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 5.1 xHigh vs GLM 5.3 Flash Max With Zai’s current promo, GLM 5.3 Flash is around 58x cheaper than Fable 5.1… and just look at the quality It finished the same task in about half the time, while still delivering a genuinely impressive result 58x cheaper. 2x faster.... show more

Iam_

2,134 subscribers

110,392 просмотров • 11 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 17

Фото профиля Avaaus

Avaaus11 дней назад

the open-source king

Фото профиля Iam_

Iam_11 дней назад

Hahaha, just a few weeks ago Luna was the efficiency king after that 80% price cut, but now GLM 5.3 Flash has officially taken the crown!

Фото профиля Abe Burnett

Abe Burnett11 дней назад

Yeah but as much as I like GLM 5.3 this is the exception not the rule. Don’t get me wrong GLM 5.3 does great work but it’s not fable. Especially for things like UI and animation anything visual

Фото профиля Iam_

Iam_11 дней назад

Here’s another test with GLM 5.3 Flash, From what I’ve seen, it’s probably around 80% of Fable’s quality, but honestly, for most tasks you don’t really need more than that, especially when it’s infinitely cheaper, In my testing, it’s also surprisingly close in 3D animations

Фото профиля Apollon Foivos Bakis

Apollon Foivos Bakis11 дней назад

That price-to-performance gap is hard to ignore.

Фото профиля Iam_

Iam_11 дней назад

It’s honestly incredible watching all of this unfold in real time!

Фото профиля Ali

Ali11 дней назад

GLM 5.3 Flash is my primary go to model.

Фото профиля John Kler

John Kler10 дней назад

It's really smart and cheap, but I think that Fable still wins by a decent amount here. But 58x cheaper is really hard to ignore.

Фото профиля Rick A.F.

Rick A.F.11 дней назад

Fable is loosing its current edge quick. Fable 6 maybe then

Фото профиля Dave

Dave11 дней назад

The frontier becomes the frontier again.

Фото профиля CypherDom

CypherDom10 дней назад

Fable is a scam. Anthropic is a scam

Фото профиля Kerdo

Kerdo11 дней назад

this series is actually so intresting, please always do more

Фото профиля Iam_

Iam_11 дней назад

Thanks! We’re just getting started!

Фото профиля Kerdo

Kerdo11 дней назад

Good job man!

Фото профиля David

David11 дней назад

For real I do not see why the Anthropic Models Need to be this expensive.

Фото профиля Hunor Kolozsi

Hunor Kolozsi10 дней назад

For 99% of the tasks you should definetly use the more efficient model and then if warranted, use the more accurate model to finetune.

Фото профиля Shaun Seah

Shaun Seah11 дней назад

You’ve got my follow brother

Похожие видео

I ran this locally with GLM-5.3 Flash EXL3 on my DGX Sparks, and I think it beats both Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra. The crazy part: it was faster to make create this on my sparks than it was with either Fable 5.1 or Astra. Live link here:

I ran this locally with GLM-5.3 Flash EXL3 on my DGX Sparks, and I think it beats both Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra. The crazy part: it was faster to make create this on my sparks than it was with either Fable 5.1 or Astra. Live link here:

Mia

46,251 просмотров • 4 дней назад

I WAS WRONG, FABLE-5.1 MIGHT ACTUALLY BE THE BEST MODEL TO EXIST ON THIS PLANET FOR FRONTEND TOO 😭 Tried recreating the exact same game with Fable-5.1 and Kimi K3. Fable-5.1 outclassed Kimi K3 on UI and gameplay. Smoother mechanics, better interactions, and noticeably more polished overall. Kimi was still competitive, especially with way fewer jitters during gameplay. Cost: - Kimi K3: ~$11 - Fable-5.1: ~$18 That’s ~60% more cost for Fable, but the quality difference was actually noticeable. Kimi is still ridiculously competitive for the price.

I WAS WRONG, FABLE-5.1 MIGHT ACTUALLY BE THE BEST MODEL TO EXIST ON THIS PLANET FOR FRONTEND TOO 😭 Tried recreating the exact same game with Fable-5.1 and Kimi K3. Fable-5.1 outclassed Kimi K3 on UI and gameplay. Smoother mechanics, better interactions, and noticeably more polished overall. Kimi was still competitive, especially with way fewer jitters during gameplay. Cost: - Kimi K3: ~$11 - Fable-5.1: ~$18 That’s ~60% more cost for Fable, but the quality difference was actually noticeable. Kimi is still ridiculously competitive for the price.

aditya

367,260 просмотров • 11 дней назад

glm 5.3 flash is 7.5x cheaper, but 3.4x slower than gemini 3.7 flash Z.ai glm 5.3 flash – shipped aug 26, $0.07/$0.25 per 1m Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash – shipped aug 13, $0.38/$1.88 per 1m we put the two models on one job: write one html file that draws an animated 3d scene in the browser. no images, no downloads, and it has to look the same on every load. the setup: three scenes – a glass aquarium in a lit room, the solar system, a night city under a thunderstorm. identical brief word for word, reasoning effort high, 64k output cap. the numbers below are not the whole run. they cover the three scenes we kept – the best one per task from each model, the ones in the video. - total generation time for the three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 10m 36s #2 glm 5.3 flash – 36m 30s - tokens spent on those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – 110k #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 111k - cost of those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.027 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.202 observations: • glm's first 10 attempts: 7 blank pages. it kept inventing short random helpers and forgetting to define one of them. the fix was one line in the brief: use exactly one random helper, named rand(), and don't invent shorthands next to it. next 12 attempts: 11 alive, 0 crashes. • glm spends 66% of its output on reasoning, gemini 57%. that is the whole speed gap. • gemini's storm came back as a black rectangle in 4 of 6 runs. glm's best storm has a branching bolt, lit rain and wet asphalt – for $0.01. conclusion: same three scenes, same token spend – glm 5.3 flash billed $0.027 and took 36m 30s, gemini 3.7 flash billed $0.202 and took 10m 36s. glm wins gemini on price and made the best storm of the whole run follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

glm 5.3 flash is 7.5x cheaper, but 3.4x slower than gemini 3.7 flash Z.ai glm 5.3 flash – shipped aug 26, $0.07/$0.25 per 1m Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash – shipped aug 13, $0.38/$1.88 per 1m we put the two models on one job: write one html file that draws an animated 3d scene in the browser. no images, no downloads, and it has to look the same on every load. the setup: three scenes – a glass aquarium in a lit room, the solar system, a night city under a thunderstorm. identical brief word for word, reasoning effort high, 64k output cap. the numbers below are not the whole run. they cover the three scenes we kept – the best one per task from each model, the ones in the video. - total generation time for the three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 10m 36s #2 glm 5.3 flash – 36m 30s - tokens spent on those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – 110k #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 111k - cost of those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.027 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.202 observations: • glm's first 10 attempts: 7 blank pages. it kept inventing short random helpers and forgetting to define one of them. the fix was one line in the brief: use exactly one random helper, named rand(), and don't invent shorthands next to it. next 12 attempts: 11 alive, 0 crashes. • glm spends 66% of its output on reasoning, gemini 57%. that is the whole speed gap. • gemini's storm came back as a black rectangle in 4 of 6 runs. glm's best storm has a branching bolt, lit rain and wet asphalt – for $0.01. conclusion: same three scenes, same token spend – glm 5.3 flash billed $0.027 and took 36m 30s, gemini 3.7 flash billed $0.202 and took 10m 36s. glm wins gemini on price and made the best storm of the whole run follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

15,983 просмотров • 17 дней назад

GLM 5.2 by Z.ai is even bigger than the DeepSeek moment. In the past few months, open source AI had been quite stagnant. New releases were underwhelming and still far behind the top closed models. But GLM 5.2 is different. It gets surprisingly close to GPT and Opus-level quality, while being much cheaper and open-weight. It just gets things done with very minimal hand holding. Full review

