Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

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

Ana Sayfaya Dön

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... show more

Command Code

18,734 subscribers

179,535 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji Eğitim Oyun

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

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 on quality, but costs 23x more than GLM 5.3 → GLM 5.3 gives better output than GPT 5.6 Sol at 8x cheaper → Optimizing for cost? Go for GLM 5.3. Otherwise, Fable 5 if quality matters

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 on quality, but costs 23x more than GLM 5.3 → GLM 5.3 gives better output than GPT 5.6 Sol at 8x cheaper → Optimizing for cost? Go for GLM 5.3. Otherwise, Fable 5 if quality matters

Command Code

22,840 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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)

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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

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 görüntüleme • 2 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

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

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

54,140 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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.

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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 🥲

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Same prompt. GPT-5.6 Sol vs Opus 5. All in Three.js. Opus produced the better raw visuals. The ocean, waves and atmosphere look noticeably richer. But it also: → cost ~10x more → took much longer → needed an extra prompt just to fix the camera controls Sol got surprisingly close on the first attempt, much faster and far cheaper. Opus wins visual fidelity. Sol wins the actual engineering test.

Same prompt. GPT-5.6 Sol vs Opus 5. All in Three.js. Opus produced the better raw visuals. The ocean, waves and atmosphere look noticeably richer. But it also: → cost ~10x more → took much longer → needed an extra prompt just to fix the camera controls Sol got surprisingly close on the first attempt, much faster and far cheaper. Opus wins visual fidelity. Sol wins the actual engineering test.

Token Gremlin

12,914 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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.

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Been giving my M3 Ultra Studio some love and tinkering with MLX. Started the afternoon at 42 tok/s. Now: 73 tok/s, and there’s still more on the table. Running Qwen3.8-Flash-Next @ 4-bit locally. Now for the crazy bit: Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3: GPT-5.6 Sol 39 (Medium) GPT-5.6 Sol 42 (High) Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 42 GPT-5.6 Sol 44 (XHigh) GPT-5.6 Sol 47 (Max) Grok 4.5 39 (High) Claude Sonnet 5 38 (Max) *Qwen score currently estimated by Artificial Analysis. A 4-bit open-weights model running at 73 tok/s on a Mac under my desk... with an estimated intelligence score matching GPT-5.6 Sol at High reasoning. Local AI is getting ridiculous. 🔥 Plus, this model does not say no to a bit of red teaming. Once I am happy with it, I will do a pr for Jun Kim's oMLX :)

Been giving my M3 Ultra Studio some love and tinkering with MLX. Started the afternoon at 42 tok/s. Now: 73 tok/s, and there’s still more on the table. Running Qwen3.8-Flash-Next @ 4-bit locally. Now for the crazy bit: Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3: GPT-5.6 Sol 39 (Medium) GPT-5.6 Sol 42 (High) Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 42 GPT-5.6 Sol 44 (XHigh) GPT-5.6 Sol 47 (Max) Grok 4.5 39 (High) Claude Sonnet 5 38 (Max) *Qwen score currently estimated by Artificial Analysis. A 4-bit open-weights model running at 73 tok/s on a Mac under my desk... with an estimated intelligence score matching GPT-5.6 Sol at High reasoning. Local AI is getting ridiculous. 🔥 Plus, this model does not say no to a bit of red teaming. Once I am happy with it, I will do a pr for Jun Kim's oMLX :)

Ash Hart

18,827 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

Codex users: here's an amazing way to take advantage of the efficiency and capability of GPT-5.6 Luna Max. It's called 'sol-advisor'. 1. GPT-5.6 Sol High as orchestrator 2. GPT-5.6 Luna Max as implementer for routine tasks 3. GPT-5.6 Terra Max as implementer for complex tasks 4. Fresh GPT-5.6 Sol instance as reviewer A free and open-source plugin for Codex. Installation instructions below 👇 I dare you to install it, and tell me if you hit your weekly usage limits using 'sol-advisor'. I doubt you can.

Codex users: here's an amazing way to take advantage of the efficiency and capability of GPT-5.6 Luna Max. It's called 'sol-advisor'. 1. GPT-5.6 Sol High as orchestrator 2. GPT-5.6 Luna Max as implementer for routine tasks 3. GPT-5.6 Terra Max as implementer for complex tasks 4. Fresh GPT-5.6 Sol instance as reviewer A free and open-source plugin for Codex. Installation instructions below 👇 I dare you to install it, and tell me if you hit your weekly usage limits using 'sol-advisor'. I doubt you can.

Dan McAteer

692,061 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

i recreated this with GPT 5.6 Sol & it costed me ~$5 only & 2 prompts >GPT 5.6 Sol Ultra as the main agent, admin & orchestrator >GPT 5.6 Luna Max as sub-agents >used the Codex app >used about 20% of my weekly limit on $100 plan ($100/4 * 20%) some bugs, and improvements would take another prompt but pretty good for $5!

i recreated this with GPT 5.6 Sol & it costed me ~$5 only & 2 prompts >GPT 5.6 Sol Ultra as the main agent, admin & orchestrator >GPT 5.6 Luna Max as sub-agents >used the Codex app >used about 20% of my weekly limit on $100 plan ($100/4 * 20%) some bugs, and improvements would take another prompt but pretty good for $5!

anul agarwal

16,411 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Ran FlappyBench on DeepSeek V4.1-Flash, GLM 5.3, and Kimi K3 with the same /design prompt. 🔹 DSV4.1-Flash: 9/10 · $0.0089 one-shot with the lowest cost 🔹 GLM-5.3: 9.5/10 · $0.0184 · nailed the UI but cost 2x more 🔹 Kimi K3: 8/10 · $0.0740 · hard-coded gameplay and 8x more

Ran FlappyBench on DeepSeek V4.1-Flash, GLM 5.3, and Kimi K3 with the same /design prompt. 🔹 DSV4.1-Flash: 9/10 · $0.0089 one-shot with the lowest cost 🔹 GLM-5.3: 9.5/10 · $0.0184 · nailed the UI but cost 2x more 🔹 Kimi K3: 8/10 · $0.0740 · hard-coded gameplay and 8x more

Command Code

20,527 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

GLM 5.3, GPT 5.6 Luna, Claude Opus 5, Grok 4.6, DeepSeek V4, Kimi K3, and a cloud browser for agents - all FREE. > DuckDuckGo: GPT 5.6 Luna and older models, no signup: > LM Arena: free side-by-side, Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.6, Qwen 3.8 Max: > Nvidia NIM: Kimi K3 free, 40 requests/minute: > OpenCode: 7 free models including DeepSeek V4 Flash, no API key: > Bright Data: 5K credits/month, cloud browser, MCP for agents: Anthropic just dropped Fable 5.1 today - new benchmark leader. Meanwhile the free tier keeps growing. The gap between paid and open keeps shrinking.

GLM 5.3, GPT 5.6 Luna, Claude Opus 5, Grok 4.6, DeepSeek V4, Kimi K3, and a cloud browser for agents - all FREE. > DuckDuckGo: GPT 5.6 Luna and older models, no signup: > LM Arena: free side-by-side, Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.6, Qwen 3.8 Max: > Nvidia NIM: Kimi K3 free, 40 requests/minute: > OpenCode: 7 free models including DeepSeek V4 Flash, no API key: > Bright Data: 5K credits/month, cloud browser, MCP for agents: Anthropic just dropped Fable 5.1 today - new benchmark leader. Meanwhile the free tier keeps growing. The gap between paid and open keeps shrinking.

ＺＥＦＩ

29,454 görüntüleme • 18 gün 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

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.

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Guys, stop underestimating the harness. GPT-5.6 Sol through Claude Code vs Codex produced a GIGANTIC difference in my benchmark. But Opus 5 is the real innovation: High, xHigh, and Max don’t just feel like different thinking levels—they feel like COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MODELS. It’s basically like getting three or four Opus models in one.

Guys, stop underestimating the harness. GPT-5.6 Sol through Claude Code vs Codex produced a GIGANTIC difference in my benchmark. But Opus 5 is the real innovation: High, xHigh, and Max don’t just feel like different thinking levels—they feel like COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MODELS. It’s basically like getting three or four Opus models in one.

OmedTheVibeCoder

36,074 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Announcing Ship: an endpoint with the highest intelligence per dollar of any frontier model. Today, Ship makes using Opus and GPT 5.6 Sol 50% cheaper guaranteed by a quality SLA.

Announcing Ship: an endpoint with the highest intelligence per dollar of any frontier model. Today, Ship makes using Opus and GPT 5.6 Sol 50% cheaper guaranteed by a quality SLA.

Martian

656,428 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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?

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce