Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Fable 5, Opus 5, and GPT-5.6 Sol were all given the exact same one-line prompt The prompt was: "create a single HTML file that animates the painting of American Gothic, stage by stage".

0xMarioNawfal

265,396 subscribers

54,734 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 16

Фото профиля Satoshi Flipper

Satoshi Flipper2 месяцев назад

who did it best?

Фото профиля Faded | Clipur.com

Faded | Clipur.com2 месяцев назад

We all have our answers now

Фото профиля Eldorado OPM

Eldorado OPM2 месяцев назад

Opus did best and took it time

Фото профиля wanglin

wanglin2 месяцев назад

Will GPT directly copy and paste original artwork?After all, he didn’t start with lines.

Фото профиля Elisym Labs

Elisym Labs2 месяцев назад

I can't choose who did the best this time

Фото профиля Israel Femi-Ojo

Israel Femi-Ojo2 месяцев назад

Opus 5 and it's not even close

Фото профиля Ted Trading Club

Ted Trading Club2 месяцев назад

Nice prompt

Фото профиля Yigit Ozdamar

Yigit Ozdamar2 месяцев назад

Dont you dare to try the same prompt with Grok Build. The result is pure fun. :)

Фото профиля Gregor

Gregor2 месяцев назад

The one-line prompt controls for the input, not the training distribution. American Gothic is so well-documented that the winner here is whichever model ingested more HTML canvas demos, not whichever reasons better.

Фото профиля Robert Nass

Robert Nass2 месяцев назад

Solid prompt test

Фото профиля Taylor the vibe coder

Taylor the vibe coder2 месяцев назад

these side-by-side tests are still the fastest way to see where the current models actually differ on creative coding tasks.

Фото профиля NotaDEV

NotaDEV2 месяцев назад

gpt sol is the only one that actually looks like it's painting, the other two are just gesturing at a canvas

Фото профиля Macro Bombastic

Macro Bombastic2 месяцев назад

side by side tests reveal which models nail creative execution

Фото профиля Pixel

Pixel2 месяцев назад

Same prompt, three completely different artistic decisions. That’s the interesting part))

Фото профиля AI Mastery Guide

AI Mastery Guide2 месяцев назад

Same one line prompt but such different results across all three.

Фото профиля 🧠 Fred | PocketIQ | Free AI Trading

🧠 Fred | PocketIQ | Free AI Trading2 месяцев назад

🔼 This is where it matters

Похожие видео

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев 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

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 просмотров • 2 месяцев 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.

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 • 3 месяцев 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.

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

199,798 просмотров • 3 месяцев 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"

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 • 2 месяцев назад

GPT5.6 Sol, DSV4.1-Flash, and Opus 5 were given the same prompt Here is the quality and cost for each

GPT5.6 Sol, DSV4.1-Flash, and Opus 5 were given the same prompt Here is the quality and cost for each

0xMarioNawfal

47,168 просмотров • 25 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 🥲

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

I gave both Fable 5 and Opus 5 the exact same prompt: "Build an ultra-realistic flight simulator." The results weren't what I expected. Which one do you prefer?

I gave both Fable 5 and Opus 5 the exact same prompt: "Build an ultra-realistic flight simulator." The results weren't what I expected. Which one do you prefer?

Samuel Rondot

476,433 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😾

🚨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 • 3 месяцев назад

what the fuck, why is Sonnet 5.5 this good?? gave Sonnet and Opus 5.5 the exact same prompt. Sonnet came back with this masterpiece. all in a SINGLE HTML file. Sonnet won this one, it's not even close

what the fuck, why is Sonnet 5.5 this good?? gave Sonnet and Opus 5.5 the exact same prompt. Sonnet came back with this masterpiece. all in a SINGLE HTML file. Sonnet won this one, it's not even close

filipe

211,111 просмотров • 9 дней 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

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

377,701 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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.

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

48,758 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

GPT 5.6 Pro VS GPT 5.5 Xhigh VS Opus 4.8 Extra VS GLM 5.2 Marble Puzzle All the same prompt. Which one is best?

GPT 5.6 Pro VS GPT 5.5 Xhigh VS Opus 4.8 Extra VS GLM 5.2 Marble Puzzle All the same prompt. Which one is best?

Conor Dart

73,701 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

22,881 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol. I reused the 3D globe test from Kimi vs Fable 5. Same prompt. Same reference image. Kimi K3 left. GPT-5.6 Sol right. Kimi edges out Sol on UI fidelity and globe realism. At current API prices, Kimi is about 50% cheaper. For frontend work, it's my pick.

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol. I reused the 3D globe test from Kimi vs Fable 5. Same prompt. Same reference image. Kimi K3 left. GPT-5.6 Sol right. Kimi edges out Sol on UI fidelity and globe realism. At current API prices, Kimi is about 50% cheaper. For frontend work, it's my pick.

Kai

15,769 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I gave Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol the same prompt. Its not even close Opus took 12.7 minutes and $2.86. Sol took 11.4 minutes and $1.09. Prompt below.

I gave Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol the same prompt. Its not even close Opus took 12.7 minutes and $2.86. Sol took 11.4 minutes and $1.09. Prompt below.

Hunter Bohm

243,554 просмотров • 15 дней 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

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 • 3 месяцев назад

I asked Claude Fable 5.1 to create the most beautiful single HTML file (incl. sound). I like it a lot. Full prompt + url below.

I asked Claude Fable 5.1 to create the most beautiful single HTML file (incl. sound). I like it a lot. Full prompt + url below.

Mia

30,125 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Claude Fable 5 vs Codex 5.6 Sol gave each model the identical prompt: "create nike's member welcome flow, 12 emails, using nitrosend." one shot, no edits. which one's better?

Claude Fable 5 vs Codex 5.6 Sol gave each model the identical prompt: "create nike's member welcome flow, 12 emails, using nitrosend." one shot, no edits. which one's better?

George Hartley ☄️

95,764 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад