects logged by the site #1 deepseek v4 flash – 59 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 132 #3 glm 5.3 flash – 221 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 350 - material tallied across three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – $359,884 #2 glm 5.3 flash – $583,358 #3 deepseek v4 flash – $1,327,484 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – $2,188,625 observations: • glm is the cheap one and nothing here is close – $0.201 for three buildings, $0.042 per million tokens, 6x under gemini's rate • what glm spends it on is bulk, not care: 166,228 bricks in one house and 156 defect weight, the worst single object in the set • gemini is the efficiency line – 91 minutes and 3.57m tokens for all three and an eighth of qwen's clock • gemini also builds the smallest of everything. its lighthouse is 22.5 m against qwen's 38.4, its house 6.9 m against 19.3 • qwen is the maximalist: 1.18m bricks, $2.19m of material, tallest on all three tasks, and 912 minutes – 15 hours – to get there conclusion: twelve finished objects for $3.80 all in, and a 7.8x price spread between the cheapest model and the priciest! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

glm 5.3 vs qwen 3.8 vs gemini 3.7 vs deepseek v4 flash four models designed and built three structures each on a physics-backed site, with no dimensions anywhere in the brief the setup: our own agent loop on OpenRouter, a construction site as the tool set – footings, walls, arches, roofs, scaffold, a lamp. the site enforces physics and nothing else: unsupported brick falls, a roof needs walls under it, a worker reaches 3.2 m above whatever he stands on, an arch needs centring until the keystone is set, concrete cures before it carries. no budget ceiling – material cost is tallied and reported, never blocked. tasks: 1. house – a plot and a palette, no plan. shape, height and material are the model's call 2. lighthouse – a headland cut by a gully, with a rock stack standing 30 m offshore. the lamp must burn, it must be the highest thing built, and the keeper must be able to walk to it 3. bridge – a river with one islet and banks at different heights. cross it however you want models: Z.ai glm 5.3 flash, Qwen qwen 3.8 flash, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 flash vision all twelve objects were finished and signed off by the models themselves. tallest lighthouse is qwen's at 38.4 m, planted on the offshore stack with a bridge run out to it – the only model that read the site that way. deepseek signed off its bridge on an empty riverbed: 0 bricks, 107 minutes, $1.16m of material tallied - total cost, three builds #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.201 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.871 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – $1.058 #4 deepseek v4 flash – $1.567 - wall clock, three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 91m #2 glm 5.3 flash – 228m #3 deepseek v4 flash – 502m #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 912m - total tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,567,052 #2 glm 5.3 flash – 4,732,748 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – 13,469,333 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 18,230,076 - defects logged by the site #1 deepseek v4 flash – 59 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 132 #3 glm 5.3 flash – 221 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 350 - material tallied across three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – $359,884 #2 glm 5.3 flash – $583,358 #3 deepseek v4 flash – $1,327,484 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – $2,188,625 observations: • glm is the cheap one and nothing here is close – $0.201 for three buildings, $0.042 per million tokens, 6x under gemini's rate • what glm spends it on is bulk, not care: 166,228 bricks in one house and 156 defect weight, the worst single object in the set • gemini is the efficiency line – 91 minutes and 3.57m tokens for all three and an eighth of qwen's clock • gemini also builds the smallest of everything. its lighthouse is 22.5 m against qwen's 38.4, its house 6.9 m against 19.3 • qwen is the maximalist: 1.18m bricks, $2.19m of material, tallest on all three tasks, and 912 minutes – 15 hours – to get there conclusion: twelve finished objects for $3.80 all in, and a 7.8x price spread between the cheapest model and the priciest! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

26,360 views • 1 month ago

Open-weight MiniMax M3 filled out a US customs form from a driver's license photo For this test we deployed MiniMax M3 Q4 using MLX-VLM on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra 512GB RAM. The model was tasked with reading a scanned document and an ID card photo, then completing a declaration form Output: 736 tokens · Input: 1,847 tokens · Time: ~31s The model analyzed both inputs, streamed its reasoning, and then called three tools: write_field for text fields, mark for Yes/No checkboxes, and sign for the signature and date. It extracted the required information, mapped it to the correct fields and completed the form without any manual input

