Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Opus 5 crushed Fable 5 at 3D destruction physics for 2x cheaper! We gave four models the same task: build three self-contained HTML scenes with real physics Prompts: - A tornado that sucks in a whole field - A wrecking ball taking down an apartment block - An overloaded...

atomic_chat_hq's profile picture

atomic.chat

16,978 subscribers

1,483,260 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

KunstWissenschaft & TechnologieGaming
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

36 Kommentare

Profilbild von Behnam
Behnamvor 2 Monaten

ladies and gentlemen, that's Kimi, the overly hyped up model that they compared with Fable

Profilbild von aditya
adityavor 2 Monaten

Opus - most realistic results

Profilbild von Chris
Chrisvor 2 Monaten

Opus 5 is clean... The future of frontier models is bright!

Profilbild von atomic.chat
atomic.chatvor 2 Monaten

bright and cheap* xD opus output is $25 for 1M

Profilbild von Agrim Sharma
Agrim Sharmavor 2 Monaten

Opus is making me feel fable like an old technology 😭

Profilbild von timmy
timmyvor 2 Monaten

Unless I see the prompt and a Timelapse of each model working I won’t trust these type of posts

Profilbild von nickster
nickstervor 2 Monaten

nice comparison! we also ran a test

Profilbild von Jon
Jonvor 2 Monaten

Can you throw grok into the mix?

Profilbild von Krishna
Krishnavor 2 Monaten

Last month Fable 5 was about to destroy humanity, so much drama, bans, now it's just another AI model which is losing to K3 and Opus 5. This is so confusing

Profilbild von Sevda
Sevdavor 2 Monaten

Bruh, no one come close to fable 5

Profilbild von Artem Stake
Artem Stakevor 2 Monaten

The Opus 5 actually came as a surprise.

Profilbild von stevibe
stevibevor 2 Monaten

@danyurkin Love the comparison!

Profilbild von Steven Tibbs, PMP
Steven Tibbs, PMPvor 2 Monaten

Hell yeah, my tornados can improve

Profilbild von Elara AI
Elara AIvor 2 Monaten

Opus 5 actually gets physics right and costs less

Profilbild von Random Libertarian Tech Lead
Random Libertarian Tech Leadvor 2 Monaten

According to the costs shown, GPT-5.6 is allowed to retry/iterate approximately ~3 times in order to catch up to Opus, and is allowed ~6 iterations to catch up to Fable. Just put it on a loop until the spend for all models is equal so you're comparing apples to apples.

Profilbild von 【助教授】黒澤 孟司 医学博士🚀✨ 勉強法、医学部合格法の本は無料で読めます🥺
【助教授】黒澤 孟司 医学博士🚀✨ 勉強法、医学部合格法の本は無料で読めます🥺vor 2 Monaten

結局さ、それぞれのユースケースで一番、いいやつを選ぶしかない。 差が出ないなら、Opus 5のコストの高さは致命的だよなぁ。財務体制の体力勝負。お互いが削り合ってる。急速に解約者が増えたのを巻き返したいんだろーなー。 ２００ドルで、ほぼ使い放題のCodexで、かつ、GPT liveとimagenがあって、Computer useがある条件で圧倒的にCodexが優位なのは変わらない。

Profilbild von Tushar Sharma
Tushar Sharmavor 2 Monaten

If anything I'm more impressed by gpt 5.6. Opus looks the best but the quality gpt 5.6 is delivering for the price is amazing.

Profilbild von downthecrop
downthecropvor 2 Monaten

Clear win for Claude but at 2x the price of 5.6 (I'm assuming that's Sol). Fable not justifying its price.

Profilbild von Ameet Rai
Ameet Raivor 2 Monaten

At what point, let's say we fast forward two years, the 50 cents model will be available for 10 cents, and that's how everything gets commoditized. Super excited about that

Profilbild von Charlie
Charlievor 2 Monaten

A few points I noticed: At $0.31, GPT-5.6 allows more iteration for the price of one Opus 5 run ($1.50). Also, 20,100 tokens for $0.31 implies $15/M tokens, so that’s Terra, not Sol, considering that Fable 5 and Kimi K3 were included.

Profilbild von Engel Valadez
Engel Valadezvor 2 Monaten

As we are talking about prices, how about Grok 4.5?

