正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Fable 5 vs GPT 5.5 tested both on High settings with the same prompt > Fable one shotted everything in 15 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits > GPT 5.5 took 20 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits 5.5 is not looking good here at all which... show more

J A Z I I

6,591 subscribers

104,994 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

游戏喜剧科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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

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

860,248 次观看 • 2 天前

Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.2 everyone is praising Glm on my timeline, so i had to test it myself > both models were given the same prompt > GLM was super fast and used like 2% of my weekly limit > Opus took over 20 mins and used like 3% of weekly limits which one do you think won?

Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.2 everyone is praising Glm on my timeline, so i had to test it myself > both models were given the same prompt > GLM was super fast and used like 2% of my weekly limit > Opus took over 20 mins and used like 3% of weekly limits which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

47,962 次观看 • 22 天前

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

228,126 次观看 • 23 天前

Opus 4.8 vs MiniMax M3 tested both on default settings with the same prompt > Opus one shotted everything in 7 minutes > M3 needed an extra prompt to fix the "break block" feature and took 20+ minutes both got super close, judge both and lemme know which one looks better?

Opus 4.8 vs MiniMax M3 tested both on default settings with the same prompt > Opus one shotted everything in 7 minutes > M3 needed an extra prompt to fix the "break block" feature and took 20+ minutes both got super close, judge both and lemme know which one looks better?

J A Z I I

67,862 次观看 • 1 个月前

Claude Fable 5 on left vs GPT 5.5 on right. Both one shot. Fable 5 is truly a big jump in CAD capabilities as seen in ForgeCAD.

Claude Fable 5 on left vs GPT 5.5 on right. Both one shot. Fable 5 is truly a big jump in CAD capabilities as seen in ForgeCAD.

Ruben Kostandyan

31,670 次观看 • 1 个月前

I compared Claude Fable 5 to GPT-5.5 in this Power Rangers prompt Thing is, Fable 5 is using Low thinking effort and GPT-5.5 is using xhigh Safe to say, the results are... not even close. 5.5's output is bad across the board, from the UI to the actual voxel scene itself🥲 1st video: Claude Fable 5 (Low effort) 2nd video: GPT-5.5 (xhigh)

I compared Claude Fable 5 to GPT-5.5 in this Power Rangers prompt Thing is, Fable 5 is using Low thinking effort and GPT-5.5 is using xhigh Safe to say, the results are... not even close. 5.5's output is bad across the board, from the UI to the actual voxel scene itself🥲 1st video: Claude Fable 5 (Low effort) 2nd video: GPT-5.5 (xhigh)

Lentils

207,097 次观看 • 1 个月前

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 both were tested on same settings with same prompt > GLM one shotted everything in 35 mins > Kimi needed extra prompts to fix movements and took 30 mins super surpised by how good GLM 5.2 is, while being so cheap which one do you think won?

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 both were tested on same settings with same prompt > GLM one shotted everything in 35 mins > Kimi needed extra prompts to fix movements and took 30 mins super surpised by how good GLM 5.2 is, while being so cheap which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

63,741 次观看 • 28 天前

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

181,100 次观看 • 2 天前

Fable with low reasoning is roughly comparable to GPT-5.5 medium on the 20 puzzles they both solved. Fable scored higher in 14 of those, and I think Warming Tonic illustrates how different quality alchemical machines look. Solve rate isn't everything, quality is important!

Fable with low reasoning is roughly comparable to GPT-5.5 medium on the 20 puzzles they both solved. Fable scored higher in 14 of those, and I think Warming Tonic illustrates how different quality alchemical machines look. Solve rate isn't everything, quality is important!

Rob Haisfield

40,975 次观看 • 22 天前

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

21,160 次观看 • 2 天前

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.

BridgeMind

30,972 次观看 • 26 天前

Every 5 minutes, Sakana Fugu's conductor splits trades between GPT-5.5, Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.5, and it beats every model it directs.

Every 5 minutes, Sakana Fugu's conductor splits trades between GPT-5.5, Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.5, and it beats every model it directs.

0xMarioNawfal

57,656 次观看 • 17 天前

Use Fable + GPT-5.5 for peak performance and lowest quota usage.

Use Fable + GPT-5.5 for peak performance and lowest quota usage.

Matthew Berman

180,809 次观看 • 4 天前

FINALLY redesigned what do you think? :) i used cursor composer 2 and gpt 5.5

FINALLY redesigned what do you think? :) i used cursor composer 2 and gpt 5.5

Leon Lin

63,066 次观看 • 2 个月前

GPT 5.5 just buried opus 4.7 I had it build a pokemon style battle app. 1 prompt. the opus game crashes 90% of the time and Ui is absolute garbage. GPT 5.5 one shotted a masterpiece. Time to cancel anthropic sub?

GPT 5.5 just buried opus 4.7 I had it build a pokemon style battle app. 1 prompt. the opus game crashes 90% of the time and Ui is absolute garbage. GPT 5.5 one shotted a masterpiece. Time to cancel anthropic sub?

Max Blade

459,591 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 GPT 5.6 Pro first output on the same prompt we are getting started > frontend/ webdev is not solved or improved yet > but understanding increased a lot > it started to take 20-40 mins again like it used to do before 5.5 pro

🚨 GPT 5.6 Pro first output on the same prompt we are getting started > frontend/ webdev is not solved or improved yet > but understanding increased a lot > it started to take 20-40 mins again like it used to do before 5.5 pro

Chetaslua

437,099 次观看 • 23 天前

Running a real-time experiment on Julius: Which model can find mag 7 financial data and create a dashboard from it faster and more effectively - Claude Fable 5 or GPT-5.5? Which do you think is Model A and which is Model B?

Running a real-time experiment on Julius: Which model can find mag 7 financial data and create a dashboard from it faster and more effectively - Claude Fable 5 or GPT-5.5? Which do you think is Model A and which is Model B?

Julius AI

159,113 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.

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

175,436 次观看 • 3 天前

It works!! This is fully designed by GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.5-Pro in ForgeCAD!

It works!! This is fully designed by GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.5-Pro in ForgeCAD!

Ruben Kostandyan

35,495 次观看 • 1 个月前

Got an output from the strongest pre-release Gemini 3.5 Pro checkpoint 👀 I compared it to Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.5 on the same exact prompt Yeah... This model is mostly dead on arrival (tried it on other prompts too ofc). It will likely be the "poor man's model" next to 3.5 flash. 1st video: Gemini 3.5 Pro (pre-release) 2nd video: GPT-5.5 3rd video: Claude Fable 5

Got an output from the strongest pre-release Gemini 3.5 Pro checkpoint 👀 I compared it to Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.5 on the same exact prompt Yeah... This model is mostly dead on arrival (tried it on other prompts too ofc). It will likely be the "poor man's model" next to 3.5 flash. 1st video: Gemini 3.5 Pro (pre-release) 2nd video: GPT-5.5 3rd video: Claude Fable 5

Lentils

50,395 次观看 • 1 个月前