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。

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... show more

Kai

10,486 subscribers

198,845 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

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

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

130,349 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

376,967 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

53,240 次观看 • 1 个月前

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)

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

79,408 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

250,919 次观看 • 2 个月前

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kirill

63,180 次观看 • 1 个月前

Previewing Ultrafast mode for OpenAI's GPT 5.6 Sol, powered by Cerebras. GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast generates responses at up to 750 tokens per second. That's the full, GPT-5.6-Sol model -- up to 14× faster than the same model on Standard processing. It speedran Humanity’s Last Exam in 11h 11m, nearly 7× faster than Claude Fable 5 with comparable accuracy.

Previewing Ultrafast mode for OpenAI's GPT 5.6 Sol, powered by Cerebras. GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast generates responses at up to 750 tokens per second. That's the full, GPT-5.6-Sol model -- up to 14× faster than the same model on Standard processing. It speedran Humanity’s Last Exam in 11h 11m, nearly 7× faster than Claude Fable 5 with comparable accuracy.

Cerebras

1,272,880 次观看 • 13 天前

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.

AI/ML API

149,158 次观看 • 1 个月前

Here's GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable asked to build the exact same app (prompts in the article!) What do you think? I have my opinions, but I'd like to hear yours. Both built complete, working apps, but with very different approaches: - Sol took less than half the time at the same (high) reasoning - Sol spent much less time on frame analysis. Fable dumped sheets of frames for every transition and scrutinized them multiple times; Sol only checked twice, and both times was just like "looks great, continuing" - At first, Sol intentionally ignored my request to use image generation! It went with procedurally generated food images "for simplicity" (they looked terrible) - On the second prompt, Sol generated images, but intentionally ignored my suggestion for transparent image backgrounds, saying full photos "preserve shadows more convincingly" - Sol's used its built-in GPT Image 2 integration, which saved cost; Fable had to use the Gemini API - Sol didn't seem to know how to use Liquid Glass at all - Fable was more restrained; Sol wanted to add extra labels and detail - On the other hand, Fable decided to add an extra detail page for foods, while Sol did not - Both had nice haptics on device - Fable added a pinch dismiss gesture; Sol did not do gestures

Here's GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable asked to build the exact same app (prompts in the article!) What do you think? I have my opinions, but I'd like to hear yours. Both built complete, working apps, but with very different approaches: - Sol took less than half the time at the same (high) reasoning - Sol spent much less time on frame analysis. Fable dumped sheets of frames for every transition and scrutinized them multiple times; Sol only checked twice, and both times was just like "looks great, continuing" - At first, Sol intentionally ignored my request to use image generation! It went with procedurally generated food images "for simplicity" (they looked terrible) - On the second prompt, Sol generated images, but intentionally ignored my suggestion for transparent image backgrounds, saying full photos "preserve shadows more convincingly" - Sol's used its built-in GPT Image 2 integration, which saved cost; Fable had to use the Gemini API - Sol didn't seem to know how to use Liquid Glass at all - Fable was more restrained; Sol wanted to add extra labels and detail - On the other hand, Fable decided to add an extra detail page for foods, while Sol did not - Both had nice haptics on device - Fable added a pinch dismiss gesture; Sol did not do gestures

Anshu

161,283 次观看 • 1 个月前

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

Command Code

179,535 次观看 • 23 天前

🚨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

300,590 次观看 • 2 个月前

Kimi K3 vs Fable 5. Same prompt and reference. 3D globe dashboard. Kimi left, Fable right. To me, Kimi's UI fidelity is a touch better. The globe looks better too, with richer textures and smoother motion. This task: ~$3 with Kimi, ~$15 with Fable. I'd pick Kimi k3 for frontend work.

Kimi K3 vs Fable 5. Same prompt and reference. 3D globe dashboard. Kimi left, Fable right. To me, Kimi's UI fidelity is a touch better. The globe looks better too, with richer textures and smoother motion. This task: ~$3 with Kimi, ~$15 with Fable. I'd pick Kimi k3 for frontend work.

Kai

226,254 次观看 • 1 个月前

wow... GPT 5.6 Sol Passed the Replit Benchmark. In one prompt 5.6 on Codex created a full Replit clone with DB, Sandboxes, and an agent that builds and edits full web apps. Only Fable and GPT 5.6 have passed this benchmark. 5.6 is much better at designing iOS apps than 5.5 as well.

wow... GPT 5.6 Sol Passed the Replit Benchmark. In one prompt 5.6 on Codex created a full Replit clone with DB, Sandboxes, and an agent that builds and edits full web apps. Only Fable and GPT 5.6 have passed this benchmark. 5.6 is much better at designing iOS apps than 5.5 as well.

Riley Brown

123,242 次观看 • 1 个月前

Ultrafast mode for GPT-5.6 Sol is now in limited preview, powered by Cerebras. We gave OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol the same prompt on Ultrafast and Standard: build a financial terminal-style dashboard for analysts. Ultrafast: 1 min 50 seconds Standard: 12 min 20 seconds Same result, nearly 7x faster.

Ultrafast mode for GPT-5.6 Sol is now in limited preview, powered by Cerebras. We gave OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol the same prompt on Ultrafast and Standard: build a financial terminal-style dashboard for analysts. Ultrafast: 1 min 50 seconds Standard: 12 min 20 seconds Same result, nearly 7x faster.

Cerebras

143,177 次观看 • 13 天前

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

31,787 次观看 • 2 个月前

here's a direct comparison between fable and sol on Three.js 3d model building. all procedurally generated, I gave a ref image only first fable vs second sol you can see what i'm talking about, on this domain fable is way better than sol, you just can't deny that

here's a direct comparison between fable and sol on Three.js 3d model building. all procedurally generated, I gave a ref image only first fable vs second sol you can see what i'm talking about, on this domain fable is way better than sol, you just can't deny that

Scott

32,232 次观看 • 1 个月前