Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

i just compared DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash against Opus 5 gave same prompt to both models to build ocean sandbox using three.js DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash was almost 90% cheaper and 50% faster than Opus 5 💀 maybe the benchmarks are not broken.. do you think DeepSeek is better?

Tim Jayas

5,073 subscribers

21,130 views • 1 day ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Comments

Bharat Golchha1 day ago

Absolutely.. I did the same test with Deepseek 4.1 flash See the result below

Tim Jayas1 day ago

quality is really good

Andy Scott1 day ago

Looks better too. Damn

Tim Jayas1 day ago

deepseek is surprising competing well against opus 5

Raik R1 day ago

I'm quite convinced that the new American AI models are trained to beat benchmarks rather than to do the real job

Tim Jayas23 hours ago

it's all a form of marketing strategy now

John Kler1 day ago

Can you test SWE 2.0 please?

Dave1 day ago

prompt or it didn't happen.

Tim Jayas1 day ago

😭 here: "create a highly detailed 3d ocean POV using three.js with waves and thunderstorm in a square sandbox, use white theme background so main object is visible"

Valerii Karivets22 hours ago

90% cheaper and 50% faster is how my carefully curated model stack gets fired. i’m absolutely throwing my ugliest three.js prompt at DeepSeek tonight.

No Hard Problem19 hours ago

What about the rest of us not using three.js? Even with Astra we saw game demos and shit most people don't use it for. I just want solid python coding skills not three.js water 🌊. Is that too much to ask?

Related Videos

Opus 5 vs DeepSeek v4.1 Flash tested both models with same frontend prompt at highest reasoning available but results came out really different > opus took 80 minutes to complete and costed $20 > v4.1 flash took 60 minutes and costed $0.2 which one did better here?

Opus 5 vs DeepSeek v4.1 Flash tested both models with same frontend prompt at highest reasoning available but results came out really different > opus took 80 minutes to complete and costed $20 > v4.1 flash took 60 minutes and costed $0.2 which one did better here?

J A Z I I

37,480 views • 1 day ago

deepseek v4.1 flash ran all four three.js scenes for $0.15. gemini 3.8 flash needed $1.25 we put the two models on one job: a self-contained html page that renders an animated 3d scene with three.js – a storm at sea, a spiral galaxy, a tornado over farmland, a tesla coil on a dark table. same prompt - calls until all four scenes were usable #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 6 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 12 - time #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 13m 57s #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 32m 02s - cost #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – $0.15 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – $1.25 observations: • gemini blew out the exposure on 4 of 5 first attempts – a white blob where the tesla coil should be. the prompt had a paragraph on exposure. it did not help. • both models overcorrect in the fix loop: "too bright" becomes "almost black". round two is where it lands. same four scenes, 6 calls and $0.15 against 12 calls and $1.25!

deepseek v4.1 flash ran all four three.js scenes for $0.15. gemini 3.8 flash needed $1.25 we put the two models on one job: a self-contained html page that renders an animated 3d scene with three.js – a storm at sea, a spiral galaxy, a tornado over farmland, a tesla coil on a dark table. same prompt - calls until all four scenes were usable #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 6 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 12 - time #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 13m 57s #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 32m 02s - cost #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – $0.15 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – $1.25 observations: • gemini blew out the exposure on 4 of 5 first attempts – a white blob where the tesla coil should be. the prompt had a paragraph on exposure. it did not help. • both models overcorrect in the fix loop: "too bright" becomes "almost black". round two is where it lands. same four scenes, 6 calls and $0.15 against 12 calls and $1.25!

thehype.

59,689 views • 1 day ago

🚨 You can use GPT-6 Astra as the orchestrator and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash as the agents to cut costs by more than 88% while maintaining the same level of quality. And now it’s even better, since DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is one of the best models for cybersecurity at an incredibly low price

🚨 You can use GPT-6 Astra as the orchestrator and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash as the agents to cut costs by more than 88% while maintaining the same level of quality. And now it’s even better, since DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is one of the best models for cybersecurity at an incredibly low price

Iam_

25,437 views • 1 day ago

holy sh*t, it can't be f**king real DeepSeek V4.1 Flash just benchmarked at 98% of GPT-6 Astra and it's free on Xplabs what you get: - DeepSeek V4.1 Flash free - and 1000+ models open on the platform how to try it (under 1 min): step 1: go to step 2: search for deepseek-v4.1-flash step 3: select it and start prompting no card, no plan, just use it

holy sh*t, it can't be f**king real DeepSeek V4.1 Flash just benchmarked at 98% of GPT-6 Astra and it's free on Xplabs what you get: - DeepSeek V4.1 Flash free - and 1000+ models open on the platform how to try it (under 1 min): step 1: go to step 2: search for deepseek-v4.1-flash step 3: select it and start prompting no card, no plan, just use it

Sakata

48,301 views • 1 day ago

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash just dropped, and holy shit this thing is fast,I’m getting almost 400 t/s in my video tests. The speed is honestly crazy, I’m running my own benchmark right now and I’ll share all the results once I’m done. You just need to go to the DeepSeek harness and use deepseek-v4.1-flash-expires-on-0910. Speed wise, it’s actually competing with Muse Spark 1.3!

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash just dropped, and holy shit this thing is fast,I’m getting almost 400 t/s in my video tests. The speed is honestly crazy, I’m running my own benchmark right now and I’ll share all the results once I’m done. You just need to go to the DeepSeek harness and use deepseek-v4.1-flash-expires-on-0910. Speed wise, it’s actually competing with Muse Spark 1.3!

Iam_

101,405 views • 3 days ago

DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs Gemini-3.6-Flash both given the exact same prompt to build 3D pirate ship Cost: > deepseek-v4-flash: $0.14 / $0.28 > gemini-3.6-flash: $1.50 / $7.50 though deepseek is 20x cheaper, gemini was surprising faster with the output Prompt used: "build a 3D model of pirate ship in Three js with minimal dashboard buttons in light theme background, with wide view of the pirate ship"

DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs Gemini-3.6-Flash both given the exact same prompt to build 3D pirate ship Cost: > deepseek-v4-flash: $0.14 / $0.28 > gemini-3.6-flash: $1.50 / $7.50 though deepseek is 20x cheaper, gemini was surprising faster with the output Prompt used: "build a 3D model of pirate ship in Three js with minimal dashboard buttons in light theme background, with wide view of the pirate ship"

Tim Jayas

20,127 views • 1 month ago

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (High) vs Kimi K3 (Low) Same farming scene prompt. This is the result. > DeepSeek High took 1 min 15s and cost $0.45. > Kimi K3 took 2m 10s and cost $1.20. Almost as good as Kimi, but honestly, one of the best Flash models ever released.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (High) vs Kimi K3 (Low) Same farming scene prompt. This is the result. > DeepSeek High took 1 min 15s and cost $0.45. > Kimi K3 took 2m 10s and cost $1.20. Almost as good as Kimi, but honestly, one of the best Flash models ever released.

Bhavy☄️

55,814 views • 1 day ago

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3 This is not one-shot from DeepSeek btw. The first result was boxy and not realistic, so I iterated with a $6 cap. Kimi did this in one shot, costing $6.95. Not as good as Kimi K3, but it did better than the other Flash models I’ve tried.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3 This is not one-shot from DeepSeek btw. The first result was boxy and not realistic, so I iterated with a $6 cap. Kimi did this in one shot, costing $6.95. Not as good as Kimi K3, but it did better than the other Flash models I’ve tried.

Bhavy☄️

33,428 views • 1 day ago

deepseek v4.1 flash vs secret model tested both with the same prompt at the highest reasoning available > v4.1 flash took 2 hours to finish both tests and cost $2.60 > secret model finished both in 30 minutes, can’t reveal cost yet v4.1 flash spent a lot of time overthinking and running random tests, which slowed it down thanks AIHubmix for providing api access so i could test v4.1 flash hoping that team will cut down the overthinking before the full release, but for now here are the results which model did better here?

deepseek v4.1 flash vs secret model tested both with the same prompt at the highest reasoning available > v4.1 flash took 2 hours to finish both tests and cost $2.60 > secret model finished both in 30 minutes, can’t reveal cost yet v4.1 flash spent a lot of time overthinking and running random tests, which slowed it down thanks AIHubmix for providing api access so i could test v4.1 flash hoping that team will cut down the overthinking before the full release, but for now here are the results which model did better here?

J A Z I I

28,586 views • 3 days ago

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 3D geometry test: six self-contained three.js stereometry scenes — a (3,8) torus knot, a Klein bottle, a great stellated dodecahedron, a hyperboloid ruled by 120 straight rods, a level-3 Menger sponge, a thick Möbius strip. one shot each, no libraries beyond three.js, every surface painted with a live iridescent rainbow that has to crawl across the geometry. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.11 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — $0.27 • gemini delivers all six figures for 2.4× less — 21k output tokens against deepseek's 168k • gemini is 5× faster — every scene under 25 seconds, deepseek took up to 3 minutes on the Möbius strip • deepseek wins the torus knot: its rope is vivid and glossy, while gemini rendered the same knot nearly black • neither model can build a real Klein bottle. both hand back a twisted tube and call it done try both on aimlapi[.]com

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 3D geometry test: six self-contained three.js stereometry scenes — a (3,8) torus knot, a Klein bottle, a great stellated dodecahedron, a hyperboloid ruled by 120 straight rods, a level-3 Menger sponge, a thick Möbius strip. one shot each, no libraries beyond three.js, every surface painted with a live iridescent rainbow that has to crawl across the geometry. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.11 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — $0.27 • gemini delivers all six figures for 2.4× less — 21k output tokens against deepseek's 168k • gemini is 5× faster — every scene under 25 seconds, deepseek took up to 3 minutes on the Möbius strip • deepseek wins the torus knot: its rope is vivid and glossy, while gemini rendered the same knot nearly black • neither model can build a real Klein bottle. both hand back a twisted tube and call it done try both on aimlapi[.]com

AI/ML API

35,994 views • 1 day ago

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Opus 5 same prompt to each model and i wasn't expecting gemini 3.8 flash to be this fast! build time: > Opus 5: 24 minutes > 3.8 Flash: 37 seconds 💀 if gemini is given same time as opus 5 it will mog the hell out of opus in terms of quality too which one would you choose here?

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Opus 5 same prompt to each model and i wasn't expecting gemini 3.8 flash to be this fast! build time: > Opus 5: 24 minutes > 3.8 Flash: 37 seconds 💀 if gemini is given same time as opus 5 it will mog the hell out of opus in terms of quality too which one would you choose here?

Tim Jayas

76,394 views • 9 days ago

DeepSeek V4 Flash completely failed this test. Compared to Opus 4.8, GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and the other current top models, it’s honestly not good. The gap is massive. Against Luna, however, it performs similarly well. Both have different strengths and weaknesses, so I still need to test them more. The weird part: the Pi harness performed worse than OpenCode for DeepSeek. More tests are coming, guys. Don’t worry

DeepSeek V4 Flash completely failed this test. Compared to Opus 4.8, GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and the other current top models, it’s honestly not good. The gap is massive. Against Luna, however, it performs similarly well. Both have different strengths and weaknesses, so I still need to test them more. The weird part: the Pi harness performed worse than OpenCode for DeepSeek. More tests are coming, guys. Don’t worry

OmedTheVibeCoder

26,166 views • 1 month ago

Ox Alpha vs Opus 5 i asked both models to build rocket engine using three.js ox-alpha is not even close to opus 5 performance and it took equal or more time for the output prompt used for both: "Create a 3d SpaceX raptor engine using three.js, use white theme background so the main object is clearly visible" both are one-shot outputs with no additional changes what do you think about Ox Alpha?

Ox Alpha vs Opus 5 i asked both models to build rocket engine using three.js ox-alpha is not even close to opus 5 performance and it took equal or more time for the output prompt used for both: "Create a 3d SpaceX raptor engine using three.js, use white theme background so the main object is clearly visible" both are one-shot outputs with no additional changes what do you think about Ox Alpha?

Tim Jayas

104,225 views • 21 days ago

🚨 DeepSeek V4 GA vs Fable 5 I gave both models the exact same 3D game generation prompt The results surprised me In my test, DeepSeek V4 GA produced the stronger output > Better environment generation > Stronger implementation > Excellent price-to-performance Which one do you prefer? 👇

🚨 DeepSeek V4 GA vs Fable 5 I gave both models the exact same 3D game generation prompt The results surprised me In my test, DeepSeek V4 GA produced the stronger output > Better environment generation > Stronger implementation > Excellent price-to-performance Which one do you prefer? 👇

Salio

31,520 views • 1 month ago

deepseek-v4.1-flash I'm really curious to understand the architecture behind the scenes. 🤔 Model is really fast as you can see in the video! I've got an average decoding speed of around 350 t/s. BTW it is clearly experimental and: - currently, the model is under heavy load and failing quite often. - it thinks like there is not tomorrow - it keeps failing editing file - after 4M tokens my frogger game is still in progress - it can't see images out of the box on DeepSeek Harness, you have to add these config lines - id: deepseek-v4.1-flash-expires-on-0910 name: deepseek-v4.1-flash-expires-on-0910 contextWindow: 1000000 inputModalities: - text - image imagePixelBudget: 640000 imageMaxBytes: 1048576 So play with it, but be aware of the very early stage.

deepseek-v4.1-flash I'm really curious to understand the architecture behind the scenes. 🤔 Model is really fast as you can see in the video! I've got an average decoding speed of around 350 t/s. BTW it is clearly experimental and: - currently, the model is under heavy load and failing quite often. - it thinks like there is not tomorrow - it keeps failing editing file - after 4M tokens my frogger game is still in progress - it can't see images out of the box on DeepSeek Harness, you have to add these config lines - id: deepseek-v4.1-flash-expires-on-0910 name: deepseek-v4.1-flash-expires-on-0910 contextWindow: 1000000 inputModalities: - text - image imagePixelBudget: 640000 imageMaxBytes: 1048576 So play with it, but be aware of the very early stage.

Ivan Fioravanti ᯅ

26,971 views • 3 days ago

MiMo-X-Pro-Preview vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash the difference in quality is honestly insane, MiMo X Pro Preview, especially when paired with MiMo-Flash-Preview, feels noticeably ahead You can already tell the kind of benchmark scores MiMo must be hitting right now. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is good and fast, but MiMo feels like it’s playing in a completely different league, It’s still only in beta for now, but I really hope Xiaomi releases this model soon! , And huge congratulations to the DeepSeek as well for building such a fast and genuinely good model

MiMo-X-Pro-Preview vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash the difference in quality is honestly insane, MiMo X Pro Preview, especially when paired with MiMo-Flash-Preview, feels noticeably ahead You can already tell the kind of benchmark scores MiMo must be hitting right now. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is good and fast, but MiMo feels like it’s playing in a completely different league, It’s still only in beta for now, but I really hope Xiaomi releases this model soon! , And huge congratulations to the DeepSeek as well for building such a fast and genuinely good model

Iam_

18,359 views • 1 day ago

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is shockingly good against GLM-3.5 Flash i used the same prompt to build fully controllable hummingbird using three.js and here's the side by side comparison between both it's insane how both are open models that can one shot entire game with a single prompt

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is shockingly good against GLM-3.5 Flash i used the same prompt to build fully controllable hummingbird using three.js and here's the side by side comparison between both it's insane how both are open models that can one shot entire game with a single prompt

Tim Jayas

20,443 views • 15 days ago

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

476,189 views • 1 month ago

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

12,890 views • 18 days ago

i gave the exact same prompt to Opus 5 and Fable 5 and here's what came out Opus 5 dropped yesterday and my feed was instantly full of comparison posts but i wanted to check it myself so i gave it one task build 3d Flappy Bird first thing everyone was saying Opus is 2x cheaper than Fable BUT.. building the game on Max effort cost me 250k tokens and 1 hour on Opus and 130k on Fable but Fable did it in half the time Opus gave me volume control plus 3 separate graphics presets to choose from, Fable gave none of that in Opus the environment shifts dynamically as you play in Fable it's basically the same frame the whole run maybe a day/night change here and there graphics, animations, glow, all of it goes to Opus and now that limits jumped 50% for the near future while Fable went paid for me the call is obvious right now Opus same prompt start to finish zero changes to code or commands want it? i can send it over

i gave the exact same prompt to Opus 5 and Fable 5 and here's what came out Opus 5 dropped yesterday and my feed was instantly full of comparison posts but i wanted to check it myself so i gave it one task build 3d Flappy Bird first thing everyone was saying Opus is 2x cheaper than Fable BUT.. building the game on Max effort cost me 250k tokens and 1 hour on Opus and 130k on Fable but Fable did it in half the time Opus gave me volume control plus 3 separate graphics presets to choose from, Fable gave none of that in Opus the environment shifts dynamically as you play in Fable it's basically the same frame the whole run maybe a day/night change here and there graphics, animations, glow, all of it goes to Opus and now that limits jumped 50% for the near future while Fable went paid for me the call is obvious right now Opus same prompt start to finish zero changes to code or commands want it? i can send it over

savip.

45,764 views • 1 month ago