GLM 5.2 by Z.ai is even bigger than the DeepSeek moment. In the past few months, open source AI had been quite stagnant. New releases were underwhelming and still far behind the top closed models. But GLM 5.2 is different. It gets surprisingly close to GPT and Opus-level quality, while being much cheaper and open-weight. It just gets things done with very minimal hand holding. Full review

AI Search

36,494 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

New Fable 5.1 absolutely crushed Fable 5 at making a racing game👾🔥 Claude just dropped Fable 5.1, so we gave both models the same prompt to build a playable racing game from scratch in Godot with BlenderMCP Tasks: - Make car and environment models using BlenderMCP - A big map for long driving sessions - Realistic car handling - Simple HUD for speed and controls Outputs: Fable 5.1: 1.2M tokens, 123.98$, 59.8 minutes Fable 5: 897K tokens, 95.87, 57.3 minutes Fable 5.1's models are far more detailed and the game runs smooth, the world feels alive while you drive. Fable 5 finished all three tasks and its HUD and controls work, but its models are plain and the game feels stiff

New Fable 5.1 absolutely crushed Fable 5 at making a racing game👾🔥 Claude just dropped Fable 5.1, so we gave both models the same prompt to build a playable racing game from scratch in Godot with BlenderMCP Tasks: - Make car and environment models using BlenderMCP - A big map for long driving sessions - Realistic car handling - Simple HUD for speed and controls Outputs: Fable 5.1: 1.2M tokens, 123.98$, 59.8 minutes Fable 5: 897K tokens, 95.87, 57.3 minutes Fable 5.1's models are far more detailed and the game runs smooth, the world feels alive while you drive. Fable 5 finished all three tasks and its HUD and controls work, but its models are plain and the game feels stiff

atomic.chat

21,216 просмотров • 11 дней назад

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.

26,250 просмотров • 15 дней назад

Fable 5.1 is an absolute beast for game dev. I took my Opus 5 space game and told Fable to "just make it look better". It overhauled everything with a TON of detail, AND made it 2x faster 🤯 Code: Demo: Every pixel you see is made by AI. Fable modeled everything in Blender, generated textures with code, and in a few cases ran image models via CLI. In mere months we'll be vibe-coding AAA graphics at this rate. Just insane. Of course, Fable recorded and edited this comparison video too (with a little help from Opus at the end, because of the Fable outage)

Fable 5.1 is an absolute beast for game dev. I took my Opus 5 space game and told Fable to "just make it look better". It overhauled everything with a TON of detail, AND made it 2x faster 🤯 Code: Demo: Every pixel you see is made by AI. Fable modeled everything in Blender, generated textures with code, and in a few cases ran image models via CLI. In mere months we'll be vibe-coding AAA graphics at this rate. Just insane. Of course, Fable recorded and edited this comparison video too (with a little help from Opus at the end, because of the Fable outage)

Anshu

48,983 просмотров • 9 дней назад

Something feels seriously off with Claude Fable 5.1 🙄 I recreated the exact same 3D stadium I had built with Fable 5 just to see how much better 5.1 would be. Instead, Fable 5.1 took more than > 1 hour and hit the max limit 2 or 3 times on a single prompt. Fable 5 basically had the whole website ready in one shot and its output was actually much better. Fable 5.1 felt good with metal but added these weird black things that look like basket wings... genuinely have no idea what those are. Not good. And this observation isn’t just for one website. I saw similar behavior with a much simpler hero page where Fable 5.1 maxed out on a single prompt, something I never really experienced with Fable 5 for similar other websites Also, 3D models and animations of that other website also looked noticeably worse compared to what Fable 5 used to produce. In fact, they were even worse than what I’ve seen Opus 5 do. I’ll keep testing it, but so far Fable 5.1 feels less like an upgrade and more like a regression to me, tbh.

Something feels seriously off with Claude Fable 5.1 🙄 I recreated the exact same 3D stadium I had built with Fable 5 just to see how much better 5.1 would be. Instead, Fable 5.1 took more than > 1 hour and hit the max limit 2 or 3 times on a single prompt. Fable 5 basically had the whole website ready in one shot and its output was actually much better. Fable 5.1 felt good with metal but added these weird black things that look like basket wings... genuinely have no idea what those are. Not good. And this observation isn’t just for one website. I saw similar behavior with a much simpler hero page where Fable 5.1 maxed out on a single prompt, something I never really experienced with Fable 5 for similar other websites Also, 3D models and animations of that other website also looked noticeably worse compared to what Fable 5 used to produce. In fact, they were even worse than what I’ve seen Opus 5 do. I’ll keep testing it, but so far Fable 5.1 feels less like an upgrade and more like a regression to me, tbh.

The Bugged Dev

98,232 просмотров • 10 дней назад

GLM 5.2 just beat Fable 5 at website design. 🌐 The crazy part: GLM is text-only. It can build the site, but it can’t inspect the result. So we paired it with Browser Use v2 multimodal QA subagents. > Reviews the site and finds bugs > Judges the aesthetics > Sends GLM targeted fixes to iterate on Build + full QA cost less than $0.75. Try it now ↓

GLM 5.2 just beat Fable 5 at website design. 🌐 The crazy part: GLM is text-only. It can build the site, but it can’t inspect the result. So we paired it with Browser Use v2 multimodal QA subagents. > Reviews the site and finds bugs > Judges the aesthetics > Sends GLM targeted fixes to iterate on Build + full QA cost less than $0.75. Try it now ↓

Browser Use

274,271 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I tested GLM 5.2 on three real builds. A horror house game. A 3D stealth game. A Remotion marketing video. The results are exactly what I expect from Chinese open source coding models right now. The horror house has broken game logic. Collect all three keys, complete the objective, and the front door still won't open. The stealth game shipped with lighting so dark you can't see your own character. The Remotion video is rough. GLM 5.2 is faster than 5.1 and 10x cheaper than the frontier. But Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 are still in a different league for serious coding work. Chinese models keep missing the attention to detail that matters. I MISS FABLE 5 ALREADY. Full review live now.

I tested GLM 5.2 on three real builds. A horror house game. A 3D stealth game. A Remotion marketing video. The results are exactly what I expect from Chinese open source coding models right now. The horror house has broken game logic. Collect all three keys, complete the objective, and the front door still won't open. The stealth game shipped with lighting so dark you can't see your own character. The Remotion video is rough. GLM 5.2 is faster than 5.1 and 10x cheaper than the frontier. But Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 are still in a different league for serious coding work. Chinese models keep missing the attention to detail that matters. I MISS FABLE 5 ALREADY. Full review live now.

BridgeMind

24,681 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The truth about 5.6 sol after using it all day : The hype is overblown. Sort of. The benchmarks, and the commentary on X convinced me we were receiving AGI that runs at hyper speed, and is insanely cheap. in reality, 5.6 is built on the same spud pretraining as 5.5 this means its a nice bump, but not the opus to fable 5 LEAP in intelligence we recently experienced from anthropic. 5.6 is 2x times cheaper than fable on paper, and actually 3x cheaper when you look at actual task execution because of its token efficiency. BUT on swe bench where the models have to fix actual github bugs it falls behind fable pretty big. For vibecoders like myself this means I will be using 5.6 sol as a worker agent for Fable 5 to orchestrate alongside grok 4.5 I love this new era.

The truth about 5.6 sol after using it all day : The hype is overblown. Sort of. The benchmarks, and the commentary on X convinced me we were receiving AGI that runs at hyper speed, and is insanely cheap. in reality, 5.6 is built on the same spud pretraining as 5.5 this means its a nice bump, but not the opus to fable 5 LEAP in intelligence we recently experienced from anthropic. 5.6 is 2x times cheaper than fable on paper, and actually 3x cheaper when you look at actual task execution because of its token efficiency. BUT on swe bench where the models have to fix actual github bugs it falls behind fable pretty big. For vibecoders like myself this means I will be using 5.6 sol as a worker agent for Fable 5 to orchestrate alongside grok 4.5 I love this new era.

Max Blade

36,873 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Zhipu AI just dropped a $3 model that beats GPT-5.4. It is called GLM 5.1. It just took 3rd place on the Code Arena charts. Claude Max costs up to 200 dollars a month. GLM 5.1 gives you 94 percent of Claude's power for just 3 dollars. But here is the crazy part. It works completely alone for 8 hours straight. You give it a huge task in the morning. You walk away and do your actual job. At the end of the day, your code is done, tested, and fixed. It is not a simple chatbot. It is an AI worker that builds landing pages and email flows for you. Stop doing the busy work yourself. Get the exact steps to build your own AI systems in my free group. Link in my bio.

Zhipu AI just dropped a $3 model that beats GPT-5.4. It is called GLM 5.1. It just took 3rd place on the Code Arena charts. Claude Max costs up to 200 dollars a month. GLM 5.1 gives you 94 percent of Claude's power for just 3 dollars. But here is the crazy part. It works completely alone for 8 hours straight. You give it a huge task in the morning. You walk away and do your actual job. At the end of the day, your code is done, tested, and fixed. It is not a simple chatbot. It is an AI worker that builds landing pages and email flows for you. Stop doing the busy work yourself. Get the exact steps to build your own AI systems in my free group. Link in my bio.

Julian Goldie SEO

12,606 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

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

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

AI/ML API

403,637 просмотров • 11 дней назад

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?

Bhavy☄️

33,971 просмотров • 9 дней назад

GLM-5.3 weights from Z.ai are live, with SGLang powering day-0 serving support! GLM-5.3 inherits every optimization and feature we battle-tested for GLM-5.2 over the past months. On real-world multi-turn agentic workloads, we measured 537.6 tok/s/user on NVFP4 and 413 tok/s/user on FP8, at BS=1 with TP8 on 8x B300. It's fast, efficient, and production-ready today on NVIDIA AI Blackwell and Hopper, and AI at AMD MI300X/325X/355X. We believe this is a big step forward for GLM-Series in agentic tasks, with a path toward mythos-class cyber capability. Can't wait to see what people build with GLM-5.3 and SGLang🚀 Cookbook👇

GLM-5.3 weights from Z.ai are live, with SGLang powering day-0 serving support! GLM-5.3 inherits every optimization and feature we battle-tested for GLM-5.2 over the past months. On real-world multi-turn agentic workloads, we measured 537.6 tok/s/user on NVFP4 and 413 tok/s/user on FP8, at BS=1 with TP8 on 8x B300. It's fast, efficient, and production-ready today on NVIDIA AI Blackwell and Hopper, and AI at AMD MI300X/325X/355X. We believe this is a big step forward for GLM-Series in agentic tasks, with a path toward mythos-class cyber capability. Can't wait to see what people build with GLM-5.3 and SGLang🚀 Cookbook👇

SGLang

98,976 просмотров • 15 дней назад

🚨 GLM 5.3 just dropped, and here’s how to access the GLM family completely FREE. no subscription. no API credit cost & no rate limit. step 1️⃣: download the OpenCode app on your PC. it’s available on both Mac and Windows. 🔗: step 2️⃣: go to NVIDIA’s website, sign up with your email, verify your account, and generate a unified API key for free. NVIDIA offers free model endpoints for developers, and GLM 5.2 is one of the top models currently available there. 🔗: step 3️⃣: launch OpenCode, open the model selection menu, search for NVIDIA, and paste the API key you generated. also, there’s no rate limit, but traffic to the model through NVIDIA can get busy at times, so responses may occasionally be slower or temporarily unavailable. the only catch: NVIDIA hasn’t listed GLM 5.3 yet, so for now you’ll be using GLM 5.2. once GLM 5.3 gets added to NVIDIA’s model catalog, you should be able to switch to it the same way.

🚨 GLM 5.3 just dropped, and here’s how to access the GLM family completely FREE. no subscription. no API credit cost & no rate limit. step 1️⃣: download the OpenCode app on your PC. it’s available on both Mac and Windows. 🔗: step 2️⃣: go to NVIDIA’s website, sign up with your email, verify your account, and generate a unified API key for free. NVIDIA offers free model endpoints for developers, and GLM 5.2 is one of the top models currently available there. 🔗: step 3️⃣: launch OpenCode, open the model selection menu, search for NVIDIA, and paste the API key you generated. also, there’s no rate limit, but traffic to the model through NVIDIA can get busy at times, so responses may occasionally be slower or temporarily unavailable. the only catch: NVIDIA hasn’t listed GLM 5.3 yet, so for now you’ll be using GLM 5.2. once GLM 5.3 gets added to NVIDIA’s model catalog, you should be able to switch to it the same way.

m0h

85,378 просмотров • 29 дней назад

I re-ran my Fable 5 3D dashboard demo with GLM-5.2. Same prompt. Same reference image. The result is actually pretty solid: 3D globe, route arcs, glass panels, stats cards, and a usable demo page. It is not at Fable 5 level yet, especially in visual precision and one-shot polish. But GLM-5.2 is accessible to all GLM Coding Plan users now. If you’re curious, it’s worth trying. Demo webpage + prompt below 👇

I re-ran my Fable 5 3D dashboard demo with GLM-5.2. Same prompt. Same reference image. The result is actually pretty solid: 3D globe, route arcs, glass panels, stats cards, and a usable demo page. It is not at Fable 5 level yet, especially in visual precision and one-shot polish. But GLM-5.2 is accessible to all GLM Coding Plan users now. If you’re curious, it’s worth trying. Demo webpage + prompt below 👇

AI Builder Club

49,848 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Muse Spark 1.3 Ultra Contributor vs Fable 5.1 xHigh Same prompt, both ran for roughly 2 hours The prompt had a self improvement rule: if the independent judges scored the result below 9.5/10, it had to keep improving and try again, What shocked me most was that Muse Spark just NEVER stopped, It went through 20 self improvement loops, launching 3 agents each time basically 60+ agent runs over 2 hours And the cost?, Less than $1, Yes, under $1… in Ultra mode ,This completely exceeded my expectations Huge credit to Meta, this thing is a work of art

Muse Spark 1.3 Ultra Contributor vs Fable 5.1 xHigh Same prompt, both ran for roughly 2 hours The prompt had a self improvement rule: if the independent judges scored the result below 9.5/10, it had to keep improving and try again, What shocked me most was that Muse Spark just NEVER stopped, It went through 20 self improvement loops, launching 3 agents each time basically 60+ agent runs over 2 hours And the cost?, Less than $1, Yes, under $1… in Ultra mode ,This completely exceeded my expectations Huge credit to Meta, this thing is a work of art

Iam_

150,083 просмотров • 10 дней назад

This completely changes how I look at AI benchmarks. Qwen 3.8 Max Preview felt nearly unusable in OpenCode and Qwen Code. With the Claude Code harness, it suddenly came surprisingly close to Kimi K3 and Fable 5. Same model. Same task. Different harness. Wildly different result. How is this even possible?

This completely changes how I look at AI benchmarks. Qwen 3.8 Max Preview felt nearly unusable in OpenCode and Qwen Code. With the Claude Code harness, it suddenly came surprisingly close to Kimi K3 and Fable 5. Same model. Same task. Different harness. Wildly different result. How is this even possible?

OmedTheVibeCoder

30,223 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

18,509 просмотров • 10 дней назад