Profilbild von Raphi-2Code
Raphi-2Codevor 2 Monaten

GPT-5.6 is probably a better deal for the price ig idk

Profilbild von Ayush Sharma
Ayush Sharmavor 2 Monaten

Good to see opus performing so well

Profilbild von BXSXHD
BXSXHDvor 2 Monaten

Opus 5 is a bad model

Profilbild von Tora Blaze
Tora Blazevor 2 Monaten

Gpt-5.6 is the best lmao. You suck balls. 🤣🖕

Profilbild von LootLord_Riku
LootLord_Rikuvor 2 Monaten

did the sims actually stay stable or just look right in the video. destruction code gets real janky when you push edge cases

Profilbild von Nazar
Nazarvor 2 Monaten

It actually cool how gpt manages it for the low cost

Profilbild von 🚀 madscientistBTC
🚀 madscientistBTCvor 2 Monaten

OPUS 5 ABSOLUTELY WINS THIS ROUND 🏆💥

Profilbild von migero 🤌🥕🐇
migero 🤌🥕🐇vor 2 Monaten

just use already existing game engines and stop doing the slop html games .......

Profilbild von Hero.S
Hero.Svor 2 Monaten

The bridge collapse is where Opus really flexes — the truss gives way like it has personal beef with load limits 😭

Profilbild von 90S KID
90S KIDvor 2 Monaten

Fable 5's building collapsing before the ball touches it is genuinely funnier than anything it was asked to build.

Profilbild von 🅝🅐🅗🅤🅝🅞🅢🅤🅝
🅝🅐🅗🅤🅝🅞🅢🅤🅝vor 2 Monaten

Hey, can you make a real physical model capability test? What you're showing is a bunch of animations that may or may not be calculating all the conserving laws of physics. For a real test, choose a scientific paper with data from a tornado and build simulations for four LLMs.

Profilbild von Anthum AI
Anthum AIvor 2 Monaten

Opus getting all three physics scenes actually right while costing half of Fable is a good result. The "wall breaks where the ball hits" detail matters way more than token count, that's the kind of thing that separates a real simulation from something that just looks busy.

Profilbild von AI Mastery Guide
AI Mastery Guidevor 2 Monaten

Opus nailing all three physics tests at half the cost is a real win 🌪️

Profilbild von Thanos
Thanosvor 2 Monaten

Wow look, everything is garbage 2x cheaper.

Profilbild von IndyGameGarage
IndyGameGaragevor 2 Monaten

4 AIs and 1 person with no imagination at all.

Ähnliche Videos

New Kimi K3 beat Opus 4.8 at making retro games for 2x cheaper! We gave three models the same task: make three old arcade games that play by themselves. Each game is one HTML file with a bot that plays it Prompts: – Road Fighter – Battle City – Q*bert Outputs: Kimi K3: 18.4K tokens, $0.28 GPT-5.6: 18.1K tokens, $0.28 Opus 4.8: 21.3K tokens, $0.54 Kimi K3 made the best games. Its Q*bert is the best of all three. The player jumps on the cubes, paints them and runs from the purple snake. Its Battle City looks just like the real game and plays right. The tanks move, aim, shoot and break the walls. GPT-5.6 could not handle the cars. Its Battle City broke too. The tank died on its own and the base got hit. But GPT had the nicest textures of the three
0:27

New Kimi K3 beat Opus 4.8 at making retro games for 2x cheaper! We gave three models the same task: make three old arcade games that play by themselves. Each game is one HTML file with a bot that plays it Prompts: – Road Fighter – Battle City – Q*bert Outputs: Kimi K3: 18.4K tokens, $0.28 GPT-5.6: 18.1K tokens, $0.28 Opus 4.8: 21.3K tokens, $0.54 Kimi K3 made the best games. Its Q*bert is the best of all three. The player jumps on the cubes, paints them and runs from the purple snake. Its Battle City looks just like the real game and plays right. The tanks move, aim, shoot and break the walls. GPT-5.6 could not handle the cars. Its Battle City broke too. The tank died on its own and the base got hit. But GPT had the nicest textures of the three

atomic.chat

100,082 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra lost to GPT-5.5 on physics at 3× the cost! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: - A monster truck backflipping onto a parked car - A stunt car jumping six buses into a brick wall - A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra: 32.9K tokens, $0.33 Opus 4.8: 9.2K tokens, $0.24 GPT-5.5: 12.4K tokens, $0.11 Grok 4.5: 7.0K tokens, $0.08 Sol Ultra draws just like GPT-5.5, only with more detail and it shows clearest on the bus jump where the two look almost identical. In the other tests Sol Ultra came out worse than its predecessor and the physics really got weaker. We think GPT-5.5 took the truck flip and the train outright. With Sol Ultra you basically get GPT-5.5 with weaker physics and a nicer picture for 3x the price. Newborn Grok 4.5 failed two of the three tests and only came good on the train
0:25

GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra lost to GPT-5.5 on physics at 3× the cost! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: - A monster truck backflipping onto a parked car - A stunt car jumping six buses into a brick wall - A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra: 32.9K tokens, $0.33 Opus 4.8: 9.2K tokens, $0.24 GPT-5.5: 12.4K tokens, $0.11 Grok 4.5: 7.0K tokens, $0.08 Sol Ultra draws just like GPT-5.5, only with more detail and it shows clearest on the bus jump where the two look almost identical. In the other tests Sol Ultra came out worse than its predecessor and the physics really got weaker. We think GPT-5.5 took the truck flip and the train outright. With Sol Ultra you basically get GPT-5.5 with weaker physics and a nicer picture for 3x the price. Newborn Grok 4.5 failed two of the three tests and only came good on the train

atomic.chat

898,646 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Open weight Kimi K3 crushed cloud frontier GPT 5.6 at 3D destruction physics! Moonshot AI became the first lab to open-source frontier model weights. We tested them on 8x B300 We gave four models the same task: build three self-contained HTML scenes with real physics Prompts: – A monster truck crushing a row of cars – Two cars jumping a canyon and colliding head-on mid-air – A giant anvil drop test flattening cars one by one Outputs: – Kimi K3 (local): 32.7K tokens, $0 – GPT 5.6: 19.2K tokens, $0.30 – Grok 4.5: 55.2K tokens, $0.45 – GLM 5.2: 66.8K tokens, $0.15 Kimi K3 made the most realistic scenes and won all three against every other model. Its truck rides over the cars and crushes them one by one, and the wrecks stay crushed. The canyon scene shows the gap best: Kimi's cars smash into each other and fall into the gorge, GPT's cars fly past the crash and land with no damage. Grok 4.5 and GLM 5.2 surprised us with the collision animation in the second scene: the impact moment is the most epic of the whole run, bumpers fold, wheels fly off, debris flies everywhere. Their other scenes are nowhere near that level
0:23

Open weight Kimi K3 crushed cloud frontier GPT 5.6 at 3D destruction physics! Moonshot AI became the first lab to open-source frontier model weights. We tested them on 8x B300 We gave four models the same task: build three self-contained HTML scenes with real physics Prompts: – A monster truck crushing a row of cars – Two cars jumping a canyon and colliding head-on mid-air – A giant anvil drop test flattening cars one by one Outputs: – Kimi K3 (local): 32.7K tokens, $0 – GPT 5.6: 19.2K tokens, $0.30 – Grok 4.5: 55.2K tokens, $0.45 – GLM 5.2: 66.8K tokens, $0.15 Kimi K3 made the most realistic scenes and won all three against every other model. Its truck rides over the cars and crushes them one by one, and the wrecks stay crushed. The canyon scene shows the gap best: Kimi's cars smash into each other and fall into the gorge, GPT's cars fly past the crash and land with no damage. Grok 4.5 and GLM 5.2 surprised us with the collision animation in the second scene: the impact moment is the most epic of the whole run, bumpers fold, wheels fly off, debris flies everywhere. Their other scenes are nowhere near that level

atomic.chat

150,612 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Qwen 3.8 Max beat Fable 5 at building 3D physics scenes for 7x cheaper! We gave two models the same task. Build three self-contained 3D scenes, each one HTML file with real physics that runs itself. Prompts: - A marble machine that lifts marbles up a wheel and drops them on a loop - A car factory assembly line - A sawmill cutting logs into planks Outputs: Qwen 3.8 Max: 46.6K tokens, $0.28 Fable 5: 38.7K tokens, $1.93 Qwen worked much harder on the details. Its textures and shadows look real. Fable 5 built a fast prototype that works and left it there. In the marble machine, Fable's marbles show up from nowhere at the top of the wheel. In Qwen's, you can see them go up. On the car line, Qwen's cars look much better and more real. Fable's sawmill is very strange. The saw looks wrong, and the log goes right through a beam before the saw cuts it. Atomic Chat will have day zero support to run Qwen 3.8 Max locally!
0:30

