Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Qwen 3.8 will be benchmaxxed slop second to fable 5 is such a hype statement , its not even close to kimi k3 and GPT-5.6 sol you can test it yourself on the qwen chat website currently available > token hungry > not that good as advertised , will... show more

Chetaslua

31,829 subscribers

127,047 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Kimi K3 beating Fable and Sol on price and quality. Command Code's internal flappy bench results are in. Really impressed with the results. For Kimi K3 we set the gameplay to hard while Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol were set to easier. Cost breakdown: • Kimi K3: $0.024 •Fable 5: $0.42 •GPT-5.6 Sol: $0.15 Ranking based on DX & features: •Kimi K3: 8/10 •Fable 5: 7.5/10 • GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 GPT 5.6 Sol max can definitely go on longer and wins the game overall, but that's something different. Grok 4.5 beats GPT 5.6 Sol on that, lol.Mm-hmm.

Kimi K3 beating Fable and Sol on price and quality. Command Code's internal flappy bench results are in. Really impressed with the results. For Kimi K3 we set the gameplay to hard while Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol were set to easier. Cost breakdown: • Kimi K3: $0.024 •Fable 5: $0.42 •GPT-5.6 Sol: $0.15 Ranking based on DX & features: •Kimi K3: 8/10 •Fable 5: 7.5/10 • GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 GPT 5.6 Sol max can definitely go on longer and wins the game overall, but that's something different. Grok 4.5 beats GPT 5.6 Sol on that, lol.Mm-hmm.

Ahmad Awais

255,237 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol Difference in taste is so stark , like if i swap kimi k 3 name with fable 5 people will trust it but this is not only about visuals , its also about function , you can see both achieve same result but the way to achieve is different kimi is more creative

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol Difference in taste is so stark , like if i swap kimi k 3 name with fable 5 people will trust it but this is not only about visuals , its also about function , you can see both achieve same result but the way to achieve is different kimi is more creative

Chetaslua

684,520 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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!

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Qwen 3.8 Preview is quietly catching Kimi K3 on frontend + game design.And this is just the preview. Full 3.8 is going to be a beast. We tested Qwen 3.8 Preview against Kimi K3 on 3D modeling and animation. Ran both through the same 3 prompts. Both on Max effort. Qwen 3.8 Preview was dramatically faster across the board, 3-4x quicker on every test. Kimi K3 needed 2 hours on the final scene; Qwen wrapped it in 31 minutes. Test 1 (Engine Sim) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 25min Kimi K3: 1hr 30min Test 2 (Voxel Dino Printer) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 8min Kimi K3: 45min Test 3 (Garden Scene) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 31min Kimi K3: 2hrs

Qwen 3.8 Preview is quietly catching Kimi K3 on frontend + game design.And this is just the preview. Full 3.8 is going to be a beast. We tested Qwen 3.8 Preview against Kimi K3 on 3D modeling and animation. Ran both through the same 3 prompts. Both on Max effort. Qwen 3.8 Preview was dramatically faster across the board, 3-4x quicker on every test. Kimi K3 needed 2 hours on the final scene; Qwen wrapped it in 31 minutes. Test 1 (Engine Sim) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 25min Kimi K3: 1hr 30min Test 2 (Voxel Dino Printer) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 8min Kimi K3: 45min Test 3 (Garden Scene) Qwen 3.8 Preview: 31min Kimi K3: 2hrs

GMI Cloud

25,513 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?

Bhavy☄️

33,971 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

Battle Mode : Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Prompt : Please devote your efforts to creating a large-scale 3D photorealistic procedural visualization of meteor hitting the city in one html code block if anyone can share fable-5 i will run that in parallel for comparison

Battle Mode : Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Prompt : Please devote your efforts to creating a large-scale 3D photorealistic procedural visualization of meteor hitting the city in one html code block if anyone can share fable-5 i will run that in parallel for comparison

Chetaslua

57,022 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,919 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"

Melvyn • Builder

22,254 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Kimi K3 Standard’s first shot at my indie spaceship game! Without a shadow of a doubt, this is better than GPT-5.5’s first pass. It’s crazy that we already have an open-source model in the GPT-5.5 to GPT-5.6 class. The estimated API cost for this was just $2.50 worth of tokens. Fable 5: $22 GPT-5.5: $14 I will say that Fable 5 made the game look more visually impressive, but the gap is not that large. I think I could easily get Kimi to match its visual quality within a few iterations. What surprised me most was that Kimi’s version felt much more cohesive and coherent, with fewer bugs than GPT-5.5’s.

