正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

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

9,061 subscribers

37,480 次观看 • 1 天前 •via X (Twitter)

教育科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

36 条评论

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

deepseek overthinking hasn't been fixed at all model is fast but it keep over thinking and ends up taking long time opus 5 took 80 minutes and i wasn't able to scroll site at all i could have asked it to fix it but it was one shot test for both models here's prompt: create a website for frontend devloper morden and stunning creative should have 3d models ,parallax scrolling and lenis scrolling effects and much more and smoother user interface experience use advance tech stack and write code i dont know what you do but i want that test yourself and share outputs if you can

Sakata 的头像

Sakata1 天前

Claude cooked by chinese model 😂😂😂😂

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

yeah it's weird how Claude models are super slow

KC 的头像

KC1 天前

Flash modle mogged Opus 💀

AshutoshShrivastava 的头像

AshutoshShrivastava1 天前

imagine 20 vs 0.2 no comparison bro .. v4.1 flash is just different .. too good.

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

Haha yess

Shubh 的头像

Shubh1 天前

the quality and cost efficiency of v4.1 flash is so impressive legend

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

nothing can beat cheap and better model

fawn 的头像

fawn1 天前

👀 DeepSeek mog?

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

I like what opus made but it didn't made anything to let me scroll in 80 minutes

ahs 的头像

ahs1 天前

I liked the one on the left; the fonts look more interesting

Benjamin Mpoyi 的头像

Benjamin Mpoyi1 天前

In the span of a week, OpenAI and DeepSeek are driving down Anthropic's IPO valuation by 30% to 50%.

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

😭😭😭

Haleemah 的头像

Haleemah1 天前

Opus 5🫠🫠🫠

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

what is wrong with opusies

kepo 的头像

kepo1 天前

didn't expected new DeepSeek model today

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

it was out few days ago already

omniport.cc 的头像

omniport.cc1 天前

More complex tests are needed to understand the capabilities of DeepSeek v4.1 Flash

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

running those 3d one for sure so let's see what it could do

m0h 的头像

m0h1 天前

$20’ for this???

J A Z I I 的头像

J A Z I I1 天前

yeah

sush 的头像

sush1 天前

If the final output was equally good, V4.1 Flash wins easily..... 100× cheaper and faster

Onyi 的头像

Onyi1 天前

I'd choose v4.1 anytime, it's efficient and cost effective

shivani 的头像

shivani1 天前

Chinese models are going crazy rn

codemeoww 的头像

codemeoww1 天前

DeepSeek is looking really good for its pricing. Ig I should give it a try 😸

⚡️ Noel Hatem 的头像

⚡️ Noel Hatem1 天前

Flash wins

Ibesh 的头像

Ibesh1 天前

that $20 vs $0.20 is the whole story. even if quality was tied, finishing 20 mins faster for 100x cheaper is a brutal flex for flash

Donwar🧂🟩 ₿ 的头像

Donwar🧂🟩 ₿1 天前

Deepseek

Zero 的头像

Zero1 天前

what about astra?

jake 的头像

jake1 天前

Can I use it on work projects though? Or will they sell all my sensitive data?

Watoryuk 的头像

Watoryuk1 天前

Flash model that costs absolutely nothing destroyed opus that costs 2 kindneys to run and takes 15 years to do it

Manuel 的头像

Manuel1 天前

Wow 🔥🔥🔥

John Rood 的头像

John Rood1 天前

the metric is cost to accepted patch, not cost to first render. set the same scroll, responsiveness, and style checks, then let each model iterate until it passes. production routing starts there.

Dunamix™️®️ 的头像

Dunamix™️®️1 天前

Opus 5🫡

Rick A.F. 的头像

Rick A.F.1 天前

Deepseeks first multimodal model really showing of wow!

Nandan Priyadarshi 的头像

Nandan Priyadarshi1 天前

Ran a similar Opus vs smaller-model bakeoff on a frontend ticket. Fast-and-cheap still blew the design system; slow-and-pricey respected the tokens. I now score on "matches existing CSS vars" first, not wall-clock.

相关视频

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Kimi K3 tested both models on same prompt at highest reasoning available but results came out really different > 5.3 flash took 20 minutes to complete this and costed $0.7 via AIhubMix API > kimi k3 took 30 minutes to complete this and costed $4.32 via Kimi Plan which one do you think did better here?

GLM 5.3 Flash vs Kimi K3 tested both models on same prompt at highest reasoning available but results came out really different > 5.3 flash took 20 minutes to complete this and costed $0.7 via AIhubMix API > kimi k3 took 30 minutes to complete this and costed $4.32 via Kimi Plan which one do you think did better here?

J A Z I I

23,105 次观看 • 16 天前

GPT 6 Astra vs SWE 2.0 tested both models with same prompt at highest reasoning available > astra took 80 minutes to complete this task and costed $64 > swe 2.0 took 25 minutes and costed zero dollars really surprised by swe results here and astra looks nerfed right now, no idea why which one did better here?

GPT 6 Astra vs SWE 2.0 tested both models with same prompt at highest reasoning available > astra took 80 minutes to complete this task and costed $64 > swe 2.0 took 25 minutes and costed zero dollars really surprised by swe results here and astra looks nerfed right now, no idea why which one did better here?

J A Z I I

27,997 次观看 • 1 天前

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 次观看 • 3 天前

Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 Tested both models with the same prompt at the highest reasoning level available. > Fable took 18 minutes to complete this test and cost $12.60 > Kimi K3 took 10 minutes and cost around $6.95 Which one wins here?

Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 Tested both models with the same prompt at the highest reasoning level available. > Fable took 18 minutes to complete this test and cost $12.60 > Kimi K3 took 10 minutes and cost around $6.95 Which one wins here?

Bhavy☄️

146,932 次观看 • 9 天前

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?

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

21,130 次观看 • 1 天前

Opus 4.8 vs MiniMax M3 tested both on default settings with the same prompt > Opus one shotted everything in 7 minutes > M3 needed an extra prompt to fix the "break block" feature and took 20+ minutes both got super close, judge both and lemme know which one looks better?

Opus 4.8 vs MiniMax M3 tested both on default settings with the same prompt > Opus one shotted everything in 7 minutes > M3 needed an extra prompt to fix the "break block" feature and took 20+ minutes both got super close, judge both and lemme know which one looks better?

J A Z I I

67,862 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 天前

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 次观看 • 9 天前

Fable 5 vs GPT 5.5 tested both on High settings with the same prompt > Fable one shotted everything in 15 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits > GPT 5.5 took 20 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits 5.5 is not looking good here at all which one do you think won?

Fable 5 vs GPT 5.5 tested both on High settings with the same prompt > Fable one shotted everything in 15 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits > GPT 5.5 took 20 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits 5.5 is not looking good here at all which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

107,777 次观看 • 3 个月前

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.

58,442 次观看 • 1 天前

Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.2 everyone is praising Glm on my timeline, so i had to test it myself > both models were given the same prompt > GLM was super fast and used like 2% of my weekly limit > Opus took over 20 mins and used like 3% of weekly limits which one do you think won?

Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.2 everyone is praising Glm on my timeline, so i had to test it myself > both models were given the same prompt > GLM was super fast and used like 2% of my weekly limit > Opus took over 20 mins and used like 3% of weekly limits which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

48,130 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 天前

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is a very interesting model. I just tested it on the BridgeBench lava lamp test and it took LONGER to complete than Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 Astra. It ran at 344 toks/sec, spent 23.5M tokens with a cache hit rate of 99.7%, and cost $0.33. Even though it runs so fast it ends up completing tasks very slowly. The lava lamp that it produced was better than Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is a very interesting model. I just tested it on the BridgeBench lava lamp test and it took LONGER to complete than Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 Astra. It ran at 344 toks/sec, spent 23.5M tokens with a cache hit rate of 99.7%, and cost $0.33. Even though it runs so fast it ends up completing tasks very slowly. The lava lamp that it produced was better than Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash.

BridgeMind

123,641 次观看 • 2 天前

I can't believe this works, but I got DeepSeek-V4-Flash (284B params) running on a Raspberry Pi 5 (8GB edition) at >1tok/s @ ~8W during full-tilt inference! It uses an untouched copy of antirez's GGUF. Took 160+ experiments over 5 days between GPT-5.5 xhigh and Opus 4.8 max.

I can't believe this works, but I got DeepSeek-V4-Flash (284B params) running on a Raspberry Pi 5 (8GB edition) at >1tok/s @ ~8W during full-tilt inference! It uses an untouched copy of antirez's GGUF. Took 160+ experiments over 5 days between GPT-5.5 xhigh and Opus 4.8 max.

Dan Woods

185,249 次观看 • 3 个月前

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 both were tested on same settings with same prompt > GLM one shotted everything in 35 mins > Kimi needed extra prompts to fix movements and took 30 mins super surpised by how good GLM 5.2 is, while being so cheap which one do you think won?

GLM 5.2 vs Kimi K2.7 both were tested on same settings with same prompt > GLM one shotted everything in 35 mins > Kimi needed extra prompts to fix movements and took 30 mins super surpised by how good GLM 5.2 is, while being so cheap which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

63,741 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

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

111,702 次观看 • 9 天前

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 次观看 • 21 天前

one model built ten webpages in 160 seconds. the next one took 623. same prompt to three models at once: ten standalone HTML pages, one per footballer, shared template and CSS, each self-contained. Ling-3.0-flash: 160s Step 3.7 Flash: 319s MiniMax M2.7: 623s first reasoning token came back in 84ms. the other two took 378ms and 8.7s. Ant Ling shipped it at 124B total, 5.1B active per token. one eighth the parameters of their own 1T flagship, and it matches or beats it on most benchmarks they published. the whole race takes 20 seconds to watch.

one model built ten webpages in 160 seconds. the next one took 623. same prompt to three models at once: ten standalone HTML pages, one per footballer, shared template and CSS, each self-contained. Ling-3.0-flash: 160s Step 3.7 Flash: 319s MiniMax M2.7: 623s first reasoning token came back in 84ms. the other two took 378ms and 8.7s. Ant Ling shipped it at 124B total, 5.1B active per token. one eighth the parameters of their own 1T flagship, and it matches or beats it on most benchmarks they published. the whole race takes 20 seconds to watch.

Hanako

35,701 次观看 • 1 个月前

this is f**king dangerous someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in opus 4.8 with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Create a New Claude Project and "Add this .md in Project instructions 3) Use Opus 4.8 High/Max and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/5th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

this is f**king dangerous someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in opus 4.8 with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Create a New Claude Project and "Add this .md in Project instructions 3) Use Opus 4.8 High/Max and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/5th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

Avid

952,819 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前