Open-weight MiniMax M3 filled out a US customs form from a driver's license photo For this test we deployed MiniMax M3 Q4 using MLX-VLM on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra 512GB RAM. The model was tasked with reading a scanned document and an ID card photo, then completing a declaration form Output: 736 tokens · Input: 1,847 tokens · Time: ~31s The model analyzed both inputs, streamed its reasoning, and then called three tools: write_field for text fields, mark for Yes/No checkboxes, and sign for the signature and date. It extracted the required information, mapped it to the correct fields and completed the form without any manual input

atomic.chat

109,369 views • 3 months ago

I tested Gemma 4 12b on my Macbook Pro M5 Max with 128GB of unified memory. It runs VERY slow for a 12b parameter model. 44 tokens/second. The lava lamp that it produced was also terrible. I would stick to Qwen 3.6 27b or Qwen 3.6 35b. Google is still way behind, even with their local models.

I tested Gemma 4 12b on my Macbook Pro M5 Max with 128GB of unified memory. It runs VERY slow for a 12b parameter model. 44 tokens/second. The lava lamp that it produced was also terrible. I would stick to Qwen 3.6 27b or Qwen 3.6 35b. Google is still way behind, even with their local models.

BridgeMind

70,626 views • 3 months ago

Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) is definitely capable, but this test honestly surprised me. I gave it the same macOS-style web OS challenge and it spent 1 hour and 56 minutes, burned through 66k+ tokens, and still produced a result that was worse than what Qwen 3.7-Max generated. The biggest issue isn't quality, it's efficiency. Opus 4.8 can absolutely cook when given enough time, but the token usage and runtime are becoming harder and harder to justify when cheaper models are delivering comparable or even better results. Full Breakdown: The frontier is getting very competitive. 👀

Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) is definitely capable, but this test honestly surprised me. I gave it the same macOS-style web OS challenge and it spent 1 hour and 56 minutes, burned through 66k+ tokens, and still produced a result that was worse than what Qwen 3.7-Max generated. The biggest issue isn't quality, it's efficiency. Opus 4.8 can absolutely cook when given enough time, but the token usage and runtime are becoming harder and harder to justify when cheaper models are delivering comparable or even better results. Full Breakdown: The frontier is getting very competitive. 👀

WorldofAI

123,550 views • 4 months ago

Qwen 3.8 Preview is quietly catching Kimi K3 on frontend + game design.And this is just the preview. Full 3.8 is going to be a beast. We tested Qwen 3.8 Preview against Kimi K3 on 3D modeling and animation. Ran both through the same 3 prompts. Both on Max effort. Qwen 3.8 Preview was dramatically faster across the board, 3-4x quicker on every test. Kimi K3 needed 2 hours on the final scene; Qwen wrapped it in 31 minutes. Test 1 (Engine Sim) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 25min Kimi K3: 1hr 30min Test 2 (Voxel Dino Printer) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 8min Kimi K3: 45min Test 3 (Garden Scene) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 31min Kimi K3: 2hrs

Qwen 3.8 Preview is quietly catching Kimi K3 on frontend + game design.And this is just the preview. Full 3.8 is going to be a beast. We tested Qwen 3.8 Preview against Kimi K3 on 3D modeling and animation. Ran both through the same 3 prompts. Both on Max effort. Qwen 3.8 Preview was dramatically faster across the board, 3-4x quicker on every test. Kimi K3 needed 2 hours on the final scene; Qwen wrapped it in 31 minutes. Test 1 (Engine Sim) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 25min Kimi K3: 1hr 30min Test 2 (Voxel Dino Printer) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 8min Kimi K3: 45min Test 3 (Garden Scene) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 31min Kimi K3: 2hrs

GMI Cloud

25,513 views • 2 months ago

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

29,033 views • 1 month ago

Introducing MTPLX V2.12: The fastest way to run local AI now even faster and with more models for lower memory macs and the new M5 Ultra. Upgrades: - 100 TPS Qwen Flash Next sustained on long coding (M5 max). - 2x Prefill speeds Qwen Flash Next: 872 --> 1695 TPS. - Requests with images now use the compiled kernels for max speeds. New Models: - Qwen Flash Next MTPLX Optimized Quality: 8 bit model built for the M5 Ultra and M3 Ultra. - Bonsai 2 27B MTPLX Optimized Speed: Works on 16gb and 24gb macs with compiled kernels and MTP running as fast as possible. 64 TPS. - MiMo V2.6 Qwen 3.5 9B MTPLX Optimized Speed: My personal favourite. Mimos magic distilled into a 9B model easily runnable at high speeds on a 16gb mac. 107 TPS. +40 bug fixes and improvements in real world coding.

Introducing MTPLX V2.12: The fastest way to run local AI now even faster and with more models for lower memory macs and the new M5 Ultra. Upgrades: - 100 TPS Qwen Flash Next sustained on long coding (M5 max). - 2x Prefill speeds Qwen Flash Next: 872 --> 1695 TPS. - Requests with images now use the compiled kernels for max speeds. New Models: - Qwen Flash Next MTPLX Optimized Quality: 8 bit model built for the M5 Ultra and M3 Ultra. - Bonsai 2 27B MTPLX Optimized Speed: Works on 16gb and 24gb macs with compiled kernels and MTP running as fast as possible. 64 TPS. - MiMo V2.6 Qwen 3.5 9B MTPLX Optimized Speed: My personal favourite. Mimos magic distilled into a 9B model easily runnable at high speeds on a 16gb mac. 107 TPS. +40 bug fixes and improvements in real world coding.

Youssof Al Toukhi

21,124 views • 7 days ago

qwen 3.8 max vs deepseek v4 flash 0731 vs kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol – on rubik's cube and chess four frontier models built a rubik's cube stand and solved it, then built a chess board and played claude opus 5 on it the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter tasks: 1. cube – build a 3d rubik's cube with a cli and a Three.js viewer, then solve an identical scrambled position on your own stand 2. chess – build a 3d chess stand, then play white against claude opus 5 as black, live, one move at a time. no engine, no solver, no opening book on either side. stockfish depth 14 grades every chess ply afterwards; neither player sees the score models: DeepSeek v4 flash 0731, OpenAI gpt-5.6 sol, Kimi.ai kimi k3, Qwen qwen 3.8 max gpt-5.6 sol and deepseek v4 flash solved their cubes – sol in 24 moves and seventeen seconds, deepseek in 32. qwen and kimi never got there, giving up at 96 and 207 moves then all four built chess stands and played white against claude opus 5 on them, and all four resigned: deepseek on move 13, sol on 19, kimi on 21, qwen holding out longest at 29 - build time, both stands #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 16m 43s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 97m 39s #3 kimi k3 – 166m 09s #4 qwen 3.8 max – 215m 08s - build attempts before a working stand #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 3 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 4 #3 kimi k3 – 4 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 5 - total tokens #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 6,713,754 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 17,272,507 #3 kimi k3 – 22,427,504 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 27,417,442 - total price #1 deepseek v4 flash – $0.557 #2 gpt-5.6 sol – $6.319 #3 qwen 3.8 max – $10.270 #4 kimi k3 – $16.667 observations: • deepseek v4 flash is the cheapest model here by a margin nobody else is near, and it got there while being the least efficient of the four. it burned 27.4m tokens – more than anyone, 5m more than kimi – and still finished both benchmarks for $0.557. that is $0.02 per million tokens against kimi's $0.74. it also needed the most passes to produce working stands, five, and that did not matter: all five deepseek passes together cost a thirtieth of kimi's two • so what deepseek cannot do is get it right the first time. what it can do is get it right the fifth time, for half a dollar. that is a different thing to be buying – not a good first draft, but the option to keep asking • gpt-5.6 sol is the opposite profile and the strongest of the four on pure efficiency. 16m 43s to build both stands, 6.7m tokens, three passes – under 40% of the next lowest token count and a quarter of deepseek's, on an eighth of qwen's clock. it also solved the cube fastest of anyone, 24 moves in seventeen seconds. sol is what you reach for when you want the answer now and can absorb $0.94 per million • sol's weakness is in what it does not check. its chess viewer deleted the capturing piece instead of the captured one, so pieces disappeared off the board mid-game – a defect the fifty-cent deepseek stand did not have. fast and terse turns out to be the same dial as fast and unverified • qwen 3.8 max is not the cheap open-weights option it gets treated as. $10.270 across the two benchmarks, second most expensive of the four, 18x deepseek, and by a distance the slowest – 215 minutes of build time, nearly thirteen times sol's. what the money buys is judgment: it played eighteen moves without a single error worth a hundredth of a pawn, then made exactly one bad move in the whole game, and averaged 44.6 centipawns lost across the longest game any of the four managed. it also could not solve a rubik's cube in 96 tries • kimi k3 is the one line with no reading that flatters it. most expensive at $16.667, last on the cube at 207 moves, last at chess at 478 centipawns lost per move. it is also the model that verified hardest – on the cube it wrote its own integrity check instead of trusting its output. that makes the result worse rather than better: the checking was real, and the reasoning underneath it still was not follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

84,777 views • 1 month ago

Qwen 3.8 Max beat Fable 5 at building 3D physics scenes for 7x cheaper! We gave two models the same task. Build three self-contained 3D scenes, each one HTML file with real physics that runs itself. Prompts: - A marble machine that lifts marbles up a wheel and drops them on a loop - A car factory assembly line - A sawmill cutting logs into planks Outputs: Qwen 3.8 Max: 46.6K tokens, $0.28 Fable 5: 38.7K tokens, $1.93 Qwen worked much harder on the details. Its textures and shadows look real. Fable 5 built a fast prototype that works and left it there. In the marble machine, Fable's marbles show up from nowhere at the top of the wheel. In Qwen's, you can see them go up. On the car line, Qwen's cars look much better and more real. Fable's sawmill is very strange. The saw looks wrong, and the log goes right through a beam before the saw cuts it. Atomic Chat will have day zero support to run Qwen 3.8 Max locally!

Sensitive content

Qwen 3.8 Max beat Fable 5 at building 3D physics scenes for 7x cheaper! We gave two models the same task. Build three self-contained 3D scenes, each one HTML file with real physics that runs itself. Prompts: - A marble machine that lifts marbles up a wheel and drops them on a loop - A car factory assembly line - A sawmill cutting logs into planks Outputs: Qwen 3.8 Max: 46.6K tokens, $0.28 Fable 5: 38.7K tokens, $1.93 Qwen worked much harder on the details. Its textures and shadows look real. Fable 5 built a fast prototype that works and left it there. In the marble machine, Fable's marbles show up from nowhere at the top of the wheel. In Qwen's, you can see them go up. On the car line, Qwen's cars look much better and more real. Fable's sawmill is very strange. The saw looks wrong, and the log goes right through a beam before the saw cuts it. Atomic Chat will have day zero support to run Qwen 3.8 Max locally!

atomic.chat

211,210 views • 1 month ago

ox alpha vs deepseek v4 flash vision vs grok 4.6 vs gemini 3.7 flash vs – on photo-to-3d four vision models got one photograph each and had to rebuild the place inside it as a Three.js scene. twelve scenes, twelve first-try runs, zero console errors the setup: one reference photo per scene, sent as an image on OpenRouter. the prompt never says what is in the picture – no "motel", no "bar", no "gas station". the model has to read the photo and rebuild it: layout, materials, hour of the day, and whatever is around the corner that the frame does not show tasks – three photographs of early-2000s america: 1. a motel at night, neon pylon lit, snow on the ground 2. an old new york tavern interior, tin ceiling, tiled floor 3. an abandoned service station in the california desert, midday sun each scene ships as one self-contained html file, procedural geometry and canvas textures only, no downloads. three timed camera shots, and shot 1 has to reproduce the framing of the reference photo models: xAI grok 4.6, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek deepseek v4 flash vision exp, and ox alpha – a stealth model on openrouter, free, no lab attached to it yet results: - wall clock, three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 11m 12s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 15m 20s #3 grok 4.6 – 28m 11s #4 ox alpha – 38m 54s - output tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 77,396 #2 ox alpha – 87,613 #3 grok 4.6 – 105,687 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 127,884 - lines of code shipped #1 ox alpha – 2,090 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 2,291 #3 grok 4.6 – 3,529 #4 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,989 - total price #1 ox alpha – $0.000 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.091 #3 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.136 #4 grok 4.6 – $0.697 observations: • grok is 7.7x the price of deepseek. it is the only model that read the light – low sun, real shadows on the station, a cold night on the motel • gemini is the fastest and the least deliberate. 17,158 reasoning tokens against deepseek's 99,172, and it still shipped the most code – 3,989 lines • deepseek thought hardest and rendered plainest. 99,172 reasoning tokens, 5.8x gemini's, spent on layout rather than on light. its motel is the second best in the set for $0.030 • ox alpha is free and reads a photo as well as anything here – it lifted "family units / kitchenettes" off the pylon and redrew it in canvas conclusion: twelve scenes, four models, zero fixes, and the whole run cost $0.924! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

ox alpha vs deepseek v4 flash vision vs grok 4.6 vs gemini 3.7 flash vs – on photo-to-3d four vision models got one photograph each and had to rebuild the place inside it as a Three.js scene. twelve scenes, twelve first-try runs, zero console errors the setup: one reference photo per scene, sent as an image on OpenRouter. the prompt never says what is in the picture – no "motel", no "bar", no "gas station". the model has to read the photo and rebuild it: layout, materials, hour of the day, and whatever is around the corner that the frame does not show tasks – three photographs of early-2000s america: 1. a motel at night, neon pylon lit, snow on the ground 2. an old new york tavern interior, tin ceiling, tiled floor 3. an abandoned service station in the california desert, midday sun each scene ships as one self-contained html file, procedural geometry and canvas textures only, no downloads. three timed camera shots, and shot 1 has to reproduce the framing of the reference photo models: xAI grok 4.6, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek deepseek v4 flash vision exp, and ox alpha – a stealth model on openrouter, free, no lab attached to it yet results: - wall clock, three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 11m 12s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 15m 20s #3 grok 4.6 – 28m 11s #4 ox alpha – 38m 54s - output tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 77,396 #2 ox alpha – 87,613 #3 grok 4.6 – 105,687 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 127,884 - lines of code shipped #1 ox alpha – 2,090 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 2,291 #3 grok 4.6 – 3,529 #4 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,989 - total price #1 ox alpha – $0.000 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.091 #3 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.136 #4 grok 4.6 – $0.697 observations: • grok is 7.7x the price of deepseek. it is the only model that read the light – low sun, real shadows on the station, a cold night on the motel • gemini is the fastest and the least deliberate. 17,158 reasoning tokens against deepseek's 99,172, and it still shipped the most code – 3,989 lines • deepseek thought hardest and rendered plainest. 99,172 reasoning tokens, 5.8x gemini's, spent on layout rather than on light. its motel is the second best in the set for $0.030 • ox alpha is free and reads a photo as well as anything here – it lifted "family units / kitchenettes" off the pylon and redrew it in canvas conclusion: twelve scenes, four models, zero fixes, and the whole run cost $0.924! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

24,470 views • 1 month ago

GPT-5.6 LUNA AND DEEPSEEK V4 FLASH ARE BOTH FREE RIGHT NOW -- ONE IN A CHATBOT, THE OTHER IN A BROWSER IDE • ChatGPT, the chatbot > GPT-5.6 Luna is now the default on Free and Go: > Unlimited text chats and a Think button land next week. • MonkeyCode, the browser IDE > 30M tokens a day, resets daily, no card: > DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen, GLM, Kimi and MiniMax behind it. > Cloud workspace at 1 vCPU and 4GB, nothing to install. Luna posts 62% fewer factual errors than the model it replaces. MonkeyCode is open source from Chaitin and runs on their cloud, so aim it at side projects. One is live today -> The other arrives next week.

GPT-5.6 LUNA AND DEEPSEEK V4 FLASH ARE BOTH FREE RIGHT NOW -- ONE IN A CHATBOT, THE OTHER IN A BROWSER IDE • ChatGPT, the chatbot > GPT-5.6 Luna is now the default on Free and Go: > Unlimited text chats and a Think button land next week. • MonkeyCode, the browser IDE > 30M tokens a day, resets daily, no card: > DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen, GLM, Kimi and MiniMax behind it. > Cloud workspace at 1 vCPU and 4GB, nothing to install. Luna posts 62% fewer factual errors than the model it replaces. MonkeyCode is open source from Chaitin and runs on their cloud, so aim it at side projects. One is live today -> The other arrives next week.

slash1s

33,804 views • 1 month ago

The MiniMax M2 model is mind-blowing! It's open-source. It outperforms Gemini 2.5, Claude 4.1, and Qwen3 across coding and tool-use benchmarks. Right now, it's one of the world's top 5 models in intelligence! And here is the best part: Claude is one of the best models you can use today, and MiniMax M2 costs only 8% of that! It's smaller, faster, and cheaper. Extremely efficient at using tokens. Minimax M2's biggest strength: High agentic capabilities. The model can plan and execute complex multi-tool workflows. It's reliable and very robust at executing long-horizon tool chains. In summary: • Low latency • Very cheap • Excels at agentic tasks • Open-source The model currently powers the MiniMax Agent and is available for a free global trial. You can access MiniMax M2's API here: To access the agent: And here is the MiniMax website: Thanks to the MiniMax team for showing me the ropes and partnering with me on this post.

The MiniMax M2 model is mind-blowing! It's open-source. It outperforms Gemini 2.5, Claude 4.1, and Qwen3 across coding and tool-use benchmarks. Right now, it's one of the world's top 5 models in intelligence! And here is the best part: Claude is one of the best models you can use today, and MiniMax M2 costs only 8% of that! It's smaller, faster, and cheaper. Extremely efficient at using tokens. Minimax M2's biggest strength: High agentic capabilities. The model can plan and execute complex multi-tool workflows. It's reliable and very robust at executing long-horizon tool chains. In summary: • Low latency • Very cheap • Excels at agentic tasks • Open-source The model currently powers the MiniMax Agent and is available for a free global trial. You can access MiniMax M2's API here: To access the agent: And here is the MiniMax website: Thanks to the MiniMax team for showing me the ropes and partnering with me on this post.

Santiago

91,240 views • 11 months ago

you can now use Ox Alpha, Kimi K3, gemini 3.7 flash and 47 other models for FREEE with no credit card 😳 aihubmix just opened a 50-model free catalog, every model $0/M in and out. the models: -Ox Aplha -gemini-3.7-flash -glm-5.2 -kimi-k3 -minimax-m3 how to set it up (2 min): step 1: sign up at email or oauth, no card step 2: create an api key one key, all models, free and paid alike step 3: call any -free model base url: model: coding-glm-5.2-free, gpt-5.5-free, whatever that's it the free catalog is live in 2 minutes works in any openai-compatible tool. save this if you want a simple multi model setup later

you can now use Ox Alpha, Kimi K3, gemini 3.7 flash and 47 other models for FREEE with no credit card 😳 aihubmix just opened a 50-model free catalog, every model $0/M in and out. the models: -Ox Aplha -gemini-3.7-flash -glm-5.2 -kimi-k3 -minimax-m3 how to set it up (2 min): step 1: sign up at email or oauth, no card step 2: create an api key one key, all models, free and paid alike step 3: call any -free model base url: model: coding-glm-5.2-free, gpt-5.5-free, whatever that's it the free catalog is live in 2 minutes works in any openai-compatible tool. save this if you want a simple multi model setup later

painn

81,048 views • 1 month ago

STOP PAYING $200/MO FOR AI: 900 FREE MODELS FROM GPT, CLAUDE, KIMI AND DEEPSEEK IN ONE DIRECTORY freeLLM tracks every free tier, signup credit and daily quota across 58 providers so you never pay for what's already free > 900 models, updated daily as new promos land > filters for free forever, no card, no signup, open source > text, code, image, audio, video, embeddings > live status on every model, dead ones filtered out frontier models like GPT-6 Astra, Claude Fable 5.1, DeepSeek V4, MiniMax M3 and Kimi K3 show up through provider credits and quotas everything else runs on tiers that never expire 20K people found it in the first month that's $2,400 a year back in your pocket for one bookmark tab

STOP PAYING $200/MO FOR AI: 900 FREE MODELS FROM GPT, CLAUDE, KIMI AND DEEPSEEK IN ONE DIRECTORY freeLLM tracks every free tier, signup credit and daily quota across 58 providers so you never pay for what's already free > 900 models, updated daily as new promos land > filters for free forever, no card, no signup, open source > text, code, image, audio, video, embeddings > live status on every model, dead ones filtered out frontier models like GPT-6 Astra, Claude Fable 5.1, DeepSeek V4, MiniMax M3 and Kimi K3 show up through provider credits and quotas everything else runs on tiers that never expire 20K people found it in the first month that's $2,400 a year back in your pocket for one bookmark tab

Mr. Buzzoni

11,519 views • 19 days ago

fal head of engineering batuhan the fal guy reveals how reinforcement learning turned H3 Max into a frontier video model that generates 5 seconds of video in under 3 seconds, down from nearly 2 minutes: "It's probably the only frontier video model from a quality and output and adherence perspective that can generate videos in real time." "We took this open source base MiniMax H3 video model, what we wanted to do was not just make it faster, but improve its quality ahead of anything else by implementing reinforcement learning for verifiable concepts like video editing and prompt adherence." "We were able to get the model from 120 seconds for a 5-second video generation, almost 2 minutes, to under 3 seconds for a 5-second video generation. Almost double real time, while improving its quality ahead of the open source version and ahead of many frontier closed source models." fal

fal head of engineering batuhan the fal guy reveals how reinforcement learning turned H3 Max into a frontier video model that generates 5 seconds of video in under 3 seconds, down from nearly 2 minutes: "It's probably the only frontier video model from a quality and output and adherence perspective that can generate videos in real time." "We took this open source base MiniMax H3 video model, what we wanted to do was not just make it faster, but improve its quality ahead of anything else by implementing reinforcement learning for verifiable concepts like video editing and prompt adherence." "We were able to get the model from 120 seconds for a 5-second video generation, almost 2 minutes, to under 3 seconds for a 5-second video generation. Almost double real time, while improving its quality ahead of the open source version and ahead of many frontier closed source models." fal

MTS

31,391 views • 15 days ago

... QwQ-Max-Preview Qwen Chat: Blog: 🤔 Today we release "Thinking (QwQ)" in Qwen Chat, backed by our QwQ-Max-Preview, which is a reasoning model based on Qwen2.5-Max. This model is still for preview. It is highly capable of math understanding, coding, agent, etc. Compared with Qwen2.5-Max, it is much smarter and has much more creatitvity. Very soon, we are about to release the official version of QwQ-Max, and we will open-weight both QwQ-Max and Qwen2.5-Max under the license of Apache 2.0! Furthermore, we will also provide smaller variants, e.g., QwQ-32B, which can be deployed on local devices. Also, since a great number of users are expecting our APP, we are going to release an Android and iOS APP while we release our official QwQ-Max. Stay tuned for better things from Qwen!

... QwQ-Max-Preview Qwen Chat: Blog: 🤔 Today we release "Thinking (QwQ)" in Qwen Chat, backed by our QwQ-Max-Preview, which is a reasoning model based on Qwen2.5-Max. This model is still for preview. It is highly capable of math understanding, coding, agent, etc. Compared with Qwen2.5-Max, it is much smarter and has much more creatitvity. Very soon, we are about to release the official version of QwQ-Max, and we will open-weight both QwQ-Max and Qwen2.5-Max under the license of Apache 2.0! Furthermore, we will also provide smaller variants, e.g., QwQ-32B, which can be deployed on local devices. Also, since a great number of users are expecting our APP, we are going to release an Android and iOS APP while we release our official QwQ-Max. Stay tuned for better things from Qwen!

Qwen

430,876 views • 1 year ago

NVIDIA is giving away free access to 130+ AI models for a full year > most people building AI agents are paying $50-200/month for API access NVIDIA just made that argument irrelevant models you get: MiniMax M2.7, GLM 5.1, Kimi 2.5, DeepSeek-v4-flash, GPT-OSS-120B and 110+ more setup: > step 1 - get your free key > go to > register -> bind phone -> copy API key > step 2 - add to Hermes agent > open Settings -> Model Provider -> Custom base_url = " api_key = "nvapi-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > step 3 - pick a model model = "minimaxai/minimax-m2.7" model = "zhipuai/glm-5.1" model = "moonshot-ai/kimi-2.5" model = "deepseek-ai/deepseek-v4-flash" model = "nvidia/nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b" > Hermes already has NVIDIA set as default base_url > paste the key and you're running instantly > works the same in Cursor and OpenCode > cost: $0 > limit: 40 req/min > expires: 1 year while everyone is paying for API access, this is sitting there for free

NVIDIA is giving away free access to 130+ AI models for a full year > most people building AI agents are paying $50-200/month for API access NVIDIA just made that argument irrelevant models you get: MiniMax M2.7, GLM 5.1, Kimi 2.5, DeepSeek-v4-flash, GPT-OSS-120B and 110+ more setup: > step 1 - get your free key > go to > register -> bind phone -> copy API key > step 2 - add to Hermes agent > open Settings -> Model Provider -> Custom base_url = " api_key = "nvapi-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > step 3 - pick a model model = "minimaxai/minimax-m2.7" model = "zhipuai/glm-5.1" model = "moonshot-ai/kimi-2.5" model = "deepseek-ai/deepseek-v4-flash" model = "nvidia/nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b" > Hermes already has NVIDIA set as default base_url > paste the key and you're running instantly > works the same in Cursor and OpenCode > cost: $0 > limit: 40 req/min > expires: 1 year while everyone is paying for API access, this is sitting there for free

Mr. Buzzoni

196,730 views • 3 months ago

I used to think 3D was way too much work for a quick creative idea Then I tried this workflow in MiniMax Design GPT-6 Astra can work with Blender to build the 3D scene from a natural-language prompt, which honestly changes how I think about 3D creation I don’t need to start by figuring out every Blender operation myself I can just describe the scene I have in mind and let Astra handle the technical side Then I can take that 3D result straight into H3 Max Turbo and turn it into a video And the speed here is no joke 15s video → 20s generation Starting at $0.018/s That makes experimenting with different ideas feel so much less expensive in terms of time But the more I use MiniMax Design, the more I realize 3D is only one part of it GPT Image 2.5 opens up another route — generate the visuals and storyboards first, then use H3 Max Turbo to bring those shots together into a video So now I’m basically playing with two different creative paths: Astra + Blender → 3D → H3 Max Turbo GPT Image 2.5 → Storyboard → H3 Max Turbo And having all of these connected inside MiniMax Design makes the whole process feel much more flexible Honestly, I started this just wanting to see what Astra could do with 3D Now I’m way more curious about what happens when I start mixing all these workflows together

I used to think 3D was way too much work for a quick creative idea Then I tried this workflow in MiniMax Design GPT-6 Astra can work with Blender to build the 3D scene from a natural-language prompt, which honestly changes how I think about 3D creation I don’t need to start by figuring out every Blender operation myself I can just describe the scene I have in mind and let Astra handle the technical side Then I can take that 3D result straight into H3 Max Turbo and turn it into a video And the speed here is no joke 15s video → 20s generation Starting at $0.018/s That makes experimenting with different ideas feel so much less expensive in terms of time But the more I use MiniMax Design, the more I realize 3D is only one part of it GPT Image 2.5 opens up another route — generate the visuals and storyboards first, then use H3 Max Turbo to bring those shots together into a video So now I’m basically playing with two different creative paths: Astra + Blender → 3D → H3 Max Turbo GPT Image 2.5 → Storyboard → H3 Max Turbo And having all of these connected inside MiniMax Design makes the whole process feel much more flexible Honestly, I started this just wanting to see what Astra could do with 3D Now I’m way more curious about what happens when I start mixing all these workflows together

haytam

83,103 views • 20 days ago