Kimi K3 Standard’s first shot at my indie spaceship game! Without a shadow of a doubt, this is better than GPT-5.5’s first pass. It’s crazy that we already have an open-source model in the GPT-5.5 to GPT-5.6 class. The estimated API cost for this was just $2.50 worth of tokens. Fable 5: $22 GPT-5.5: $14 I will say that Fable 5 made the game look more visually impressive, but the gap is not that large. I think I could easily get Kimi to match its visual quality within a few iterations. What surprised me most was that Kimi’s version felt much more cohesive and coherent, with fewer bugs than GPT-5.5’s.

Chris

47,926 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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.

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

GPT 5.6 Pro continues to mogs Fable in 3d test working on games one shot too , for comment check quote post and also share your prompts and fable output i will tag you with 5.6 pro results credit : Mirochill

GPT 5.6 Pro continues to mogs Fable in 3d test working on games one shot too , for comment check quote post and also share your prompts and fable output i will tag you with 5.6 pro results credit : Mirochill

Chetaslua

201,470 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

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

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

OmedTheVibeCoder

26,166 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Grok should be praised a lot , this is one of the biggest launch > priced way less than even kimi k2.7 , glm 5.2 > on artificial code analysis only behind fable 5 and gpt 5.5 xhigh > this is well rounded launch i will showcase a 3d test that will blow everyone mind

Grok should be praised a lot , this is one of the biggest launch > priced way less than even kimi k2.7 , glm 5.2 > on artificial code analysis only behind fable 5 and gpt 5.5 xhigh > this is well rounded launch i will showcase a 3d test that will blow everyone mind

Chetaslua

25,644 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨GPT 5.6 Pro vs Fable 5 this is the first real competition that cover game logic , ui , 3d aspects Fable 5 mogs 5.6 pro in every aspects watch video same prompt different results , no external assets used Thanks to pozitiv4ik for the prompt and test , follow him everyone😾

🚨GPT 5.6 Pro vs Fable 5 this is the first real competition that cover game logic , ui , 3d aspects Fable 5 mogs 5.6 pro in every aspects watch video same prompt different results , no external assets used Thanks to pozitiv4ik for the prompt and test , follow him everyone😾

Chetaslua

300,988 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

I was wrong about Kimi K3 Just tried it in Claude Code and it is Fable 5 level for sure Far better than GPT-5.6 Sol at least at front-end It is really slow and consumes a lot of tokens but it is so good at completing its task, I like what I see here Kimi.ai

I was wrong about Kimi K3 Just tried it in Claude Code and it is Fable 5 level for sure Far better than GPT-5.6 Sol at least at front-end It is really slow and consumes a lot of tokens but it is so good at completing its task, I like what I see here Kimi.ai

Hamza

258,721 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Kimi K3 also mogs Fable 5 on frontend design! this time it's not even close, Fable 5 didn't even try to produce something half as good as Kimi's result. the prosthetic hand still needs polishing but it's way more capable and Kimi deployed more feature than Fable did. no need to wonder what model to use for frontend anymore, the choice is clear.

Kimi K3 also mogs Fable 5 on frontend design! this time it's not even close, Fable 5 didn't even try to produce something half as good as Kimi's result. the prosthetic hand still needs polishing but it's way more capable and Kimi deployed more feature than Fable did. no need to wonder what model to use for frontend anymore, the choice is clear.

filipe

40,760 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

qwen 3.8 max vs deepseek v4 flash 0731 vs kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol – on rubik's cube and chess four frontier models built a rubik's cube stand and solved it, then built a chess board and played claude opus 5 on it the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter tasks: 1. cube – build a 3d rubik's cube with a cli and a Three.js viewer, then solve an identical scrambled position on your own stand 2. chess – build a 3d chess stand, then play white against claude opus 5 as black, live, one move at a time. no engine, no solver, no opening book on either side. stockfish depth 14 grades every chess ply afterwards; neither player sees the score models: DeepSeek v4 flash 0731, OpenAI gpt-5.6 sol, Kimi.ai kimi k3, Qwen qwen 3.8 max gpt-5.6 sol and deepseek v4 flash solved their cubes – sol in 24 moves and seventeen seconds, deepseek in 32. qwen and kimi never got there, giving up at 96 and 207 moves then all four built chess stands and played white against claude opus 5 on them, and all four resigned: deepseek on move 13, sol on 19, kimi on 21, qwen holding out longest at 29 - build time, both stands #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 16m 43s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 97m 39s #3 kimi k3 – 166m 09s #4 qwen 3.8 max – 215m 08s - build attempts before a working stand #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 3 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 4 #3 kimi k3 – 4 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 5 - total tokens #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 6,713,754 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 17,272,507 #3 kimi k3 – 22,427,504 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 27,417,442 - total price #1 deepseek v4 flash – $0.557 #2 gpt-5.6 sol – $6.319 #3 qwen 3.8 max – $10.270 #4 kimi k3 – $16.667 observations: • deepseek v4 flash is the cheapest model here by a margin nobody else is near, and it got there while being the least efficient of the four. it burned 27.4m tokens – more than anyone, 5m more than kimi – and still finished both benchmarks for $0.557. that is $0.02 per million tokens against kimi's $0.74. it also needed the most passes to produce working stands, five, and that did not matter: all five deepseek passes together cost a thirtieth of kimi's two • so what deepseek cannot do is get it right the first time. what it can do is get it right the fifth time, for half a dollar. that is a different thing to be buying – not a good first draft, but the option to keep asking • gpt-5.6 sol is the opposite profile and the strongest of the four on pure efficiency. 16m 43s to build both stands, 6.7m tokens, three passes – under 40% of the next lowest token count and a quarter of deepseek's, on an eighth of qwen's clock. it also solved the cube fastest of anyone, 24 moves in seventeen seconds. sol is what you reach for when you want the answer now and can absorb $0.94 per million • sol's weakness is in what it does not check. its chess viewer deleted the capturing piece instead of the captured one, so pieces disappeared off the board mid-game – a defect the fifty-cent deepseek stand did not have. fast and terse turns out to be the same dial as fast and unverified • qwen 3.8 max is not the cheap open-weights option it gets treated as. $10.270 across the two benchmarks, second most expensive of the four, 18x deepseek, and by a distance the slowest – 215 minutes of build time, nearly thirteen times sol's. what the money buys is judgment: it played eighteen moves without a single error worth a hundredth of a pawn, then made exactly one bad move in the whole game, and averaged 44.6 centipawns lost across the longest game any of the four managed. it also could not solve a rubik's cube in 96 tries • kimi k3 is the one line with no reading that flatters it. most expensive at $16.667, last on the cube at 207 moves, last at chess at 478 centipawns lost per move. it is also the model that verified hardest – on the cube it wrote its own integrity check instead of trusting its output. that makes the result worse rather than better: the checking was real, and the reasoning underneath it still was not follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

84,777 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

I'm blown away by Qwen 3.8 27B. A few months ago when I was testing open-weight models, it seemed clear that only GLM and Kimi class models (+1T parameters) could get close to GPT-5.6 / Opus / Fable levels. And now this tiny 27B model gets almost as close. I gotta say, China got this down to an art. Not just benchmarks. I actually tested this in my companies 👇

I'm blown away by Qwen 3.8 27B. A few months ago when I was testing open-weight models, it seemed clear that only GLM and Kimi class models (+1T parameters) could get close to GPT-5.6 / Opus / Fable levels. And now this tiny 27B model gets almost as close. I gotta say, China got this down to an art. Not just benchmarks. I actually tested this in my companies 👇

Simon Høiberg

16,325 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

🚨 Deepseek V4 pro < api is sus> i have read multiple reports on x that it is routing to fable 5 , if it is right then we can see the jump in performance normal If it is not routing to fable 5 < quite impossible > then they made better model than kimi k3 , here is output

🚨 Deepseek V4 pro < api is sus> i have read multiple reports on x that it is routing to fable 5 , if it is right then we can see the jump in performance normal If it is not routing to fable 5 < quite impossible > then they made better model than kimi k3 , here is output

Chetaslua

117,008 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Just tested Qwen3.8-Max-Preview on my benchmark. It got absolutely cooked. Not Fable 5 level. Not even remotely close. It doesn't come close to GPT-5.6 or Opus 4.8 Max either. Honestly, marketing it at that level feels incredibly misleading. I wasted my time and money testing this. Qwen, refund me.

Just tested Qwen3.8-Max-Preview on my benchmark. It got absolutely cooked. Not Fable 5 level. Not even remotely close. It doesn't come close to GPT-5.6 or Opus 4.8 Max either. Honestly, marketing it at that level feels incredibly misleading. I wasted my time and money testing this. Qwen, refund me.

OmedTheVibeCoder

183,804 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce