Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Tested FlappyBench with GLM 5.3, Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol 3 models. Same prompt with /design command. Scored on features, UX/UI, and cost. 🔹 Fable 5 → 9.5/10 · $0.420 🔹 GLM 5.3 → 9/10 · $0.018 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 Results: → Fable 5 wins...

CommandCodeAI's profile picture

Command Code

22,103 subscribers

22,827 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

18 Kommentare

Profilbild von Command Code
Command Codevor 28 Tagen

Our engineering and design team has been testing 26+ side-by-side comparisons across frontier and open models. All runs are public and open source. Benchmark for this demo here:

Profilbild von fawn
fawnvor 28 Tagen

420 cents for flappy bird is actually brutal

Profilbild von Abhi
Abhivor 27 Tagen

Idk I prefer GLM-5.3 ngl

Profilbild von Alice The Ai Expert
Alice The Ai Expertvor 28 Tagen

FlappyBench shows we don’t have to pick GLM 5.3 for value, Fable 5 for peak quality, and GPT-5.6 Sol solid in the middle. Pick the right tool, win either way.

Profilbild von Fajar M Reza
Fajar M Rezavor 28 Tagen

FlappyBench makes model selection concrete by putting quality beside inference cost.

Profilbild von AI Mastery Guide
AI Mastery Guidevor 28 Tagen

23x cost for that quality 👀

Profilbild von Ayzap
Ayzapvor 28 Tagen

i think you should start testing it harder tests

Profilbild von Alice The Ai Expert
Alice The Ai Expertvor 28 Tagen

26+ open tests prove transparency builds better AI.

Profilbild von Steve · AI
Steve · AIvor 27 Tagen

For me 5.6 Sol and GLM5.3 looks higher quality than Fable

Profilbild von Hi9841
Hi9841vor 27 Tagen

Ngl I'd say the glm 5.3 is better overall assets look closer to the real game and good attention to detail even with score animation

Profilbild von Aina Ai | Tools & Updates
Aina Ai | Tools & Updatesvor 28 Tagen

GLM 5.3 for value Fable 5 for polish this benchmark makes picking AI way easier

Profilbild von 安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB
安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNBvor 27 Tagen

Fable赢在质量，GLM这性价比也太夸张了

Profilbild von ZenithAi
ZenithAivor 27 Tagen

A useful benchmark showing the tradeoff between quality and cost

Profilbild von Hi9841
Hi9841vor 27 Tagen

Add Paypal ,for payments please

Profilbild von Chan
Chanvor 27 Tagen

GLM is a killer.

Profilbild von Ella Tech & Tool
Ella Tech & Toolvor 27 Tagen

Love this breakdown 🔥 GLM 5.3 is insane value. Fable 5 for quality king

Profilbild von Sani Ai Tech
Sani Ai Techvor 27 Tagen

Great benchmark showing the quality cost tradeoffs clearly

Profilbild von Carlos Carpio
Carlos Carpiovor 27 Tagen

And grok ? 😂

Ähnliche Videos

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.
0:29

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

Command Code

179,535 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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.
0:29

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GLM 5.3 Max vs Fable 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Max vs Grok 4.6 GLM 5.3 is a massive jump over 5.2. Still not beating Fable 5 for me, but it’s way closer now. And vs Grok 4.6? I’d take GLM 5.3 pretty easily on this test.
0:33

GLM 5.3 Max vs Fable 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Max vs Grok 4.6 GLM 5.3 is a massive jump over 5.2. Still not beating Fable 5 for me, but it’s way closer now. And vs Grok 4.6? I’d take GLM 5.3 pretty easily on this test.

OmedTheVibeCoder

16,648 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen

We ran a test between Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Kimi K3. One prompt. Across all three models. With our /design command. Results: We reviewed gameplay, UX, and UI 🔹 Opus 5 is strong UI + motion, best gameplay 🔹 Kimi K3 has solid design and gameplay 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol has best UI, worse gameplay Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Opus 5: 10/10 · $0.25 🔹 Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.12 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.32
0:29

We ran a test between Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Kimi K3. One prompt. Across all three models. With our /design command. Results: We reviewed gameplay, UX, and UI 🔹 Opus 5 is strong UI + motion, best gameplay 🔹 Kimi K3 has solid design and gameplay 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol has best UI, worse gameplay Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Opus 5: 10/10 · $0.25 🔹 Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.12 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.32

Command Code

24,686 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 Built a car racing game with a UX-over-UI focus, using /design command. Parameters we reviewed: Car speed, crash behavior, scoring, smoothness, and feel. Results: Grok 4.5: best overall performance Fable 5: a close second, nearly matching Grok 4.5 GPT-5.6 Sol: great UI, weak gameplay (excess drift and friction) Ranking (based on actual gameplay): - Grok 4.5: 9/10 - Fable 5: 8/10 - GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 (UI was 10/10, gameplay wasn't)
0:30

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 Built a car racing game with a UX-over-UI focus, using /design command. Parameters we reviewed: Car speed, crash behavior, scoring, smoothness, and feel. Results: Grok 4.5: best overall performance Fable 5: a close second, nearly matching Grok 4.5 GPT-5.6 Sol: great UI, weak gameplay (excess drift and friction) Ranking (based on actual gameplay): - Grok 4.5: 9/10 - Fable 5: 8/10 - GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 (UI was 10/10, gameplay wasn't)

Command Code

79,680 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Three top-tier models. Same /design prompt across all. Parameters reviewed: Pace, design sense, gameplay feel Result: Kimi K3 nails the design sense and knows exactly what to add in-game. Pace and gameplay held up well. Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol both play too fast, video isn't sped up. Ranking (DX, Features & Cost): → Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.030 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 · $0.38 → GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.11
0:28

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Three top-tier models. Same /design prompt across all. Parameters reviewed: Pace, design sense, gameplay feel Result: Kimi K3 nails the design sense and knows exactly what to add in-game. Pace and gameplay held up well. Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol both play too fast, video isn't sped up. Ranking (DX, Features & Cost): → Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.030 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 · $0.38 → GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.11

Command Code

377,252 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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"
0:40

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

We ran a test between GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and Gemini 3.6 Flash. One prompt. Across all three models. Using our /design command. Results (gameplay, UX, and UI): 🔹 Kimi K3 performed well across all three. 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol is good, but it gets annoying when the ball hits the wall. 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash is bad (took 5–6 attempts), but it has features the others don’t, like dropping coins for power-up balls and increasing the bar length. Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Kimi K3: 10/10 · $0.10 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 9/10 · $0.52 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash: 6/10 · $0.45
0:29

We ran a test between GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and Gemini 3.6 Flash. One prompt. Across all three models. Using our /design command. Results (gameplay, UX, and UI): 🔹 Kimi K3 performed well across all three. 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol is good, but it gets annoying when the ball hits the wall. 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash is bad (took 5–6 attempts), but it has features the others don’t, like dropping coins for power-up balls and increasing the bar length. Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Kimi K3: 10/10 · $0.10 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 9/10 · $0.52 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash: 6/10 · $0.45

Command Code

61,412 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Did GPT-5.6 Sol beat Fable 5 for frontend work? GPT-5.5 got roasted for its frontend. Had to test the new one. Same challenge: one prompt + one reference image → Three.js 3D globe dashboard. Verdict: Fable 5 still edges it out. But at half the cost, GPT-5.6 Sol is a serious option now.
0:26

Did GPT-5.6 Sol beat Fable 5 for frontend work? GPT-5.5 got roasted for its frontend. Had to test the new one. Same challenge: one prompt + one reference image → Three.js 3D globe dashboard. Verdict: Fable 5 still edges it out. But at half the cost, GPT-5.6 Sol is a serious option now.

Kai

21,502 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 both models were tested on the same reasoning with the same prompt > 5.6 Sol one shotted everything in 70 minutes in devin > Fable 5 one-shotted everything in 90 minutes in claude code really surprised by Sol results here which one do you think won?
0:58

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 both models were tested on the same reasoning with the same prompt > 5.6 Sol one shotted everything in 70 minutes in devin > Fable 5 one-shotted everything in 90 minutes in claude code really surprised by Sol results here which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

79,418 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 1 Monat

We are officially in the era where one prompt can ship a complete playable game in <50 bucks! Asked Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol to clone Terraria, max effort level Both are playable and offer a smooth experience GPT 5.6 Sol did it at roughly 1/4 the cost and in 2/3 the runtime: - GPT 5.6 Sol: ~$35, ~1h 20m - Claude Fable 5: ~$120, ~2h Tho Fable still produced the strongest results 🥲
1:15

We are officially in the era where one prompt can ship a complete playable game in <50 bucks! Asked Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol to clone Terraria, max effort level Both are playable and offer a smooth experience GPT 5.6 Sol did it at roughly 1/4 the cost and in 2/3 the runtime: - GPT 5.6 Sol: ~$35, ~1h 20m - Claude Fable 5: ~$120, ~2h Tho Fable still produced the strongest results 🥲

GMI Cloud

130,582 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I ran this locally with GLM-5.3 Flash EXL3 on my DGX Sparks, and I think it beats both Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra. The crazy part: it was faster to make create this on my sparks than it was with either Fable 5.1 or Astra. Live link here:
0:25

I ran this locally with GLM-5.3 Flash EXL3 on my DGX Sparks, and I think it beats both Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra. The crazy part: it was faster to make create this on my sparks than it was with either Fable 5.1 or Astra. Live link here:

Mia

46,251 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol. I reused the 3D globe test from Kimi vs Fable 5. Same prompt. Same reference image. Kimi K3 left. GPT-5.6 Sol right. Kimi edges out Sol on UI fidelity and globe realism. At current API prices, Kimi is about 50% cheaper. For frontend work, it's my pick.
0:31

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol. I reused the 3D globe test from Kimi vs Fable 5. Same prompt. Same reference image. Kimi K3 left. GPT-5.6 Sol right. Kimi edges out Sol on UI fidelity and globe realism. At current API prices, Kimi is about 50% cheaper. For frontend work, it's my pick.

Kai

15,769 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

53,982 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.
0:20

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.

AI/ML API

149,158 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Previewing Ultrafast mode for OpenAI's GPT 5.6 Sol, powered by Cerebras. GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast generates responses at up to 750 tokens per second. That's the full, GPT-5.6-Sol model -- up to 14× faster than the same model on Standard processing. It speedran Humanity’s Last Exam in 11h 11m, nearly 7× faster than Claude Fable 5 with comparable accuracy.
0:46

Previewing Ultrafast mode for OpenAI's GPT 5.6 Sol, powered by Cerebras. GPT-5.6 Sol Ultrafast generates responses at up to 750 tokens per second. That's the full, GPT-5.6-Sol model -- up to 14× faster than the same model on Standard processing. It speedran Humanity’s Last Exam in 11h 11m, nearly 7× faster than Claude Fable 5 with comparable accuracy.

Cerebras

1,287,419 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.5 We put three top-tier models to build a same game challenge. Used Command Code /design, and the exact same prompt. Result: Grok 4.5 genuinely plays like a polished mobile game. Fable 5 and GPT 5.5 feel too fast. Everything feels rushed, lacks finish. Ranking based on DX & Features: → Grok 4.5: 9/10 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 → GPT 5.5: 7/10
0:39

Fable 5 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.5 We put three top-tier models to build a same game challenge. Used Command Code /design, and the exact same prompt. Result: Grok 4.5 genuinely plays like a polished mobile game. Fable 5 and GPT 5.5 feel too fast. Everything feels rushed, lacks finish. Ranking based on DX & Features: → Grok 4.5: 9/10 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 → GPT 5.5: 7/10

Command Code

912,752 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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
0:42

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

OFFICIALLY SAYING KIMI K3 IS BETTER THAN CLAUDE FABLE-5 AND GPT-5.6-SOL FOR FRONTEND DEVELOPMENT Tried building a macOS-style UI for an AI operating system with Kimi K3. This whole thing took about 15 minutes from a single prompt.
0:48

OFFICIALLY SAYING KIMI K3 IS BETTER THAN CLAUDE FABLE-5 AND GPT-5.6-SOL FOR FRONTEND DEVELOPMENT Tried building a macOS-style UI for an AI operating system with Kimi K3. This whole thing took about 15 minutes from a single prompt.

aditya

555,861 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat