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。

We made Fable 5.1 compete against Entelligence Router on the same coding task. Both had the same harness and infra, and had to build a GeoGuessr-style game from scratch, implement the interactions, and verify everything in the browser. Fable 5.1: 21 min, $22.16 Entelligence Router: 21 min, $9 Fable... show more

Entelligence AI

4,972 subscribers

16,627 次观看 • 11 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

16 条评论

aditya 的头像

aditya11 天前

why do I feel that model router performed better here 👀

eepy bao 的头像

eepy bao11 天前

And that's how you do advertising! Really interesting results!

49Agents IDE - for 10x agentic coders 的头像

49Agents IDE - for 10x agentic coders11 天前

curious how the browser verification works. is fable 5.1 using a vision model to check the rendered output or do you step in manually. the verify loop is where my agents eat the most time

Genius💡💹🧲 🤖 的头像

Genius💡💹🧲 🤖11 天前

$22 versus $4 is a massive difference for similar coding work

Gc7_ai 的头像

Gc7_ai11 天前

一分钱一分货 😁

RAZA | AI EXPLORER 的头像

RAZA | AI EXPLORER11 天前

Great benchmark. Same time, nearly 60% lower cost is a serious efficiency win.

Ella Tech & Tool 的头像

Ella Tech & Tool10 天前

Head-to-heads like this are gold 👏

Alice The Ai Expert 的头像

Alice The Ai Expert11 天前

Same result in 21 mins, but Entelligence Router doing it at 59% lower cost? That's incredible efficiency without compromising quality!

Corp 的头像

Corp9 天前

Same harness, same infra, clean benchmark. — corp

Aina Ai | Tools & Updates 的头像

Aina Ai | Tools & Updates10 天前

Impressive same result in same time but 59% cheaper

Sani Ai Tech 的头像

Sani Ai Tech10 天前

Real-world cost comparisons like this make model selection much clearer

Sheral Tech 的头像

Sheral Tech10 天前

Great benchmark healthy competition drives better, more efficient AI solutions.

Evia AI 的头像

Evia AI8 天前

Great benchmark showing how cost efficiency matters alongside coding quality```

Corp 的头像

Corp10 天前

same time, 59% cheaper is the part worth digging into. was the router mostly picking smaller models for the boilerplate steps, or is the savings coming from fewer retries?

Victoria Blake 的头像

Victoria Blake4 天前

Great comparison showcasing the evolution of AI coding capabilities! 🚀 Benchmarking real-world tasks helps push innovation and improve developer experiences. Would love to explore collaboration opportunities and support the growth of this exciting AI ecosystem. 🤝

Martin Ronfort 的头像

Martin Ronfort11 天前

That's a really rigorous test, and I appreciate the detailed breakdown. Fable 5.1 shows significant benchmark improvements for coding. We actually went deeper on those metrics here:

相关视频

New Fable 5.1 absolutely crushed Fable 5 at making a racing game👾🔥 Claude just dropped Fable 5.1, so we gave both models the same prompt to build a playable racing game from scratch in Godot with BlenderMCP Tasks: - Make car and environment models using BlenderMCP - A big map for long driving sessions - Realistic car handling - Simple HUD for speed and controls Outputs: Fable 5.1: 1.2M tokens, 123.98$, 59.8 minutes Fable 5: 897K tokens, 95.87, 57.3 minutes Fable 5.1's models are far more detailed and the game runs smooth, the world feels alive while you drive. Fable 5 finished all three tasks and its HUD and controls work, but its models are plain and the game feels stiff

New Fable 5.1 absolutely crushed Fable 5 at making a racing game👾🔥 Claude just dropped Fable 5.1, so we gave both models the same prompt to build a playable racing game from scratch in Godot with BlenderMCP Tasks: - Make car and environment models using BlenderMCP - A big map for long driving sessions - Realistic car handling - Simple HUD for speed and controls Outputs: Fable 5.1: 1.2M tokens, 123.98$, 59.8 minutes Fable 5: 897K tokens, 95.87, 57.3 minutes Fable 5.1's models are far more detailed and the game runs smooth, the world feels alive while you drive. Fable 5 finished all three tasks and its HUD and controls work, but its models are plain and the game feels stiff

atomic.chat

21,216 次观看 • 11 天前

Someone gave Astra 6 and Fable 5.1 the exact same prompt: “build me GTA” Both had to autonomously build a browser open-world game where you can walk around, steal cars, drive through traffic and crash them. Fable 5.1: ~6h 15m 4.58M tokens 13 implementer + 19 reviewer agents Astra 6: ~55 min of actual work 7.23M tokens 1 agent And Astra produced the noticeably better game. One-shot game generation is becoming a surprisingly useful benchmark for coding agents.

Someone gave Astra 6 and Fable 5.1 the exact same prompt: “build me GTA” Both had to autonomously build a browser open-world game where you can walk around, steal cars, drive through traffic and crash them. Fable 5.1: ~6h 15m 4.58M tokens 13 implementer + 19 reviewer agents Astra 6: ~55 min of actual work 7.23M tokens 1 agent And Astra produced the noticeably better game. One-shot game generation is becoming a surprisingly useful benchmark for coding agents.

Hakimi Eiqbal

41,838 次观看 • 1 天前

MY FIRST GAME OUTPUT WITH GPT-6 ASTRA IT ONE-SHOTTED THIS CALL OF DUTY GAME IN 30 MINUTES!!! GPT-6 ASTRA IS THE FASTEST MODEL ON THE MARKET. THE SAME PROMPT TOOK FABLE 5.1 ALMOST 5 HRS AND IT CONSUMED A FRACTION OF THE TOKENS FABLE 5.1 DID.

MY FIRST GAME OUTPUT WITH GPT-6 ASTRA IT ONE-SHOTTED THIS CALL OF DUTY GAME IN 30 MINUTES!!! GPT-6 ASTRA IS THE FASTEST MODEL ON THE MARKET. THE SAME PROMPT TOOK FABLE 5.1 ALMOST 5 HRS AND IT CONSUMED A FRACTION OF THE TOKENS FABLE 5.1 DID.

hiraeth

36,888 次观看 • 8 天前

Fable 5.1 charges 6× more than GPT-5.6 Sol anthropic's Fable 5.1 went live. we threw it straight at openai's GPT-5.6 Sol. same prompts, one shot. the test: five self-contained three.js scenes, one continuous project — a futuristic mansion on a private island. exterior orbit, grand hall with a diamond chandelier, pool with a water park, garage with 10 lambos, helicopter landing on the roof cost: Claude Fable 5.1 — $5.69 GPT-5.6 Sol — $0.88 what we saw: • fable goes for realism — waves, depth, a sand ring around the island. sol goes low-poly and clean, and its style never breaks across all 5 scenes • fable's chandelier is thousands of individual crystals. sol's hall is honestly just a staircase and a wall • fable's helicopter touches down on the lit helipad much smoother than sol's • fable built a triple-slide water-park tower — and shipped the pool with no water. sol's park is tiny — but the pool is full 6× the price buys you 6× the detail — and the same one-shot bugs. what's your choice? try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com

Fable 5.1 charges 6× more than GPT-5.6 Sol anthropic's Fable 5.1 went live. we threw it straight at openai's GPT-5.6 Sol. same prompts, one shot. the test: five self-contained three.js scenes, one continuous project — a futuristic mansion on a private island. exterior orbit, grand hall with a diamond chandelier, pool with a water park, garage with 10 lambos, helicopter landing on the roof cost: Claude Fable 5.1 — $5.69 GPT-5.6 Sol — $0.88 what we saw: • fable goes for realism — waves, depth, a sand ring around the island. sol goes low-poly and clean, and its style never breaks across all 5 scenes • fable's chandelier is thousands of individual crystals. sol's hall is honestly just a staircase and a wall • fable's helicopter touches down on the lit helipad much smoother than sol's • fable built a triple-slide water-park tower — and shipped the pool with no water. sol's park is tiny — but the pool is full 6× the price buys you 6× the detail — and the same one-shot bugs. what's your choice? try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com

AI/ML API

403,637 次观看 • 11 天前

Fable 5.1 xHigh vs GLM 5.3 Flash Max With Zai’s current promo, GLM 5.3 Flash is around 58x cheaper than Fable 5.1… and just look at the quality It finished the same task in about half the time, while still delivering a genuinely impressive result 58x cheaper. 2x faster. And the quality is this close That’s honestly crazy, Huge credit to Zhipu for bringing us models this efficient

Fable 5.1 xHigh vs GLM 5.3 Flash Max With Zai’s current promo, GLM 5.3 Flash is around 58x cheaper than Fable 5.1… and just look at the quality It finished the same task in about half the time, while still delivering a genuinely impressive result 58x cheaper. 2x faster. And the quality is this close That’s honestly crazy, Huge credit to Zhipu for bringing us models this efficient

Iam_

110,392 次观看 • 11 天前

We tested Kimi K3 against Claude Fable 5 on 3D modeling and animation Asked both to recreate the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars in 1) pixel style 2) original style. Both are on Max effort. Kimi K3 took a bit longer than Fable 5 to generate, but came in ~1/3 cheaper on the 1st test, and less than half the cost on the 2nd. Interestingly, Kimi K3 handled the details at the same level as Fable 5 on the original creation, yet it wasn't at Fable's level for the pixel style. Test 1 (Pixel) Kimi K3: 1hr 11min · $14.5 Fable 5: 49min · $21 Test 2 (Original) Kimi K3: 1hr 17min · $19.3 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $47.2

We tested Kimi K3 against Claude Fable 5 on 3D modeling and animation Asked both to recreate the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars in 1) pixel style 2) original style. Both are on Max effort. Kimi K3 took a bit longer than Fable 5 to generate, but came in ~1/3 cheaper on the 1st test, and less than half the cost on the 2nd. Interestingly, Kimi K3 handled the details at the same level as Fable 5 on the original creation, yet it wasn't at Fable's level for the pixel style. Test 1 (Pixel) Kimi K3: 1hr 11min · $14.5 Fable 5: 49min · $21 Test 2 (Original) Kimi K3: 1hr 17min · $19.3 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $47.2

GMI Cloud

80,618 次观看 • 1 个月前

GPT-6 Astra smokes Claude Fable 5.1 in Blender 💨 We compared GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 on a Porsche 911 GT3 RS build and the difference is visible from the very first shot Output: Astra: $132.03 • 2.58 hours Fable: $114.41 • 2.56 hours Astra's model is not only more detailed in every aspect, but also far closer to the original car, costing almost the same as Fable's blocky funny looking model, the difference is astonishing

GPT-6 Astra smokes Claude Fable 5.1 in Blender 💨 We compared GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 on a Porsche 911 GT3 RS build and the difference is visible from the very first shot Output: Astra: $132.03 • 2.58 hours Fable: $114.41 • 2.56 hours Astra's model is not only more detailed in every aspect, but also far closer to the original car, costing almost the same as Fable's blocky funny looking model, the difference is astonishing

atomic.chat

130,515 次观看 • 5 天前

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.

The new Fable 5.1 built three games and did it 7% cheaper! We gave the same prompts through Atomic Agent: ✦ Sticky ball that rolls up everything in its path ✦ Capybara surfing down a river, Subway Surfers style ✦ Dumpling running an endless conveyor dodge Outputs: ✦ Claude Fable 5, via Atomic Agent: $7.65 ✦ Claude Fable 5.1, via Atomic Agent: $7.08 Run it through an agent and that cache discount is where the money hides. The loop reads the file, watches it break, and pulls the whole context back in to fix it, over and over. Every one of those re-reads costs a quarter on 5.1 of what it cost on 5. Same games on screen, and the newer version just spends less to get there. Across three builds the loop paid for the upgrade on its own.

Atomic Agent

20,255 次观看 • 11 天前

GPT Astra just cooked Claude Fable 5.1 — for a lower price! OpenAI just rolled out GPT‑6 Astra — we put it against Anthropic's Fable 5.1 Both models got the same four briefs: Earth colliding with Mars, a tall ship sucked into a giant whirlpool, Godzilla leveling downtown, a mega-tsunami swallowing a city. One self-contained HTML file per scene, one shot, no edits. GPT Astra: 25,159 tokens, $1.67 Claude Fable 5.1: 37,767 tokens, $2.51 both models live on aimlapi[.]com — 1000+ models, one key.

GPT Astra just cooked Claude Fable 5.1 — for a lower price! OpenAI just rolled out GPT‑6 Astra — we put it against Anthropic's Fable 5.1 Both models got the same four briefs: Earth colliding with Mars, a tall ship sucked into a giant whirlpool, Godzilla leveling downtown, a mega-tsunami swallowing a city. One self-contained HTML file per scene, one shot, no edits. GPT Astra: 25,159 tokens, $1.67 Claude Fable 5.1: 37,767 tokens, $2.51 both models live on aimlapi[.]com — 1000+ models, one key.

AI/ML API

86,656 次观看 • 8 天前

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

18,509 次观看 • 10 天前

I made Claude compete against itself. The smartest model does not automatically make the best agent. To prove it, I took the same Opus 4.6 model, initial prompt, and empty repo and but it inside two different coding harnesses: Claude Code vs. Factory Droid. The task: clone Excalidraw from scratch, inspect the original in a browser, implement its key interactions, and verify the result. Factory Droid: 8 minutes, 20 tool calls, $1.60 Claude Code: 19 minutes, 40 tool calls, $1.87 The only difference was the harness. Get Free Factory credits here:

I made Claude compete against itself. The smartest model does not automatically make the best agent. To prove it, I took the same Opus 4.6 model, initial prompt, and empty repo and but it inside two different coding harnesses: Claude Code vs. Factory Droid. The task: clone Excalidraw from scratch, inspect the original in a browser, implement its key interactions, and verify the result. Factory Droid: 8 minutes, 20 tool calls, $1.60 Claude Code: 19 minutes, 40 tool calls, $1.87 The only difference was the harness. Get Free Factory credits here:

Sarah Chieng

85,758 次观看 • 19 天前

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

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

The difference between GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 is obvious here. Same prompt, both building a website with real-time fluid physics. Move the cursor and the water reacts, waves spread, run into each other, and slowly flatten out. Built end to end on Higgsfield Supercomputer.

The difference between GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 is obvious here. Same prompt, both building a website with real-time fluid physics. Move the cursor and the water reacts, waves spread, run into each other, and slowly flatten out. Built end to end on Higgsfield Supercomputer.

Higgsfield AI 🧩

45,297 次观看 • 8 天前

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

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5. I put both through my hardest frontend test: a 3D globe dashboard. Same prompt. Same reference image. Sol on the left. Fable on the right. GPT-5.6 Sol is a major leap from 5.5. Fable 5 still wins on spacing, balance, and first-pass polish. For me, Sol comes close at half the cost.

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5. I put both through my hardest frontend test: a 3D globe dashboard. Same prompt. Same reference image. Sol on the left. Fable on the right. GPT-5.6 Sol is a major leap from 5.5. Fable 5 still wins on spacing, balance, and first-pass polish. For me, Sol comes close at half the cost.

Kai

199,524 次观看 • 2 个月前

Something feels seriously off with Claude Fable 5.1 🙄 I recreated the exact same 3D stadium I had built with Fable 5 just to see how much better 5.1 would be. Instead, Fable 5.1 took more than > 1 hour and hit the max limit 2 or 3 times on a single prompt. Fable 5 basically had the whole website ready in one shot and its output was actually much better. Fable 5.1 felt good with metal but added these weird black things that look like basket wings... genuinely have no idea what those are. Not good. And this observation isn’t just for one website. I saw similar behavior with a much simpler hero page where Fable 5.1 maxed out on a single prompt, something I never really experienced with Fable 5 for similar other websites Also, 3D models and animations of that other website also looked noticeably worse compared to what Fable 5 used to produce. In fact, they were even worse than what I’ve seen Opus 5 do. I’ll keep testing it, but so far Fable 5.1 feels less like an upgrade and more like a regression to me, tbh.

Something feels seriously off with Claude Fable 5.1 🙄 I recreated the exact same 3D stadium I had built with Fable 5 just to see how much better 5.1 would be. Instead, Fable 5.1 took more than > 1 hour and hit the max limit 2 or 3 times on a single prompt. Fable 5 basically had the whole website ready in one shot and its output was actually much better. Fable 5.1 felt good with metal but added these weird black things that look like basket wings... genuinely have no idea what those are. Not good. And this observation isn’t just for one website. I saw similar behavior with a much simpler hero page where Fable 5.1 maxed out on a single prompt, something I never really experienced with Fable 5 for similar other websites Also, 3D models and animations of that other website also looked noticeably worse compared to what Fable 5 used to produce. In fact, they were even worse than what I’ve seen Opus 5 do. I’ll keep testing it, but so far Fable 5.1 feels less like an upgrade and more like a regression to me, tbh.

The Bugged Dev

98,232 次观看 • 10 天前

Fable 5.1 is an absolute beast for game dev. I took my Opus 5 space game and told Fable to "just make it look better". It overhauled everything with a TON of detail, AND made it 2x faster 🤯 Code: Demo: Every pixel you see is made by AI. Fable modeled everything in Blender, generated textures with code, and in a few cases ran image models via CLI. In mere months we'll be vibe-coding AAA graphics at this rate. Just insane. Of course, Fable recorded and edited this comparison video too (with a little help from Opus at the end, because of the Fable outage)

Fable 5.1 is an absolute beast for game dev. I took my Opus 5 space game and told Fable to "just make it look better". It overhauled everything with a TON of detail, AND made it 2x faster 🤯 Code: Demo: Every pixel you see is made by AI. Fable modeled everything in Blender, generated textures with code, and in a few cases ran image models via CLI. In mere months we'll be vibe-coding AAA graphics at this rate. Just insane. Of course, Fable recorded and edited this comparison video too (with a little help from Opus at the end, because of the Fable outage)

Anshu

48,983 次观看 • 9 天前

This completely changes how I look at AI benchmarks. Qwen 3.8 Max Preview felt nearly unusable in OpenCode and Qwen Code. With the Claude Code harness, it suddenly came surprisingly close to Kimi K3 and Fable 5. Same model. Same task. Different harness. Wildly different result. How is this even possible?

This completely changes how I look at AI benchmarks. Qwen 3.8 Max Preview felt nearly unusable in OpenCode and Qwen Code. With the Claude Code harness, it suddenly came surprisingly close to Kimi K3 and Fable 5. Same model. Same task. Different harness. Wildly different result. How is this even possible?

OmedTheVibeCoder

30,223 次观看 • 1 个月前

Great to see this formalized Fable 5 is really great at refactoring / optimizing PRs, but often I want to understand why Rather than asking follow ups at $10 / $50 per million tokens, I hand these off to Cursor Composer 2.5 (5% of the cost) Recently, I asked Fable 5 to refactor a PR - I noticed it made a large change to a SQL statement and added a CTE I handed off a transcript of the chat to Composer and asked "Why did you change the SQL statement for the queued message updates?" Fable 5 works while the Cursor harness explains The same thing can be done with a plan + implement approach (Fable 5 -> GPT 5.5) Since 5.5 is ~50% cheaper, the math still holds

Great to see this formalized Fable 5 is really great at refactoring / optimizing PRs, but often I want to understand why Rather than asking follow ups at $10 / $50 per million tokens, I hand these off to Cursor Composer 2.5 (5% of the cost) Recently, I asked Fable 5 to refactor a PR - I noticed it made a large change to a SQL statement and added a CTE I handed off a transcript of the chat to Composer and asked "Why did you change the SQL statement for the queued message updates?" Fable 5 works while the Cursor harness explains The same thing can be done with a plan + implement approach (Fable 5 -> GPT 5.5) Since 5.5 is ~50% cheaper, the math still holds

matt palmer

22,035 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 9 天前