Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Fable 5, Grok 4.5 and GPT-5.6 ran the same builds simultaneously. Grok finished first, Fable made the best website, GPT handled the deepest code.

RoundtableSpace's profile picture

0xMarioNawfal

257,237 subscribers

46,213 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологииИгры
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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

912,184 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Kimi K3 beating Fable and Sol on price and quality. Command Code's internal flappy bench results are in. Really impressed with the results. For Kimi K3 we set the gameplay to hard while Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol were set to easier. Cost breakdown: • Kimi K3: $0.024 •Fable 5: $0.42 •GPT-5.6 Sol: $0.15 Ranking based on DX & features: •Kimi K3: 8/10 •Fable 5: 7.5/10 • GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 GPT 5.6 Sol max can definitely go on longer and wins the game overall, but that's something different. Grok 4.5 beats GPT 5.6 Sol on that, lol.Mm-hmm.
0:29

Kimi K3 beating Fable and Sol on price and quality. Command Code's internal flappy bench results are in. Really impressed with the results. For Kimi K3 we set the gameplay to hard while Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol were set to easier. Cost breakdown: • Kimi K3: $0.024 •Fable 5: $0.42 •GPT-5.6 Sol: $0.15 Ranking based on DX & features: •Kimi K3: 8/10 •Fable 5: 7.5/10 • GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 GPT 5.6 Sol max can definitely go on longer and wins the game overall, but that's something different. Grok 4.5 beats GPT 5.6 Sol on that, lol.Mm-hmm.

Ahmad Awais

255,237 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

591,597 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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"
0:40

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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.
0:29

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

198,845 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Grok 4.5 is a "Wow!" moment. 🤯 > Opus 4.8 & GPT-5.5 level on benchmarks > Costs less than Sonnet 5 Is that real? Hard to believe. Added Grok 4.5 as an implementer agent in fable-advisor. It replaces Sonnet 5. Use Fable as the orchestrator and a combo of: 1. Grok 4.5 2. Opus 4.8 3. GPT-5.5 As implementer agents. Uses the Grok Build CLI so if you log in with an X premium account you don't have to pay API fees.
0:20

Grok 4.5 is a "Wow!" moment. 🤯 > Opus 4.8 & GPT-5.5 level on benchmarks > Costs less than Sonnet 5 Is that real? Hard to believe. Added Grok 4.5 as an implementer agent in fable-advisor. It replaces Sonnet 5. Use Fable as the orchestrator and a combo of: 1. Grok 4.5 2. Opus 4.8 3. GPT-5.5 As implementer agents. Uses the Grok Build CLI so if you log in with an X premium account you don't have to pay API fees.

Dan McAteer

191,306 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I said Grok 4.5 was a bigger deal than Fable Elon even liked my post but then GPT-5.6 Sol showed up So I gave 7 of this week's newest AI models their own computer and ran the same real tasks through Hermes Final ranking: 1. GPT-5.6 Sol: best overall 2. Grok 4.5: close second, fast and relentless 3. Muse Spark 1.1: the surprise of the week Benchmarks tell you what a model might do. Watching it control a computer shows you what it can actually do Full comparison ↓
43:31

I said Grok 4.5 was a bigger deal than Fable Elon even liked my post but then GPT-5.6 Sol showed up So I gave 7 of this week's newest AI models their own computer and ran the same real tasks through Hermes Final ranking: 1. GPT-5.6 Sol: best overall 2. Grok 4.5: close second, fast and relentless 3. Muse Spark 1.1: the surprise of the week Benchmarks tell you what a model might do. Watching it control a computer shows you what it can actually do Full comparison ↓

Nick Vasilescu

77,701 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Did GPT-5.6 Sol beat Fable 5 for frontend work? GPT-5.5 got roasted for its frontend. Had to test the new one. Same challenge: one prompt + one reference image → Three.js 3D globe dashboard. Verdict: Fable 5 still edges it out. But at half the cost, GPT-5.6 Sol is a serious option now.
0:26

Did GPT-5.6 Sol beat Fable 5 for frontend work? GPT-5.5 got roasted for its frontend. Had to test the new one. Same challenge: one prompt + one reference image → Three.js 3D globe dashboard. Verdict: Fable 5 still edges it out. But at half the cost, GPT-5.6 Sol is a serious option now.

Kai

21,502 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I spent $241 testing GPT 5.6 vs Fable 5 here are the brutally honest results
17:37

I spent $241 testing GPT 5.6 vs Fable 5 here are the brutally honest results

Robin Ebers • Build Apps With AI

16,209 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Grok 4.6 High vs Opus 5 High vs Fable 5 High vs GPT 5.6 sol High > 3D model of an Airbus H145 helicopter in Three js
0:42

Grok 4.6 High vs Opus 5 High vs Fable 5 High vs GPT 5.6 sol High > 3D model of an Airbus H145 helicopter in Three js

Harshith

124,067 просмотров • 21 дней назад

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 🥲
1:15

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

130,438 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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
0:42

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 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨GPT 5.6 Pro vs Fable 5 this is the first real competition that cover game logic , ui , 3d aspects Fable 5 mogs 5.6 pro in every aspects watch video same prompt different results , no external assets used Thanks to pozitiv4ik for the prompt and test , follow him everyone😾
0:47

🚨GPT 5.6 Pro vs Fable 5 this is the first real competition that cover game logic , ui , 3d aspects Fable 5 mogs 5.6 pro in every aspects watch video same prompt different results , no external assets used Thanks to pozitiv4ik for the prompt and test , follow him everyone😾

Chetaslua

300,988 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Three top-tier models. Same /design prompt across all. Parameters reviewed: Pace, design sense, gameplay feel Result: Kimi K3 nails the design sense and knows exactly what to add in-game. Pace and gameplay held up well. Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol both play too fast, video isn't sped up. Ranking (DX, Features & Cost): → Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.030 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 · $0.38 → GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.11
0:28

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Three top-tier models. Same /design prompt across all. Parameters reviewed: Pace, design sense, gameplay feel Result: Kimi K3 nails the design sense and knows exactly what to add in-game. Pace and gameplay held up well. Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol both play too fast, video isn't sped up. Ranking (DX, Features & Cost): → Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.030 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 · $0.38 → GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.11

Command Code

377,124 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Gemini 3.5 Pro, this is insane.🔥 This is straight-up monster performance. &gt;Three.js tower crane with real cable physics, load swing, and counterweight balance. AI building is wild. Mogging Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol and Grok 4.5 DeepMind was grinding in silence the whole time.
1:23

Gemini 3.5 Pro, this is insane.🔥 This is straight-up monster performance. &gt;Three.js tower crane with real cable physics, load swing, and counterweight balance. AI building is wild. Mogging Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol and Grok 4.5 DeepMind was grinding in silence the whole time.

Choblin

10,365 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Asked Codex in Buzz to configure setting up Devin with Kimi and Cursor with Grok, and it did it. Now the whole gang is here. 5.6 Sol is default, Fable 5, Kimi K3, and Grok 4.5.
0:20

Asked Codex in Buzz to configure setting up Devin with Kimi and Cursor with Grok, and it did it. Now the whole gang is here. 5.6 Sol is default, Fable 5, Kimi K3, and Grok 4.5.

Riley Brown

135,224 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 Create Your Own Custom Coding Agent - Mix Fable 5, GPT 5.6 sol and Grok 4.5! Our newest feature allows you to mix and match your favorite LLMs and create your custom coding agent Create your favorite cocktail such as - Fable 5 for hard coding - 5.6 sol for backend - Opus 4.8 for frontend - Grok 4.5 for easy coding You can also only choose cheap LLMs for a cost optimized experience. Your use custom agent in API, chat or our agent platform
1:05

🚨 Create Your Own Custom Coding Agent - Mix Fable 5, GPT 5.6 sol and Grok 4.5! Our newest feature allows you to mix and match your favorite LLMs and create your custom coding agent Create your favorite cocktail such as - Fable 5 for hard coding - 5.6 sol for backend - Opus 4.8 for frontend - Grok 4.5 for easy coding You can also only choose cheap LLMs for a cost optimized experience. Your use custom agent in API, chat or our agent platform

Bindu Reddy

7,807,028 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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
0:34

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

53,982 просмотров • 1 месяц назад