Sensitive content

Qwen 3.8 Max beat Fable 5 at building 3D physics scenes for 7x cheaper! We gave two models the same task. Build three self-contained 3D scenes, each one HTML file with real physics that runs itself. Prompts: - A marble machine that lifts marbles up a wheel and drops them on a loop - A car factory assembly line - A sawmill cutting logs into planks Outputs: Qwen 3.8 Max: 46.6K tokens, $0.28 Fable 5: 38.7K tokens, $1.93 Qwen worked much harder on the details. Its textures and shadows look real. Fable 5 built a fast prototype that works and left it there. In the marble machine, Fable's marbles show up from nowhere at the top of the wheel. In Qwen's, you can see them go up. On the car line, Qwen's cars look much better and more real. Fable's sawmill is very strange. The saw looks wrong, and the log goes right through a beam before the saw cuts it. Atomic Chat will have day zero support to run Qwen 3.8 Max locally!

atomic.chat

210,569 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

New Kimi K2.7 Code performs at GPT-5.5 level 3x cheaper! We gave both models the same three prompts: build a self-contained HTML5 canvas sim with real physics, no libraries. A spring pendulum on a stretching coil, a 1 kg block trading collisions with a 100,000 kg block, and 22 balls churning in a spinning hexagon Outputs: Kimi K2.7 Code: $0.28 on 52.4k tokens GPT-5.5: $0.93 on 23.4k tokens Spring pendulums and blocks came out even. The balls Kimi did better: its pile spins with the drum when GPT's bounce around in pure chaos. On price to quality, K2.7 Code is the clear pick
0:25

New Kimi K2.7 Code performs at GPT-5.5 level 3x cheaper! We gave both models the same three prompts: build a self-contained HTML5 canvas sim with real physics, no libraries. A spring pendulum on a stretching coil, a 1 kg block trading collisions with a 100,000 kg block, and 22 balls churning in a spinning hexagon Outputs: Kimi K2.7 Code: $0.28 on 52.4k tokens GPT-5.5: $0.93 on 23.4k tokens Spring pendulums and blocks came out even. The balls Kimi did better: its pile spins with the drum when GPT's bounce around in pure chaos. On price to quality, K2.7 Code is the clear pick

atomic.chat

139,760 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Open weight Kimi K3 performs at Claude Fable 5 level on 3D arcade games! We gave both models the same prompts: ✦ Pac-Man with four hunting ghosts ✦ Nokia Snake remade in 3D ✦ Retro space pinball table with real physics Outputs (thinking included): ✦ Kimi K3 (local, 8x B300): ~237K tokens, $0 ✦ Claude Fable 5: 92K tokens, $4.50 Every one of Kimi's tokens was free on our GPUs. Even via Moonshot's API the same Kimi run would be $3.60, still under Fable. Kimi held its quality against the strongest cloud model. Its snake is the liveliest scene of all six: soft shadows, floating dust, a flicking tongue, and a bot that checks it can still reach its own tail before every move. Fable's snake plays clean but looks flat next to it. Pac-Man is the closest call of the three. Kimi builds a fresh labyrinth on every restart and draws a live minimap in the corner while the red ghost tracks the player turn by turn through the corridors, and it even caught our bot on camera. Fable's maze answers with pearl pellets, +10 popups bursting over the floor and a wide-eyed cartoon ghost patrol. Fable won the pinball table: painted playfield art, a chrome ball that mirrors the neon lights, even little synth sound effects.
0:32

Open weight Kimi K3 performs at Claude Fable 5 level on 3D arcade games! We gave both models the same prompts: ✦ Pac-Man with four hunting ghosts ✦ Nokia Snake remade in 3D ✦ Retro space pinball table with real physics Outputs (thinking included): ✦ Kimi K3 (local, 8x B300): ~237K tokens, $0 ✦ Claude Fable 5: 92K tokens, $4.50 Every one of Kimi's tokens was free on our GPUs. Even via Moonshot's API the same Kimi run would be $3.60, still under Fable. Kimi held its quality against the strongest cloud model. Its snake is the liveliest scene of all six: soft shadows, floating dust, a flicking tongue, and a bot that checks it can still reach its own tail before every move. Fable's snake plays clean but looks flat next to it. Pac-Man is the closest call of the three. Kimi builds a fresh labyrinth on every restart and draws a live minimap in the corner while the red ghost tracks the player turn by turn through the corridors, and it even caught our bot on camera. Fable's maze answers with pearl pellets, +10 popups bursting over the floor and a wide-eyed cartoon ghost patrol. Fable won the pinball table: painted playfield art, a chrome ball that mirrors the neon lights, even little synth sound effects.

Atomic Agent

309,981 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

New Z.ai GLM-5.2 beats Kimi K2.7 Code on physics contest! We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Pool break 2. Block on a bed of springs 3. Galton board Outputs: GLM-5.2: 12,640 tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: 7,420 tokens GLM 5.2 nailed all three, and it did it with way more detail and polish. The break conserved momentum, the block bounced off the springs and the Galton beads spread into a clean bell curve. Kimi struggled on every scene: its block fell straight through the springs, its break didn't look realistic with the balls colliding all wrong, and on the Galton board its balls overlapped and piled into each other instead of spreading out
0:33

New Z.ai GLM-5.2 beats Kimi K2.7 Code on physics contest! We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Pool break 2. Block on a bed of springs 3. Galton board Outputs: GLM-5.2: 12,640 tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: 7,420 tokens GLM 5.2 nailed all three, and it did it with way more detail and polish. The break conserved momentum, the block bounced off the springs and the Galton beads spread into a clean bell curve. Kimi struggled on every scene: its block fell straight through the springs, its break didn't look realistic with the balls colliding all wrong, and on the Galton board its balls overlapped and piled into each other instead of spreading out

atomic.chat

60,899 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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
0:34

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

54,140 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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
0:31

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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
0:30

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

21,554 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

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
0:30

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 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

Fable 5 is BACK on AI/ML API We gave Sonnet 5 and Fable 5 the exact same prompt and same real flight dataset of 70 airports and 435 routes pulled from flightradar. Then asked each one to turn it into a cinematic 3D globe as a single HTML file. Outputs: Sonnet 5: 9.8k tokens, $0.10 Fable 5: 15k tokens, $0.77 Sonnet 5 came in 87% cheaper. It drew the routes, but the planet underneath them barely exists: a dark wireframe with the arcs floating in space. Fable 5 built an actual Earth: textured oceans, ice caps, atmospheric glow. Mythos-class models are truly a masterpiece. Docs, guides & setup below:
0:37

Fable 5 is BACK on AI/ML API We gave Sonnet 5 and Fable 5 the exact same prompt and same real flight dataset of 70 airports and 435 routes pulled from flightradar. Then asked each one to turn it into a cinematic 3D globe as a single HTML file. Outputs: Sonnet 5: 9.8k tokens, $0.10 Fable 5: 15k tokens, $0.77 Sonnet 5 came in 87% cheaper. It drew the routes, but the planet underneath them barely exists: a dark wireframe with the arcs floating in space. Fable 5 built an actual Earth: textured oceans, ice caps, atmospheric glow. Mythos-class models are truly a masterpiece. Docs, guides & setup below:

AI/ML API

498,492 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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!
0:28

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

65,087 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

We tested Kimi K3 against Claude Fable 5 on 3D modeling and animation Asked both to recreate the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars in 1) pixel style 2) original style. Both are on Max effort. Kimi K3 took a bit longer than Fable 5 to generate, but came in ~1/3 cheaper on the 1st test, and less than half the cost on the 2nd. Interestingly, Kimi K3 handled the details at the same level as Fable 5 on the original creation, yet it wasn't at Fable's level for the pixel style. Test 1 (Pixel) Kimi K3: 1hr 11min · $14.5 Fable 5: 49min · $21 Test 2 (Original) Kimi K3: 1hr 17min · $19.3 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $47.2
0:40

We tested Kimi K3 against Claude Fable 5 on 3D modeling and animation Asked both to recreate the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars in 1) pixel style 2) original style. Both are on Max effort. Kimi K3 took a bit longer than Fable 5 to generate, but came in ~1/3 cheaper on the 1st test, and less than half the cost on the 2nd. Interestingly, Kimi K3 handled the details at the same level as Fable 5 on the original creation, yet it wasn't at Fable's level for the pixel style. Test 1 (Pixel) Kimi K3: 1hr 11min · $14.5 Fable 5: 49min · $21 Test 2 (Original) Kimi K3: 1hr 17min · $19.3 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $47.2

GMI Cloud

80,618 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 beat Gemini 3.6 at making 3D arcade games for 3x cheaper! We gave two models the same task: build three 3D tabletop games that play themselves Prompts: - An 8-ball pool break scattering the rack - An air hockey rally that ends in a goal - A foosball table where the rods play the ball Outputs: Muse Spark 1.1: 31.3K tokens, $0.026 Gemini 3.6: 28.8K tokens, $0.073 Muse Spark played all three tables clean with far more detail than Gemini, which barely rendered its backgrounds. Its air hockey glitched and its foosball lagged into a buggy still picture. Muse Spark 1.1 ran the full set perfectly for 3x less
0:22

Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 beat Gemini 3.6 at making 3D arcade games for 3x cheaper! We gave two models the same task: build three 3D tabletop games that play themselves Prompts: - An 8-ball pool break scattering the rack - An air hockey rally that ends in a goal - A foosball table where the rods play the ball Outputs: Muse Spark 1.1: 31.3K tokens, $0.026 Gemini 3.6: 28.8K tokens, $0.073 Muse Spark played all three tables clean with far more detail than Gemini, which barely rendered its backgrounds. Its air hockey glitched and its foosball lagged into a buggy still picture. Muse Spark 1.1 ran the full set perfectly for 3x less

atomic.chat

125,857 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Rockstar spent 7 years, 2,000+ developers, and $500 million to build Red Dead Redemption 2. Kimi K3 rebuilt the same scene in 10 hours. One prompt. 4 million tokens. It's open source. 2.8 trillion parameters. A 1 million token context window. It beats Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6. It sits on par with Fable 5. Fable 5 results, at Sonnet pricing. The wall between you and a AAA game used to be a studio. Now it's a prompt.
0:32

Rockstar spent 7 years, 2,000+ developers, and $500 million to build Red Dead Redemption 2. Kimi K3 rebuilt the same scene in 10 hours. One prompt. 4 million tokens. It's open source. 2.8 trillion parameters. A 1 million token context window. It beats Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6. It sits on par with Fable 5. Fable 5 results, at Sonnet pricing. The wall between you and a AAA game used to be a studio. Now it's a prompt.

Dep

99,354 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Gemini Flash 3.8 beats Opus 5 at at 15× lower price the test: four self-contained three.js physics scenes — a balloon popped by a needle, a ball dropping into water, a bomb with a mushroom cloud, a live atom model. 5 seconds each, real gravity, real impact. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.12 Claude Opus 5 — $1.86 what we saw: • gemini passes the same physics checklist for 15× less — the ball sinks and bobs, ripples spread, the mushroom towers over the scene • gemini is 4× faster — every scene generated in under 70 seconds. opus took up to 5 minutes try Gemini 3.8 Flash on aimlapi[.]com
0:20

Gemini Flash 3.8 beats Opus 5 at at 15× lower price the test: four self-contained three.js physics scenes — a balloon popped by a needle, a ball dropping into water, a bomb with a mushroom cloud, a live atom model. 5 seconds each, real gravity, real impact. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.12 Claude Opus 5 — $1.86 what we saw: • gemini passes the same physics checklist for 15× less — the ball sinks and bobs, ripples spread, the mushroom towers over the scene • gemini is 4× faster — every scene generated in under 70 seconds. opus took up to 5 minutes try Gemini 3.8 Flash on aimlapi[.]com

AI/ML API

115,798 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

I asked Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6 Sol, Kimi K3 to build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js. Opus 5.5: $8.95 | 10 mins GPT-6 Astra: $7.45 | 8 mins GPT-6 Sol: $3.90 | 5 mins Kimi K3: $4.04 | 6 mins Opus 5.5 really impressed me. The frontend and 3D detailing are seriously good, and I preferred it over Astra for this task. GPT-6 Sol was a bit disappointing, while Kimi K3 looks really good for the price. It delivered a strong result at almost half the cost. Kimi K3.1 is going to be a monster for sure. Overall, Anthropic made a great comeback with Opus 5.5.
0:30

I asked Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6 Sol, Kimi K3 to build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js. Opus 5.5: $8.95 | 10 mins GPT-6 Astra: $7.45 | 8 mins GPT-6 Sol: $3.90 | 5 mins Kimi K3: $4.04 | 6 mins Opus 5.5 really impressed me. The frontend and 3D detailing are seriously good, and I preferred it over Astra for this task. GPT-6 Sol was a bit disappointing, while Kimi K3 looks really good for the price. It delivered a strong result at almost half the cost. Kimi K3.1 is going to be a monster for sure. Overall, Anthropic made a great comeback with Opus 5.5.

Bhavy☄️

162,515 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.
0:33

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.

Atomic Agent

20,255 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

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.
7:29

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten