Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

We gave Grok 4.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol the exact same prompt and compared the outputs side by side. The task: generate a fully interactive HTML5 glass bridge simulation with realistic physics, structural failure, cinematic visuals, polished UI, and smooth animations. The difference is actually visible.

EntelligenceAI's profile picture

Entelligence AI

2,316 subscribers

71,177 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieBildungKunst
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

gpt 5.6 + seedance 2.0 is a cheat code I gave GPT-5.6 Sol a simple idea, and it created a detailed prompt for this fight scene. The motion came out incredibly smooth, and I’m really happy with the result. Prompt below ↓
0:13

gpt 5.6 + seedance 2.0 is a cheat code I gave GPT-5.6 Sol a simple idea, and it created a detailed prompt for this fight scene. The motion came out incredibly smooth, and I’m really happy with the result. Prompt below ↓

Kiki

21,329 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Grok 4.5 performed GPT Sol level for free! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: -robot deathmatch, Tombstone vs Minotaur -a hydraulic press flattening stuff on a conveyor -a semi truck jumping a canyon Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Grok 4.5 handled all three scenes genuinely well and got surprisingly close to GPT-5.6 this round. On top of that, it ran on the free tier. GPT-5.6 Sol, the frontier model, put out solid but not standout work. GLM 5.2 rendered all three scenes for pennies, but it came out the roughest of the four. Meta's new Muse Spark burned the most tokens yet still stayed cheap, delivering an average result.
0:18

Grok 4.5 performed GPT Sol level for free! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: -robot deathmatch, Tombstone vs Minotaur -a hydraulic press flattening stuff on a conveyor -a semi truck jumping a canyon Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Grok 4.5 handled all three scenes genuinely well and got surprisingly close to GPT-5.6 this round. On top of that, it ran on the free tier. GPT-5.6 Sol, the frontier model, put out solid but not standout work. GLM 5.2 rendered all three scenes for pennies, but it came out the roughest of the four. Meta's new Muse Spark burned the most tokens yet still stayed cheap, delivering an average result.

atomic.chat

70,490 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

How GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable 5 handle the same brief. Outputs rendered with Seedance 2.0.
0:15

How GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable 5 handle the same brief. Outputs rendered with Seedance 2.0.

Higgsfield AI 🧩

30,883 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Can you tell the difference? I tested the exact same prompt, same scene, and identical luxury perfume commercial in Seedance 2.0 4k on EaseMate AI_Official , comparing 4K and 1080p output. From the Mediterranean lighting and glass reflections to skin texture and cinematic depth of field, the difference is clear when viewed side by side. Which version would you choose for your next commercial—4K or 1080p? 👇 Prompt in the comments.
0:15

Can you tell the difference? I tested the exact same prompt, same scene, and identical luxury perfume commercial in Seedance 2.0 4k on EaseMate AI_Official , comparing 4K and 1080p output. From the Mediterranean lighting and glass reflections to skin texture and cinematic depth of field, the difference is clear when viewed side by side. Which version would you choose for your next commercial—4K or 1080p? 👇 Prompt in the comments.

Jessica Collins

468,180 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I gave the same prompt to Kimi K3 Max and GPT 5.6 SOL Ultra to create a 3D castle GPT 5.6 SOL Ultra is clearly better here, but I am also really impressed with the Kimi K3 as well Anthropic gotta reset the limits again lol
0:15

I gave the same prompt to Kimi K3 Max and GPT 5.6 SOL Ultra to create a 3D castle GPT 5.6 SOL Ultra is clearly better here, but I am also really impressed with the Kimi K3 as well Anthropic gotta reset the limits again lol

fardeen

35,594 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the same edits on Ideogram 4.5 vs. GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, Nano Banana Pro, and Nano Banana 2. GPT Image and Nano Banana outputs become unusable within a few edits, while Ideogram 4.5 stays clean edit after edit.
0:16

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the same edits on Ideogram 4.5 vs. GPT Image 2.5 Sunburst, Nano Banana Pro, and Nano Banana 2. GPT Image and Nano Banana outputs become unusable within a few edits, while Ideogram 4.5 stays clean edit after edit.

Ideogram

41,860 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

AI can generate beautiful game worlds now. But a world is not a game. I tested Kimi K3 in Verdent against GPT-5.6 using the exact same prompt. One created a scene. K3 added real enemies, working combat, and something I could actually play. Watch the difference 🧵
0:17

AI can generate beautiful game worlds now. But a world is not a game. I tested Kimi K3 in Verdent against GPT-5.6 using the exact same prompt. One created a scene. K3 added real enemies, working combat, and something I could actually play. Watch the difference 🧵

Darshal Jaitwar

81,221 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GPT image 2.0 combined with Seedance 2.0 is changing how animated videos are created. With a single prompt like the one below , AI can generate an entire storyboard and turn it into a cinematic 2D animation, complete with expressive characters, smooth motion, realistic physics, comedy, and perfectly timed action.
0:15

GPT image 2.0 combined with Seedance 2.0 is changing how animated videos are created. With a single prompt like the one below , AI can generate an entire storyboard and turn it into a cinematic 2D animation, complete with expressive characters, smooth motion, realistic physics, comedy, and perfectly timed action.

FATHELA ESQ

47,447 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Seedance 2.5 is officially available on CapCut. To test it, I used the same cinematic prompt in Seedance 2.5 and Seedance 2.0 and compared the results side by side. With support for up to 30-second generation, 50 reference materials, infinite scene extension, and frame-precise editing, Seedance 2.5 gives creators much more control over complex cinematic videos. Same prompt. Same settings. Watch both generations and see how they compare in prompt accuracy, motion quality, and cinematic consistency.
0:15

Seedance 2.5 is officially available on CapCut. To test it, I used the same cinematic prompt in Seedance 2.5 and Seedance 2.0 and compared the results side by side. With support for up to 30-second generation, 50 reference materials, infinite scene extension, and frame-precise editing, Seedance 2.5 gives creators much more control over complex cinematic videos. Same prompt. Same settings. Watch both generations and see how they compare in prompt accuracy, motion quality, and cinematic consistency.

Zara

24,291 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The best UI components ready to use, save this 👇 — Interactive UI effects & animations — Smooth transitions and micro-interactions — 170+ customizable React components — Animated components with beautiful motion — Clean, accessible React components Interactive components with polished animations Fluid motion powered by physics — 1,000+ AI-ready UI components — Stunning components for AI products What Did I Miss?
0:19

The best UI components ready to use, save this 👇 — Interactive UI effects & animations — Smooth transitions and micro-interactions — 170+ customizable React components — Animated components with beautiful motion — Clean, accessible React components Interactive components with polished animations Fluid motion powered by physics — 1,000+ AI-ready UI components — Stunning components for AI products What Did I Miss?

Nero

47,023 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

I didn’t expect Grok’s video model to improve this much. Today, when I was generating a video with Seedance 2.0, I found the results weren’t very good. So I tried using the exact same source material and prompt in Grok instead. To my surprise, Grok actually produced better results than Seedance 2.0. I’ve put the prompt and source material in the comments, so if you’re interested, you can give it a try too. The left side shows the video generated by Grok, and the right side shows the video generated by Seedance 2.0.
0:10

I didn’t expect Grok’s video model to improve this much. Today, when I was generating a video with Seedance 2.0, I found the results weren’t very good. So I tried using the exact same source material and prompt in Grok instead. To my surprise, Grok actually produced better results than Seedance 2.0. I’ve put the prompt and source material in the comments, so if you’re interested, you can give it a try too. The left side shows the video generated by Grok, and the right side shows the video generated by Seedance 2.0.

underwood

34,518 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Grok 4.5 reached GPT-5.6 Sol level across 3 browser physics demos for free. Prompts were for robot combat, hydraulic pressing, and a canyon-jumping truck. Test was done on atomic chat (atomic.chat), a desktop app that runs LLMs locally. Each answer had to package rendering and physics inside self-contained HTML5 canvas code. These tasks force generated JavaScript to draw frames, apply gravity, detect collisions, and manage controls. Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Physics demos expose a weakness that ordinary coding benchmarks often hide: a model can spend more tokens describing a richer scene while still failing the hard part, which is maintaining force, momentum, collision timing, and believable object behavior across frames. (Note, Grok 4.5 is currently free only through Grok Build and Cursor)
0:18

Grok 4.5 reached GPT-5.6 Sol level across 3 browser physics demos for free. Prompts were for robot combat, hydraulic pressing, and a canyon-jumping truck. Test was done on atomic chat (atomic.chat), a desktop app that runs LLMs locally. Each answer had to package rendering and physics inside self-contained HTML5 canvas code. These tasks force generated JavaScript to draw frames, apply gravity, detect collisions, and manage controls. Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Physics demos expose a weakness that ordinary coding benchmarks often hide: a model can spend more tokens describing a richer scene while still failing the hard part, which is maintaining force, momentum, collision timing, and believable object behavior across frames. (Note, Grok 4.5 is currently free only through Grok Build and Cursor)

Rohan Paul

19,701 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Most benchmarks just give you a number on a chart. We made one where you judge the actual work side-by-side. Here's Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol on a mix of design, writing, and creative work. Try Hyperbench and choose your winner:
0:17

Most benchmarks just give you a number on a chart. We made one where you judge the actual work side-by-side. Here's Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol on a mix of design, writing, and creative work. Try Hyperbench and choose your winner:

Hyperagent

125,328 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

ChatGPT 5.1 vs. Claude Opus 4.5 vs. DeepSeek-V3.2 (left) (middle) (right) prompt I used: Create a single HTML file containing a realistic cloth simulation using HTML5 Canvas and JavaScript. The cloth should be a grid of points connected by constraints using Verlet integration. Implement gravity and mouse interaction: the user should be able to click and drag particles to tear the cloth. The physics must remain stable without exploding.
0:13

ChatGPT 5.1 vs. Claude Opus 4.5 vs. DeepSeek-V3.2 (left) (middle) (right) prompt I used: Create a single HTML file containing a realistic cloth simulation using HTML5 Canvas and JavaScript. The cloth should be a grid of points connected by constraints using Verlet integration. Implement gravity and mouse interaction: the user should be able to click and drag particles to tear the cloth. The physics must remain stable without exploding.

God of Prompt

96,685 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

The gap between “here’s the design” and “here’s the working app” is getting very small. Grok 4.6 took #1 on the VISTA leaderboard, beating Claude Fable 5, Opus 5, and GPT-5.6 Sol. It has to look at a real Figma design, figure out the structure, recreate the visuals, and build the functioning app from it. And it finished the benchmark at roughly $2.38 per task. That’s the kind of shortcut builders actually care about. Grok SpaceXAI / Writer: Annette, Grok Imagine Designer: Janné
0:15

The gap between “here’s the design” and “here’s the working app” is getting very small. Grok 4.6 took #1 on the VISTA leaderboard, beating Claude Fable 5, Opus 5, and GPT-5.6 Sol. It has to look at a real Figma design, figure out the structure, recreate the visuals, and build the functioning app from it. And it finished the benchmark at roughly $2.38 per task. That’s the kind of shortcut builders actually care about. Grok SpaceXAI / Writer: Annette, Grok Imagine Designer: Janné

Mario Nawfal

60,573 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT 5.4 (2/7) Testing how well these models do with cloth physics simulation, and honestly I'm quite disappointed to see how poorly GPT 5.4 performed here. Performance was pretty bad... it added all the functionality (panning, cutting, dragging the curtain) under one mouse event, causing it to glitch out a lot. The scene also looks kinda shit. Opus 4.7 pretty much nailed the prompt. First of all, the angle and scene it picked are really nice, with the lamp just creeping into the frame. The dragging, wind physics, and cutting all worked. I also had to reprompt gpt 1-2 times to properly build and remove a bunch of ugly ui cards it added on top of the 3d scene. prompt: Build a premium Vite + React interactive cloth simulation of a cozy room curtain using real particle/constraint physics, with structural + shear springs, damping, collisions, and stable real-time deformation. Users should be able to drag the curtain, add wind, and cut constraints, while the experience stays polished, visually elegant, and numerically stable.
0:13

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT 5.4 (2/7) Testing how well these models do with cloth physics simulation, and honestly I'm quite disappointed to see how poorly GPT 5.4 performed here. Performance was pretty bad... it added all the functionality (panning, cutting, dragging the curtain) under one mouse event, causing it to glitch out a lot. The scene also looks kinda shit. Opus 4.7 pretty much nailed the prompt. First of all, the angle and scene it picked are really nice, with the lamp just creeping into the frame. The dragging, wind physics, and cutting all worked. I also had to reprompt gpt 1-2 times to properly build and remove a bunch of ugly ui cards it added on top of the 3d scene. prompt: Build a premium Vite + React interactive cloth simulation of a cozy room curtain using real particle/constraint physics, with structural + shear springs, damping, collisions, and stable real-time deformation. Users should be able to drag the curtain, add wind, and cut constraints, while the experience stays polished, visually elegant, and numerically stable.

Dev Ed

43,668 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

FOUND A Nous Research and OpenClaw🦞 KILLER. FASTER AND CHEAPER THAN BOTH Saw this and had to test it myself: → Summarize my emails → The exact same prompt → Same inbox, same task Ran them side by side and the speed gap is wild. Plus OpenHuman shows you: → Your context window live → What each session costs After testing both on real work, TinyHumans AI - openhuman is my agent now.
0:19

FOUND A Nous Research and OpenClaw🦞 KILLER. FASTER AND CHEAPER THAN BOTH Saw this and had to test it myself: → Summarize my emails → The exact same prompt → Same inbox, same task Ran them side by side and the speed gap is wild. Plus OpenHuman shows you: → Your context window live → What each session costs After testing both on real work, TinyHumans AI - openhuman is my agent now.

marcus

266,476 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

GPT-6 Astra x Houdini for water simulation. We uploaded an animated character, and GPT-6 Astra created a FLIP simulation. It used the resulting previs as a reference to generate a cinematic shot in Higgsfield.
0:10

GPT-6 Astra x Houdini for water simulation. We uploaded an animated character, and GPT-6 Astra created a FLIP simulation. It used the resulting previs as a reference to generate a cinematic shot in Higgsfield.

Higgsfield AI 🧩

52,444 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

We put grok 4.5 and opus 4.8 head to head on the same browser task, on Hyperbrowser Sandboxes. We then asked it to open a page in a real sandboxed browser and pull the title. Grok build on Grok 4.5, Claude code on Opus 4.8, identical setup. Grok 4.5 came out ahead ↓
0:16

We put grok 4.5 and opus 4.8 head to head on the same browser task, on Hyperbrowser Sandboxes. We then asked it to open a page in a real sandboxed browser and pull the title. Grok build on Grok 4.5, Claude code on Opus 4.8, identical setup. Grok 4.5 came out ahead ↓

Hyperbrowser

406,488 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten