Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.4 (High) (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. For the initial impressions I'm really impressed by GPT, for speed they both...

developedbyed's profile picture

Dev Ed

71,078 subscribers

660,011 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 pro (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. my dear opus...what have you done...
0:10

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 pro (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. my dear opus...what have you done...

Dev Ed

145,939 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.
0:15

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.

Dev Ed

279,565 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Just a reminder that Opus 1m is still way cheaper than GPT-4 (the 32K version)
0:15

Just a reminder that Opus 1m is still way cheaper than GPT-4 (the 32K version)

Hrishi

50,623 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

After a weekend of testing and working on something with GPT-5.3-Codex & Opus 4.6, ChatGPT Pro + Claude Max 5x are still the best combo in my opinion Using Codex & Claude Code CLI running in tmux (the desktop apps are still a bit buggy) and they're accessible even on the go from iPhone with Termius (and VPN) Usually starting with GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh and Opus 4.6 in plan mode, discussing changes and options, and each writing their plans down to separate Markdown files Then letting GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh (or Opus 4.6) implement the changes as the first draft, then Opus 4.6 reviews them with a team of agents (works pretty well already with tmux even though still experimental) based on both prepared plans, fixes stuff, and then another review by GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh or vice versa Interesting that even Opus 4.6 still occasionally makes silly mistakes like wrong imports, partial or overly broad renaming of variables/functions, etc Fun fact, OpenAI apparently plans to use their Super Bowl ad to promote Codex - curious what that will look like
0:14

After a weekend of testing and working on something with GPT-5.3-Codex & Opus 4.6, ChatGPT Pro + Claude Max 5x are still the best combo in my opinion Using Codex & Claude Code CLI running in tmux (the desktop apps are still a bit buggy) and they're accessible even on the go from iPhone with Termius (and VPN) Usually starting with GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh and Opus 4.6 in plan mode, discussing changes and options, and each writing their plans down to separate Markdown files Then letting GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh (or Opus 4.6) implement the changes as the first draft, then Opus 4.6 reviews them with a team of agents (works pretty well already with tmux even though still experimental) based on both prepared plans, fixes stuff, and then another review by GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh or vice versa Interesting that even Opus 4.6 still occasionally makes silly mistakes like wrong imports, partial or overly broad renaming of variables/functions, etc Fun fact, OpenAI apparently plans to use their Super Bowl ad to promote Codex - curious what that will look like

Tibor Blaho

29,794 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

GPT 5.3 vs Opus 4.6: a second win for Opus! ✔︎ Opus builds the file 2x faster ✔︎ Opus nails a good first version ❌ Codex needs 3x "fix bugs" to have a first working version ❌ Codex UI looks really bad Let's try more things....
0:16

GPT 5.3 vs Opus 4.6: a second win for Opus! ✔︎ Opus builds the file 2x faster ✔︎ Opus nails a good first version ❌ Codex needs 3x "fix bugs" to have a first working version ❌ Codex UI looks really bad Let's try more things....

Melvyn • Builder

70,316 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Eulerian Fluid simulation test! Zero-shot! Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.3 vs Gemini 3 Deep Think! My personal preference: 🥇 Gemini 3 Deep Think (really strong!) 🥈 Opus 4.6 🥉 GPT 5.3 High
0:19

Eulerian Fluid simulation test! Zero-shot! Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.3 vs Gemini 3 Deep Think! My personal preference: 🥇 Gemini 3 Deep Think (really strong!) 🥈 Opus 4.6 🥉 GPT 5.3 High

Ivan Fioravanti ᯅ

38,277 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

All the models are solid at Three.js in Cursor. It mostly comes down to speed and style preference. Composer 2 finished first by a mile and even made the trees sway in the wind. Opus 4.6 felt most game-like. GPT-5.4 had the most detailed UFO and terrain but took the longest.
0:10

All the models are solid at Three.js in Cursor. It mostly comes down to speed and style preference. Composer 2 finished first by a mile and even made the trees sway in the wind. Opus 4.6 felt most game-like. GPT-5.4 had the most detailed UFO and terrain but took the longest.

edwin

100,690 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

life when you discover an open-source model that runs 300 parallel agents, executes for 12+ hours straight, beats GPT-5.4 and opus 4.6 on multiple benchmarks... and the weights are on huggingface
0:15

life when you discover an open-source model that runs 300 parallel agents, executes for 12+ hours straight, beats GPT-5.4 and opus 4.6 on multiple benchmarks... and the weights are on huggingface

J.B.

332,279 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Qwen 3.7-max beats Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 We tested three frontier models on a real agentic task: write a Tetris bot that plays the game and trains itself. Each model could read its own code, run benchmarks, and rewrite itself across 10 iterations. Then we compared the final bots head to head. Qwen 3.7-Max: training cost $1.32, bot improvement +56% Claude Opus 4.7: training cost $12.15, bot improvement +28% GPT-5.5: training cost $2.85, bot improvement +7% Qwen won on every dimension - biggest jump, 9× cheaper than Claude, 2× cheaper than GPT. Long agentic loops is where Qwen Max actually delivers.
0:10

Qwen 3.7-max beats Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 We tested three frontier models on a real agentic task: write a Tetris bot that plays the game and trains itself. Each model could read its own code, run benchmarks, and rewrite itself across 10 iterations. Then we compared the final bots head to head. Qwen 3.7-Max: training cost $1.32, bot improvement +56% Claude Opus 4.7: training cost $12.15, bot improvement +28% GPT-5.5: training cost $2.85, bot improvement +7% Qwen won on every dimension - biggest jump, 9× cheaper than Claude, 2× cheaper than GPT. Long agentic loops is where Qwen Max actually delivers.

atomic.chat

860,589 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT 5.5 Prompt 👇
0:10

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT 5.5 Prompt 👇

Viktor Oddy

26,749 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.
0:17

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.

GMI Cloud

75,785 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🐐 Gemini 3 Pro GA One shot prompt is in comment with the codepen link I repeat no model in this entire world able to implement this level of physics and spatial reasoning Not even Opus 4.6 and Gpt-5.3 codex , this is like a generation gap Sub Woofer submitted this
0:15

🐐 Gemini 3 Pro GA One shot prompt is in comment with the codepen link I repeat no model in this entire world able to implement this level of physics and spatial reasoning Not even Opus 4.6 and Gpt-5.3 codex , this is like a generation gap Sub Woofer submitted this

Chetaslua

35,579 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.
0:15

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

Peter Gostev (SF: 22-26 June)

209,258 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Can Opus 4.8 design beautiful landing pages? Yes it can, but requires a ton of skills and prompts. It's a little worse than GPT 5.5.
0:18

Can Opus 4.8 design beautiful landing pages? Yes it can, but requires a ton of skills and prompts. It's a little worse than GPT 5.5.

Meng To

73,341 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I don't even need to mention which landing page was created by Opus 4.6 and which one by GPT-5.3-CODEX
0:16

I don't even need to mention which landing page was created by Opus 4.6 and which one by GPT-5.3-CODEX

Karan

90,021 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

It's Christmas morning: OpenAI and Anthropic shipped new models on the same day! We tested GPT 5.3 Codex vs. Opus 4.6 head-to-head. Verdict: the models are converging. Here’s what we found 🧵
0:15

It's Christmas morning: OpenAI and Anthropic shipped new models on the same day! We tested GPT 5.3 Codex vs. Opus 4.6 head-to-head. Verdict: the models are converging. Here’s what we found 🧵

Every 📧

11,945 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Codex released a super Design UI tool so I stole it last night and put it on komand >>:D u can use Opus 4.7/GPT 5.4... whatever u like
0:13

Codex released a super Design UI tool so I stole it last night and put it on komand >>:D u can use Opus 4.7/GPT 5.4... whatever u like

Paulius 🏴‍☠️

83,267 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Sakana Fugu surprisingly performed near GLM 5.2 level but 17× more expensive! We gave the same prompt to 4 models: build a complete live Trader Desk with both frontend and backend components, real-time market data fetched from external APIs for 8 symbols, and a custom dark-theme UI. Outputs: Fugu Ultra — 22,225 t, $0.51 Opus 4.8 — 15,802 t, $0.31 GPT-5.5 — 11,474 t, $0.26 GLM 5.2 — 13,677 t, $0.03 Fugu created the most polished and feature-rich trading desk in the run. GLM 5.2 was very close behind, with a similarly complete multi-panel interface and live data, but at a much lower cost. Opus and GPT also performed well, delivering solid results with a better balance between quality and cost
0:17

Sakana Fugu surprisingly performed near GLM 5.2 level but 17× more expensive! We gave the same prompt to 4 models: build a complete live Trader Desk with both frontend and backend components, real-time market data fetched from external APIs for 8 symbols, and a custom dark-theme UI. Outputs: Fugu Ultra — 22,225 t, $0.51 Opus 4.8 — 15,802 t, $0.31 GPT-5.5 — 11,474 t, $0.26 GLM 5.2 — 13,677 t, $0.03 Fugu created the most polished and feature-rich trading desk in the run. GLM 5.2 was very close behind, with a similarly complete multi-panel interface and live data, but at a much lower cost. Opus and GPT also performed well, delivering solid results with a better balance between quality and cost

atomic.chat

715,520 просмотров • 5 дней назад

we compared Gemini 3.1 Pro, Opus 4.7, and GPT 5.5 to Kimi K2.6, Xiaomi Mimo v2.5, and Qwen 3.6 Max in average, closed source are faster. GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.7 the fastest. Kimi K2.6 comes after. It keeps up thanks to its native INT4 quantization. MiMo took the longest, but the refinement and aesthetic only ranks after Gemini 3.1. as if a mini Gemini. Its slow cuz it's trained for long-horizon agentic work. Claude Opus 4.7 is blooming in a very different style, probably because Anthropic trains for taste, not just accuracy.
0:16

we compared Gemini 3.1 Pro, Opus 4.7, and GPT 5.5 to Kimi K2.6, Xiaomi Mimo v2.5, and Qwen 3.6 Max in average, closed source are faster. GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.7 the fastest. Kimi K2.6 comes after. It keeps up thanks to its native INT4 quantization. MiMo took the longest, but the refinement and aesthetic only ranks after Gemini 3.1. as if a mini Gemini. Its slow cuz it's trained for long-horizon agentic work. Claude Opus 4.7 is blooming in a very different style, probably because Anthropic trains for taste, not just accuracy.

GMI Cloud

37,446 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Claude Opus 4.6 is available for all users in Orchids right now! Tag Orchids with any app idea and we’ll give you 100k in free credits to test it out. Comparisons to Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2-Codex, Gemini 3 Flash, and Kimi K2.5 👇 Prompt: Make me an interactive, 3d model of the solar system.
0:14

Claude Opus 4.6 is available for all users in Orchids right now! Tag Orchids with any app idea and we’ll give you 100k in free credits to test it out. Comparisons to Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2-Codex, Gemini 3 Flash, and Kimi K2.5 👇 Prompt: Make me an interactive, 3d model of the solar system.

Orchids

22,774 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад