Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

We gave two Claude models the same character sheet Opus 5 vs Opus 4.8 Both prompts run on Seedance 2.0. Our thoughts in thread

magnific's profile picture

Magnific

91,822 subscribers

19,032 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

SanatBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Character sheets aren't just references anymore. They're the starting point → Generate you character sheet with GPT 2 → Go cinematic with Seedance 2.0 4K The prompts are in this thread
0:10

Character sheets aren't just references anymore. They're the starting point → Generate you character sheet with GPT 2 → Go cinematic with Seedance 2.0 4K The prompts are in this thread

Magnific

17,561 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Fable 5 vs Opus 4.8 on Arcads MCP Both videos generated with Arcads X Claude
0:13

Fable 5 vs Opus 4.8 on Arcads MCP Both videos generated with Arcads X Claude

Romain Torres

450,648 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Same concept. Two AI assistants writing the prompt Fable 5 vs GPT 5.6 Sol animated by Seedance 2.0, powered by BytePlus Both prompts below so you can test them yourself
0:13

Same concept. Two AI assistants writing the prompt Fable 5 vs GPT 5.6 Sol animated by Seedance 2.0, powered by BytePlus Both prompts below so you can test them yourself

Magnific

11,475 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT 5.5 Prompt 👇
0:10

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT 5.5 Prompt 👇

Viktor Oddy

28,799 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.
0:13

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.

Bhavy☄️

481,173 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Fable 5 vs Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8 on the same product ad. All three ran an agentic pipeline through eComrads MCP on Claude: read the product, write the creative direction, render the finished ad. Same brief, but each model directed it completely differently.
0:18

Fable 5 vs Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8 on the same product ad. All three ran an agentic pipeline through eComrads MCP on Claude: read the product, write the creative direction, render the finished ad. Same brief, but each model directed it completely differently.

eComrads

298,180 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

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

407,762 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Kimi K3 vs Claude 4.8 Opus colosseum! 2.50$ vs 7.60$ Which one did better?
0:12

Kimi K3 vs Claude 4.8 Opus colosseum! 2.50$ vs 7.60$ Which one did better?

Chris

55,066 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5
0:10

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Introducing Claude Opus 5.5, the first model in our new Claude 5.5 family. It performs at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 for most tasks, and costs 40% less to run than Opus 5.
0:20

Introducing Claude Opus 5.5, the first model in our new Claude 5.5 family. It performs at the level of Claude Fable 5.1 for most tasks, and costs 40% less to run than Opus 5.

Claude

29,631,638 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Both Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol have been performing exceptionally well on our leaderboards, ranking in the top 3 across almost all of our non-agentic tasks. We put both models through the same 3D design and website challenges to see where each excels the most. Watch the full breakdown on Youtube:
0:16

Both Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol have been performing exceptionally well on our leaderboards, ranking in the top 3 across almost all of our non-agentic tasks. We put both models through the same 3D design and website challenges to see where each excels the most. Watch the full breakdown on Youtube:

Design Arena

30,773 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

A Pixar-style tea story from a single character sheet 🍵 GPT Image 2 → character sheet Seedance 2.0 → animation prompts ⤵️
0:13

A Pixar-style tea story from a single character sheet 🍵 GPT Image 2 → character sheet Seedance 2.0 → animation prompts ⤵️

Kiki

13,096 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

POV: you are using Claude opus 4.8
0:17

POV: you are using Claude opus 4.8

Sahil

975,857 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

this guy vibe coded this entire motion gallery with opus 4.8 using ONE prompt claude opus 4.8 >>> gpt 5.5
0:17

this guy vibe coded this entire motion gallery with opus 4.8 using ONE prompt claude opus 4.8 >>> gpt 5.5

Om Patel

32,907 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Seedream 5.0 Pro vs. GPT Image 2.0. Both animated in Seedance 2.0. Prompt in the thread 🧵
0:11

Seedream 5.0 Pro vs. GPT Image 2.0. Both animated in Seedance 2.0. Prompt in the thread 🧵

Higgsfield AI 🧩

34,486 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Warp now supports Claude Opus 4.8. Opus 4.8 is built for longer agent runs: planning up front, following through across multi-step coding tasks, and catching real bugs in review instead of stopping after one clean test run.
0:10

Warp now supports Claude Opus 4.8. Opus 4.8 is built for longer agent runs: planning up front, following through across multi-step coding tasks, and catching real bugs in review instead of stopping after one clean test run.

Warp

11,490 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

We decided to take Paul Jankura’s Claude Opus 4.5 out for a test drive vs. the current #1 ranking model in Code Arena: Gemini 3 Pro. Same prompt, different outputs. Let’s take a look. Remember, your votes drive the leaderboards. We’ll see how Claude Opus 4.5 stacks up in the coming days! Check out some of the comparisons, like how Claude Opus 4.5 handled the “Pyramids of Giza” prompt, in thread. 🧵
0:17

We decided to take Paul Jankura’s Claude Opus 4.5 out for a test drive vs. the current #1 ranking model in Code Arena: Gemini 3 Pro. Same prompt, different outputs. Let’s take a look. Remember, your votes drive the leaderboards. We’ll see how Claude Opus 4.5 stacks up in the coming days! Check out some of the comparisons, like how Claude Opus 4.5 handled the “Pyramids of Giza” prompt, in thread. 🧵

Arena.ai

89,088 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

❤️‍🔥 Opus 4.8 + Claude Animated Brand Concept Site Prompt ↓
0:16

❤️‍🔥 Opus 4.8 + Claude Animated Brand Concept Site Prompt ↓

Viktor Oddy

24,142 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.
0:10

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.

haytam

67,870 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model
0:18

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

atomic.chat

730,982 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce