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.

Kimi K3 ranks #6 on ReactBench - It performs better than Opus 4.8 while being over 2x cheaper (!!) - Scores 33%, jump of +10% compared to K2.7 - Lags behind the frontier (Fable and Sol) in frontend production-readiness:

Aiden Bai

70,414 subscribers

75,250 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.

Bhavy☄️

479,144 views • 2 months ago

🤯KIMI K3 ABSOLUTELY MOGS! BEATING Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and even Fable 5 in multiple benchmarks. They scored 1688 on GDPval-AA v2 🔥 This is a completely different breed of open-source models Kimi creates better games and front-end designs than Fable 5, but it's 8x cheaper! The results coming out are truly impressive! I will be testing this out further and posting multiple tests today. Stay tuned!

🤯KIMI K3 ABSOLUTELY MOGS! BEATING Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and even Fable 5 in multiple benchmarks. They scored 1688 on GDPval-AA v2 🔥 This is a completely different breed of open-source models Kimi creates better games and front-end designs than Fable 5, but it's 8x cheaper! The results coming out are truly impressive! I will be testing this out further and posting multiple tests today. Stay tuned!

Mark Santos

128,094 views • 2 months ago

DeepSeek V4 Flash being ranked almost equal to Opus 4.8 is actually insane to me. Against Kimi K3, Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Qwen 3.8 Max Preview, you give up a LOT by choosing DeepSeek. This is not a 2-point difference in practice. I’ll post the Opus 4.8 comparison next because you need to see this.

DeepSeek V4 Flash being ranked almost equal to Opus 4.8 is actually insane to me. Against Kimi K3, Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Qwen 3.8 Max Preview, you give up a LOT by choosing DeepSeek. This is not a 2-point difference in practice. I’ll post the Opus 4.8 comparison next because you need to see this.

OmedTheVibeCoder

26,990 views • 1 month ago

I gave Kimi K3 and Opus 5 the exact same prompt to build a car racing game. I expected Opus 5 to take the lead. Instead, Kimi K3 finished in ~25 min for ~$8.9, while Opus 5 took 19 min and cost $14. The biggest surprise wasn’t the speed or the price. Kimi K3 built the better game. Smoother controls, better physics, and a driving experience that felt ready from the start. Opus 5 looked cleaner visually but Kimi won where it actually mattered. Nearly half the cost and the better gameplay.

I gave Kimi K3 and Opus 5 the exact same prompt to build a car racing game. I expected Opus 5 to take the lead. Instead, Kimi K3 finished in ~25 min for ~$8.9, while Opus 5 took 19 min and cost $14. The biggest surprise wasn’t the speed or the price. Kimi K3 built the better game. Smoother controls, better physics, and a driving experience that felt ready from the start. Opus 5 looked cleaner visually but Kimi won where it actually mattered. Nearly half the cost and the better gameplay.

Aman

111,571 views • 1 month ago

> be Kimi Founder > Zhilin Yang. nobody in the West knows your name. > build K1. K2. K2.5. K2.6. K2.7. > each one sets the open-source record > everyone says China can't reach the frontier > raise $2B. hit $20B valuation. > keep your head down. keep shipping. > July 16. drop K3. > 2.8 trillion parameters. > the biggest open model ever released. > 1 million token context. native multimodal. > Kimi Delta Attention — 6.3x faster decoding. > Artificial Analysis ranks it #4 overall. > right behind GPT-5.6 Sol and Fable 5. > open weights July 27. free for anyone. > the closed labs charge for the frontier. > you gave it away. > different game.

> be Kimi Founder > Zhilin Yang. nobody in the West knows your name. > build K1. K2. K2.5. K2.6. K2.7. > each one sets the open-source record > everyone says China can't reach the frontier > raise $2B. hit $20B valuation. > keep your head down. keep shipping. > July 16. drop K3. > 2.8 trillion parameters. > the biggest open model ever released. > 1 million token context. native multimodal. > Kimi Delta Attention — 6.3x faster decoding. > Artificial Analysis ranks it #4 overall. > right behind GPT-5.6 Sol and Fable 5. > open weights July 27. free for anyone. > the closed labs charge for the frontier. > you gave it away. > different game.

Kirill

413,271 views • 1 month ago

Kimi K3 just jumped 17 places to #1 on Arena.ai's Frontend Code Arena. So we gave it real client work to see where leaderboards meet reality: >10 landing page briefs, >judged blind by 8 working designers >against GPT 5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and Claude Fable 5. It tied the best model in the study. And on detailed briefs, it won. Details in 🧵:

Kimi K3 just jumped 17 places to #1 on Arena.ai's Frontend Code Arena. So we gave it real client work to see where leaderboards meet reality: >10 landing page briefs, >judged blind by 8 working designers >against GPT 5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and Claude Fable 5. It tied the best model in the study. And on detailed briefs, it won. Details in 🧵:

ben

13,798 views • 1 month ago

KIMI K3 VS OPUS 4.8 SIMULATING A 3D PARTICLE SYSTEM same prompt, same target: thousands of particles reacting to gravity and to each other in real time → K3: more organic distribution, smoother motion, particles actually cluster and drift like something physical → Opus: more rigid pattern, less natural, movement reads more like a grid than a simulation K3: $0.65 in API. Opus 4.8: ~$1.30 this is simulated physics, not just aesthetics, and it's the kind of detail that separates a demo from something you'd actually ship

KIMI K3 VS OPUS 4.8 SIMULATING A 3D PARTICLE SYSTEM same prompt, same target: thousands of particles reacting to gravity and to each other in real time → K3: more organic distribution, smoother motion, particles actually cluster and drift like something physical → Opus: more rigid pattern, less natural, movement reads more like a grid than a simulation K3: $0.65 in API. Opus 4.8: ~$1.30 this is simulated physics, not just aesthetics, and it's the kind of detail that separates a demo from something you'd actually ship

Jade

32,766 views • 1 month ago

Working on a new skill where Fable acts as an orchestrator and delegates work to OpenCode subagents running OSS models. It delegates to GLM 5.3 Flash for easier tasks and Kimi K3 for harder tasks, all running on Together AI. GLM 5.3 Flash is 100x cheaper than Fable for output tokens while being pretty good at coding so I'm excited to experiment with how well this works.

Working on a new skill where Fable acts as an orchestrator and delegates work to OpenCode subagents running OSS models. It delegates to GLM 5.3 Flash for easier tasks and Kimi K3 for harder tasks, all running on Together AI. GLM 5.3 Flash is 100x cheaper than Fable for output tokens while being pretty good at coding so I'm excited to experiment with how well this works.

Hassan

34,889 views • 13 days ago

KIMI K3 JUST RECREATED A FUNCTIONAL GAME BOY ADVANCE IN 3D → interactive 3D model, every button and screen modeled → a game loaded and playable right inside it → camera you can rotate and zoom around the device → one single prompt, zero external assets $3 in API with K3. the same result would run about $9 with Fable 5 and $6 with Opus 4.8 this isn't generating a static image of hardware anymore, it's generating a working simulation of it, from the shell to the screen to the game running inside

KIMI K3 JUST RECREATED A FUNCTIONAL GAME BOY ADVANCE IN 3D → interactive 3D model, every button and screen modeled → a game loaded and playable right inside it → camera you can rotate and zoom around the device → one single prompt, zero external assets $3 in API with K3. the same result would run about $9 with Fable 5 and $6 with Opus 4.8 this isn't generating a static image of hardware anymore, it's generating a working simulation of it, from the shell to the screen to the game running inside

alex

38,248 views • 1 month ago

GPT-6 Astra vs Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs Sol Astra: Took 11 minutes. This is from a follow-up after the first attempt had rendering and UI bugs. The smoke feels a little off. I expected more detail, but it did a good job understanding the intent. Cost: $12.85. Fable 5.1: Took 18 minutes to complete the same test with high detailing. Cost: $12.60. Kimi K3: Took 10 minutes with a similar level of output and cost only $6.95. SOL: Took 7 minutes, but the output seemed messy. Cost: $5.78. Personally, I like Kimi K3 for delivering similar quality with better token efficiency, followed by fable 5.1 for realism. What about you? I’ll do a couple more tests before coming to a conclusion.

GPT-6 Astra vs Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs Sol Astra: Took 11 minutes. This is from a follow-up after the first attempt had rendering and UI bugs. The smoke feels a little off. I expected more detail, but it did a good job understanding the intent. Cost: $12.85. Fable 5.1: Took 18 minutes to complete the same test with high detailing. Cost: $12.60. Kimi K3: Took 10 minutes with a similar level of output and cost only $6.95. SOL: Took 7 minutes, but the output seemed messy. Cost: $5.78. Personally, I like Kimi K3 for delivering similar quality with better token efficiency, followed by fable 5.1 for realism. What about you? I’ll do a couple more tests before coming to a conclusion.

Bhavy☄️

77,499 views • 11 days ago

asked GPT 6 Astra to build an ocean in the browser total time was around 5+ hours of coding way better than what I got with Fable and Opus

asked GPT 6 Astra to build an ocean in the browser total time was around 5+ hours of coding way better than what I got with Fable and Opus

Leon Lin

57,635 views • 10 days ago

Fusion is the most efficient frontier harness for GPT 6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1. You can also configure everything about it: • Base model: Fable, Astra, Sol, or Opus • Sidekick model: SWE (Free), Luna, Sol, GLM (Free) • Speed: Normal or Fast ⚡ • Reasoning level It retains Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra performance while reducing costs and is the first time a multi-model coding agent has been included on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index! Importantly: it's also fun to use :)

Fusion is the most efficient frontier harness for GPT 6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1. You can also configure everything about it: • Base model: Fable, Astra, Sol, or Opus • Sidekick model: SWE (Free), Luna, Sol, GLM (Free) • Speed: Normal or Fast ⚡ • Reasoning level It retains Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra performance while reducing costs and is the first time a multi-model coding agent has been included on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index! Importantly: it's also fun to use :)

nader dabit

802,035 views • 4 days ago

FABLE 5 JUST RECREATED NEW YORK CITY IN BLENDER. I connected Blender to Fable 5 and in like 20 minutes, it remade the entire cityscape of NYC It started by getting data of the buildings from public sources, THEN began building it (imo this is a smarter move than what Opus 4.8 would've done) So theoretically, this entire build is up to scale too Fable 5, welcome back.

FABLE 5 JUST RECREATED NEW YORK CITY IN BLENDER. I connected Blender to Fable 5 and in like 20 minutes, it remade the entire cityscape of NYC It started by getting data of the buildings from public sources, THEN began building it (imo this is a smarter move than what Opus 4.8 would've done) So theoretically, this entire build is up to scale too Fable 5, welcome back.

ashen

224,308 views • 2 months ago

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

atomic.chat

728,796 views • 2 months ago

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

atomic.chat

2,840,996 views • 2 months ago

It's never been a better time to be creative. (ever) The two best frontier models (ever) have been released within 30 days of each other. Here’s what we learned from running 4 frontier models head to head. >Sol has taste and Fable takes direction. 10 identical landing page briefs, judged blind by working creatives. GPT 5.6 Sol won 82% on loose briefs. But when handed a real design spec it finished last. 🧵

It's never been a better time to be creative. (ever) The two best frontier models (ever) have been released within 30 days of each other. Here’s what we learned from running 4 frontier models head to head. >Sol has taste and Fable takes direction. 10 identical landing page briefs, judged blind by working creatives. GPT 5.6 Sol won 82% on loose briefs. But when handed a real design spec it finished last. 🧵

ben

35,609 views • 2 months ago

Nearly a year of Code Arena: WebDev progress compressed into 15 seconds. Each line follows the highest-scoring model from top labs over time, showing the pace of improvement across the ecosystem. In just the last year, the model in the leading spot increased score by +340 pts and the number of frontier labs competing for the top spot expanded from 6 to 10. Anthropic has dominated throughout the year. Although standout releases have jumped to the top spot, most notably the Chinese open-source model Kimi K3 from Kimi.ai in July. Today, GPT-6 Astra by OpenAI leads with 1796 pts, followed by Claude Fable 5.1 at 1764 pts. The next closest lab is 103 pts away, Qwen with 1685 pts. Code Arena: WebDev ranks models through head-to-head user preference on real front-end web development tasks. These votes drive the leaderboard that is tracking the frontier.

Nearly a year of Code Arena: WebDev progress compressed into 15 seconds. Each line follows the highest-scoring model from top labs over time, showing the pace of improvement across the ecosystem. In just the last year, the model in the leading spot increased score by +340 pts and the number of frontier labs competing for the top spot expanded from 6 to 10. Anthropic has dominated throughout the year. Although standout releases have jumped to the top spot, most notably the Chinese open-source model Kimi K3 from Kimi.ai in July. Today, GPT-6 Astra by OpenAI leads with 1796 pts, followed by Claude Fable 5.1 at 1764 pts. The next closest lab is 103 pts away, Qwen with 1685 pts. Code Arena: WebDev ranks models through head-to-head user preference on real front-end web development tasks. These votes drive the leaderboard that is tracking the frontier.

Arena.ai

90,773 views • 3 days ago

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

starmex

32,547 views • 25 days ago

before Fable was euthanized, I was able to use it for an old project: This is not the mandelbrot set. It is a neural network's approximation of the mandelbrot set. In fact, it is the best approximation I've ever seen, going significantly deeper than my previous best. It was optimized by Fable, Opus 4.8, and Gpt 5.5 through an autoresearch loop inspired by Andrej Karpathy's recent project. AI doing AI research (sort of). I talk about it in my new video, link below.

before Fable was euthanized, I was able to use it for an old project: This is not the mandelbrot set. It is a neural network's approximation of the mandelbrot set. In fact, it is the best approximation I've ever seen, going significantly deeper than my previous best. It was optimized by Fable, Opus 4.8, and Gpt 5.5 through an autoresearch loop inspired by Andrej Karpathy's recent project. AI doing AI research (sort of). I talk about it in my new video, link below.

Max | Emergent Garden

28,224 views • 3 months ago

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 vs Claude Fable 5 A game is one of the hardest places to fake working code. A web app can hide bugs behind a polished screenshot. A game can't. Bad collision, clipping, jitter, broken physics, awkward controls, or a snowboard sinking into the terrain become obvious within seconds. That's why I like using games to evaluate coding models. I gave Kimi K3 a single prompt to build a snowboard game in Godot, and just 20 seconds of gameplay told me more than a page of benchmark scores ever could. Benchmarks matter, but watching a model build something interactive reveals a different side of its capabilities. If the gameplay feels right, the systems work together, and the experience holds up under real input, that's a much more convincing demonstration than any leaderboard.

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 vs Claude Fable 5 A game is one of the hardest places to fake working code. A web app can hide bugs behind a polished screenshot. A game can't. Bad collision, clipping, jitter, broken physics, awkward controls, or a snowboard sinking into the terrain become obvious within seconds. That's why I like using games to evaluate coding models. I gave Kimi K3 a single prompt to build a snowboard game in Godot, and just 20 seconds of gameplay told me more than a page of benchmark scores ever could. Benchmarks matter, but watching a model build something interactive reveals a different side of its capabilities. If the gameplay feels right, the systems work together, and the experience holds up under real input, that's a much more convincing demonstration than any leaderboard.

FHILY👑

36,766 views • 1 month ago