Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

𝐀𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝟐.𝟎 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐡 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash — Model Showdown Same prompt in OpenCode: build a 2D car crash animation in HTML/CSS/JS. 𝐀𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝟐.𝟎 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐡 delivers runnable outputs with stronger timing, physics, and loop quality. Build with Agnes.

Agnes AI

4,161 subscribers

76,608 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

3 Kommentare

Profilbild von 安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB

安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNBvor 2 Monaten

看动图更直观，循环这块差距挺明显

Profilbild von K4rynSitulun

K4rynSitulunvor 2 Monaten

That sounds like an impressive display of technical prowess! 🚗✨ Achieving smooth physics and precise timing in a browser-based animation is no small feat, so it is great to see such strong performance in a head-to-head comparison.

Profilbild von RH_Alpha Gems

RH_Alpha Gemsvor 2 Monaten

The difference isn't just in code generation—it's in how polished the final experience feels. Impressive comparison. 🚗💥

Ähnliche Videos

DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs Gemini-3.6-Flash both given the exact same prompt to build 3D pirate ship Cost: > deepseek-v4-flash: $0.14 / $0.28 > gemini-3.6-flash: $1.50 / $7.50 though deepseek is 20x cheaper, gemini was surprising faster with the output Prompt used: "build a 3D model of pirate ship in Three js with minimal dashboard buttons in light theme background, with wide view of the pirate ship"

DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs Gemini-3.6-Flash both given the exact same prompt to build 3D pirate ship Cost: > deepseek-v4-flash: $0.14 / $0.28 > gemini-3.6-flash: $1.50 / $7.50 though deepseek is 20x cheaper, gemini was surprising faster with the output Prompt used: "build a 3D model of pirate ship in Three js with minimal dashboard buttons in light theme background, with wide view of the pirate ship"

Tim Jayas

20,127 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Prompt: Create a rocket launch animation starting with engine ignition and heavy smoke, followed by a slow liftoff that accelerates, using HTML/CSS/JS in a single HTML file.

Prompt: Create a rocket launch animation starting with engine ignition and heavy smoke, followed by a slow liftoff that accelerates, using HTML/CSS/JS in a single HTML file.

Diego | AI 🚀 - e/acc

237,972 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨 Gemini 3.5 Flash built a full Ubuntu/GNOME web OS in ONE shot. single HTML file, embedded CSS + JS. from one prompt: >working dock + top bar >functional terminal & Game >file manager with real navigation >window drag, resize, minimize on every window >settings panel >boot animation prompt + full code in the reply 👇

🚨 Gemini 3.5 Flash built a full Ubuntu/GNOME web OS in ONE shot. single HTML file, embedded CSS + JS. from one prompt: >working dock + top bar >functional terminal & Game >file manager with real navigation >window drag, resize, minimize on every window >settings panel >boot animation prompt + full code in the reply 👇

Chetaslua

58,397 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Pi Agent vs OpenCode token usage A lot of people recommended Pi Agent so I decided to check Pi Agent took 1.1k tokens in first turn OpenCode took 11.5k Setup: 1) Trimmed OpenCode (from usual 30k first turn to 11.5k) - 0 MCPs - 2 lightweight plugins (opencode-env-protect and openslimedit) - 8k char AGENTS.md - 11585 deepseek-v4-flash input tokens - for $0.0016 2) Vanilla Pi - 0 MCPs - 0 system prompt - 8k char AGENTS.md - 1114 kimi-k2.6 input tokens - for $0.0008 I think using better models with capped tokens per turn can keep usage nearly the same as uncontrolled DeepSeek V4 Flash? The challenge now is finding the sweet spot. Can't cap tokens if quality drops. We'll see. Video below - OpenCode vs Pi side by side "say hi back" first turns test, with OpenCode Go usage for each

Pi Agent vs OpenCode token usage A lot of people recommended Pi Agent so I decided to check Pi Agent took 1.1k tokens in first turn OpenCode took 11.5k Setup: 1) Trimmed OpenCode (from usual 30k first turn to 11.5k) - 0 MCPs - 2 lightweight plugins (opencode-env-protect and openslimedit) - 8k char AGENTS.md - 11585 deepseek-v4-flash input tokens - for $0.0016 2) Vanilla Pi - 0 MCPs - 0 system prompt - 8k char AGENTS.md - 1114 kimi-k2.6 input tokens - for $0.0008 I think using better models with capped tokens per turn can keep usage nearly the same as uncontrolled DeepSeek V4 Flash? The challenge now is finding the sweet spot. Can't cap tokens if quality drops. We'll see. Video below - OpenCode vs Pi side by side "say hi back" first turns test, with OpenCode Go usage for each

raymel 👋

209,100 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Prompt: Create an interactive New Year's Eve fireworks display using HTML/CSS/JS in a single HTML file. When the user clicks, a rocket should launch and explode into colorful particles with gravity and drag physics. Include a 'Grand Finale' button that automatically launches a barrage of fireworks that form the glowing text 'HELLO 2026' in the sky.

Prompt: Create an interactive New Year's Eve fireworks display using HTML/CSS/JS in a single HTML file. When the user clicks, a rocket should launch and explode into colorful particles with gravity and drag physics. Include a 'Grand Finale' button that automatically launches a barrage of fireworks that form the glowing text 'HELLO 2026' in the sky.

Diego | AI 🚀 - e/acc

34,210 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Prompt: Side-view HTML/CSS/JS animation of a tiny pinball machine playing itself: chrome ball launch, realistic gravity and bounces, two flippers that time their hits, lit bumpers that flash when struck, rolling ball shadow, score counter in a corner that increases on hits, subtle screen shake on strong impacts, “Ball 1 / 3” indicator that advances after each drain, then a big “GAME OVER” banner fade-in at the end. No external images or libraries, all shapes with CSS, all logic in vanilla JS. All in 1 HTML file.

Prompt: Side-view HTML/CSS/JS animation of a tiny pinball machine playing itself: chrome ball launch, realistic gravity and bounces, two flippers that time their hits, lit bumpers that flash when struck, rolling ball shadow, score counter in a corner that increases on hits, subtle screen shake on strong impacts, “Ball 1 / 3” indicator that advances after each drain, then a big “GAME OVER” banner fade-in at the end. No external images or libraries, all shapes with CSS, all logic in vanilla JS. All in 1 HTML file.

Diego | AI 🚀 - e/acc

88,684 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Same prompt. Different results 👀 We built the same app with Gemini 3.6 and 3.7 Flash. Both worked. But 3.7 gave us the stronger codebase: better architecture, clean build/lint results, and a more maintainable foundation. Try it in Junie, Air, or any JetBrains IDE.

Same prompt. Different results 👀 We built the same app with Gemini 3.6 and 3.7 Flash. Both worked. But 3.7 gave us the stronger codebase: better architecture, clean build/lint results, and a more maintainable foundation. Try it in Junie, Air, or any JetBrains IDE.

JetBrains

23,046 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Okay… DeepSeek V4 Flash actually COOKED 😭 With OpenCode, I’d place it around GPT-5.6 Terra Max—and definitely above Luna Max in this test. Almost unlimited usage for around €9, by the way. This model is a MASSIVE success. Just don’t use the wrong harness.

Okay… DeepSeek V4 Flash actually COOKED 😭 With OpenCode, I’d place it around GPT-5.6 Terra Max—and definitely above Luna Max in this test. Almost unlimited usage for around €9, by the way. This model is a MASSIVE success. Just don’t use the wrong harness.

OmedTheVibeCoder

35,417 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Opus 5 same prompt to each model and i wasn't expecting gemini 3.8 flash to be this fast! build time: > Opus 5: 24 minutes > 3.8 Flash: 37 seconds 💀 if gemini is given same time as opus 5 it will mog the hell out of opus in terms of quality too which one would you choose here?

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Opus 5 same prompt to each model and i wasn't expecting gemini 3.8 flash to be this fast! build time: > Opus 5: 24 minutes > 3.8 Flash: 37 seconds 💀 if gemini is given same time as opus 5 it will mog the hell out of opus in terms of quality too which one would you choose here?

Tim Jayas

76,604 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

🚨 GMI estimated ~$0.11 in savings on one 3-step Python coding workflow. I gave GMI Router the same e-commerce codebase and split the work into 3 requests: 👉 Code analysis → Cost Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.046 saved 👉 Debugging → Balanced Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.042 saved 👉 Implementation + testing → Quality Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.019 saved Total: ~$0.11 estimated savings vs Claude Opus 4.8, based on GMI's estimated token usage. But here's what caught my attention: Router selected the same model for all 3 tasks — even though I changed the mode each time. And that's actually the point. GMI Cloud 's Router is cache-aware. When the same model can handle the next request, sticking with it can help preserve cache reuse and reduce cost. There's another reason: These tasks weren't especially difficult. So even in Quality Mode, Router didn't need to move to a heavier model. The result: 1 codebase. 3 tasks. 3 routing modes. 1 lightweight model. ~$0.11 estimated savings. This is why request-level routing is more interesting than simply assigning a different model to every task.

🚨 GMI estimated ~$0.11 in savings on one 3-step Python coding workflow. I gave GMI Router the same e-commerce codebase and split the work into 3 requests: 👉 Code analysis → Cost Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.046 saved 👉 Debugging → Balanced Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.042 saved 👉 Implementation + testing → Quality Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.019 saved Total: ~$0.11 estimated savings vs Claude Opus 4.8, based on GMI's estimated token usage. But here's what caught my attention: Router selected the same model for all 3 tasks — even though I changed the mode each time. And that's actually the point. GMI Cloud 's Router is cache-aware. When the same model can handle the next request, sticking with it can help preserve cache reuse and reduce cost. There's another reason: These tasks weren't especially difficult. So even in Quality Mode, Router didn't need to move to a heavier model. The result: 1 codebase. 3 tasks. 3 routing modes. 1 lightweight model. ~$0.11 estimated savings. This is why request-level routing is more interesting than simply assigning a different model to every task.

Anthara Fairooz

28,520 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

The M5 Ultra Mac Studio is INSANE! Apple sent me the maxed out version, with a 36-core CPU, 80-core GPU and 256GB of RAM. I used it to run Deepseek v4 Flash (156GB model) fully on device to build a mini-game, which it did in just a few minutes! #MacStudio #M5Ultra @apple

The M5 Ultra Mac Studio is INSANE! Apple sent me the maxed out version, with a 36-core CPU, 80-core GPU and 256GB of RAM. I used it to run Deepseek v4 Flash (156GB model) fully on device to build a mini-game, which it did in just a few minutes! #MacStudio #M5Ultra @apple

Daniel

90,346 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

New LFM2.5-2.6B hits DeepSeek-V4 level on tool calling and runs 3.7x faster! We ran Liquid AI 's new LFM2.5-2.6B against DeepSeek-V4-Flash on one box with 4x RTX 5090. Both got the same three jobs, and each one only completes if the model fires every tool call Topics: -weather and local time in six cities -one budget into six currencies -four hotels checked and booked for one date Outputs: LFM2.5-2.6B: 35/35 tool-calls, 366 tok/s, 19s DeepSeek-V4-Flash: 35/35 tool-calls, 77 tok/s, 70s Both models made all 35 calls, and both fired twelve of them in one turn. LFM was trained for agents, and tool calling is where that shows. Strong result for a model you can run right on your phone

New LFM2.5-2.6B hits DeepSeek-V4 level on tool calling and runs 3.7x faster! We ran Liquid AI 's new LFM2.5-2.6B against DeepSeek-V4-Flash on one box with 4x RTX 5090. Both got the same three jobs, and each one only completes if the model fires every tool call Topics: -weather and local time in six cities -one budget into six currencies -four hotels checked and booked for one date Outputs: LFM2.5-2.6B: 35/35 tool-calls, 366 tok/s, 19s DeepSeek-V4-Flash: 35/35 tool-calls, 77 tok/s, 70s Both models made all 35 calls, and both fired twelve of them in one turn. LFM was trained for agents, and tool calling is where that shows. Strong result for a model you can run right on your phone

atomic.chat

113,185 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I tried replicating fully agentic coding on my laptop and I'm impressed! My setup - Qwen 27bn (4bit quant) - Pi coding agent - CCO sandboxing for yolo mode My Mac M3 has 36GB ram. It's surreal to see a local model read prompt, follow it flawlessly and then build a fully self-contained html/css page with zero errors. I got about ~20 tokens/second, and on this prompt quality similar to Haiku! But... this is running locally :)

I tried replicating fully agentic coding on my laptop and I'm impressed! My setup - Qwen 27bn (4bit quant) - Pi coding agent - CCO sandboxing for yolo mode My Mac M3 has 36GB ram. It's surreal to see a local model read prompt, follow it flawlessly and then build a fully self-contained html/css page with zero errors. I got about ~20 tokens/second, and on this prompt quality similar to Haiku! But... this is running locally :)

Paras Chopra

106,032 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

DeepSeek v4 Flash (0731) vs Kimi K3 (10x more weights) i gave both the exact same prompt, in the exact same harness: one-shot a luxury product landing page ($10,000 "ARC-01" concept object). results in the video. my take: Kimi K3: wins on polish. Better typography hierarchy, more confident use of negative space, and the hero product shot integration is genuinely beautiful DeepSeek v4 Flash: very close. The structure is right, the copy is right, the layout logic is right. It loses on finish, not on fundamentals. a 10x smaller model getting ~90% of the way there. a year ago this gap would have been embarrassing. mind you it cost less than $0.10 for 6 build iterations and 8 QA passes. small models aren't "good for their size" anymore. they're just good.

DeepSeek v4 Flash (0731) vs Kimi K3 (10x more weights) i gave both the exact same prompt, in the exact same harness: one-shot a luxury product landing page ($10,000 "ARC-01" concept object). results in the video. my take: Kimi K3: wins on polish. Better typography hierarchy, more confident use of negative space, and the hero product shot integration is genuinely beautiful DeepSeek v4 Flash: very close. The structure is right, the copy is right, the layout logic is right. It loses on finish, not on fundamentals. a 10x smaller model getting ~90% of the way there. a year ago this gap would have been embarrassing. mind you it cost less than $0.10 for 6 build iterations and 8 QA passes. small models aren't "good for their size" anymore. they're just good.

filipe

26,329 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

deepseek v4.1 flash ran all four three.js scenes for $0.15. gemini 3.8 flash needed $1.25 we put the two models on one job: a self-contained html page that renders an animated 3d scene with three.js – a storm at sea, a spiral galaxy, a tornado over farmland, a tesla coil on a dark table. same prompt - calls until all four scenes were usable #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 6 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 12 - time #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 13m 57s #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 32m 02s - cost #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – $0.15 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – $1.25 observations: • gemini blew out the exposure on 4 of 5 first attempts – a white blob where the tesla coil should be. the prompt had a paragraph on exposure. it did not help. • both models overcorrect in the fix loop: "too bright" becomes "almost black". round two is where it lands. same four scenes, 6 calls and $0.15 against 12 calls and $1.25!

deepseek v4.1 flash ran all four three.js scenes for $0.15. gemini 3.8 flash needed $1.25 we put the two models on one job: a self-contained html page that renders an animated 3d scene with three.js – a storm at sea, a spiral galaxy, a tornado over farmland, a tesla coil on a dark table. same prompt - calls until all four scenes were usable #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 6 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 12 - time #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 13m 57s #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 32m 02s - cost #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – $0.15 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – $1.25 observations: • gemini blew out the exposure on 4 of 5 first attempts – a white blob where the tesla coil should be. the prompt had a paragraph on exposure. it did not help. • both models overcorrect in the fix loop: "too bright" becomes "almost black". round two is where it lands. same four scenes, 6 calls and $0.15 against 12 calls and $1.25!

thehype.

62,603 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

SAKANA FUGU ULTRA vs. CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 RESULTS Prompt: "build a really high quality single html file crossy road game with three.js" Sakana Fugu Ultra: - Tokens Used: ~89k ($7.32) - Time Elapsed: 22 minutes - Issues: inverted directional turn, wonky camera, no sfx, not identical to Crossy Road game Claude Opus 4.8 Ultracode: - Tokens Used: ~940k (~$37.85) - Time elapsed: 79 minutes - Issues: got stuck twice in a retry loop (had to prompt to self-correct), wrong character position after restart, difficult from the start (whereas Fugu's version got significantly more difficult as you progress, which is the correct behaviour) I think in terms of application functionality, quality, and design, Opus won. In terms of model speed and performance, Fugu on Opencode won. What are your thoughts? Comment down below who you think won! ⬇️

SAKANA FUGU ULTRA vs. CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 RESULTS Prompt: "build a really high quality single html file crossy road game with three.js" Sakana Fugu Ultra: - Tokens Used: ~89k ($7.32) - Time Elapsed: 22 minutes - Issues: inverted directional turn, wonky camera, no sfx, not identical to Crossy Road game Claude Opus 4.8 Ultracode: - Tokens Used: ~940k (~$37.85) - Time elapsed: 79 minutes - Issues: got stuck twice in a retry loop (had to prompt to self-correct), wrong character position after restart, difficult from the start (whereas Fugu's version got significantly more difficult as you progress, which is the correct behaviour) I think in terms of application functionality, quality, and design, Opus won. In terms of model speed and performance, Fugu on Opencode won. What are your thoughts? Comment down below who you think won! ⬇️

Mark Santos

685,792 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

FREE DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash API. Runtime by Bad Theory Labs just dropped it. Same platform, new free model, same 2-minute setup. > Runtime already gave you free Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 access. Now they added DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash to the free tier. Absolutely FREE, YES. Same exact flow as before: → Go to runtime(.)badtheorylabs(.)com → Sign up with Google → Fill in your details during onboarding → Free balance lands automatically(But you don't need it to use DeepSeek - it's completely free right now) → Grab your API key from the dashboard → Plug into OpenCode, OpenClaw, or Hermes - done DeepSeek V4 Pro is one of the strongest coding and reasoning models available right now. Free tier also includes btl-2 - auto-routes between GLM, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemma. 10 million tokens per month at zero cost. 344 models total. One OpenAI-compatible endpoint. No code rebuild, no card, no limits hunting. >> Just start using the API, and when choosing a provider, select DeepSeek I tested it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before the free tier fills up.

FREE DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash API. Runtime by Bad Theory Labs just dropped it. Same platform, new free model, same 2-minute setup. > Runtime already gave you free Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 access. Now they added DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash to the free tier. Absolutely FREE, YES. Same exact flow as before: → Go to runtime(.)badtheorylabs(.)com → Sign up with Google → Fill in your details during onboarding → Free balance lands automatically(But you don't need it to use DeepSeek - it's completely free right now) → Grab your API key from the dashboard → Plug into OpenCode, OpenClaw, or Hermes - done DeepSeek V4 Pro is one of the strongest coding and reasoning models available right now. Free tier also includes btl-2 - auto-routes between GLM, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemma. 10 million tokens per month at zero cost. 344 models total. One OpenAI-compatible endpoint. No code rebuild, no card, no limits hunting. >> Just start using the API, and when choosing a provider, select DeepSeek I tested it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before the free tier fills up.

Atenov int.

27,487 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

29,033 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

MiMo-X-Pro-Preview vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash the difference in quality is honestly insane, MiMo X Pro Preview, especially when paired with MiMo-Flash-Preview, feels noticeably ahead You can already tell the kind of benchmark scores MiMo must be hitting right now. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is good and fast, but MiMo feels like it’s playing in a completely different league, It’s still only in beta for now, but I really hope Xiaomi releases this model soon! , And huge congratulations to the DeepSeek as well for building such a fast and genuinely good model

MiMo-X-Pro-Preview vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash the difference in quality is honestly insane, MiMo X Pro Preview, especially when paired with MiMo-Flash-Preview, feels noticeably ahead You can already tell the kind of benchmark scores MiMo must be hitting right now. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is good and fast, but MiMo feels like it’s playing in a completely different league, It’s still only in beta for now, but I really hope Xiaomi releases this model soon! , And huge congratulations to the DeepSeek as well for building such a fast and genuinely good model

Iam_

19,075 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

deepseek v4.1 flash vs secret model tested both with the same prompt at the highest reasoning available > v4.1 flash took 2 hours to finish both tests and cost $2.60 > secret model finished both in 30 minutes, can’t reveal cost yet v4.1 flash spent a lot of time overthinking and running random tests, which slowed it down thanks AIHubmix for providing api access so i could test v4.1 flash hoping that team will cut down the overthinking before the full release, but for now here are the results which model did better here?

deepseek v4.1 flash vs secret model tested both with the same prompt at the highest reasoning available > v4.1 flash took 2 hours to finish both tests and cost $2.60 > secret model finished both in 30 minutes, can’t reveal cost yet v4.1 flash spent a lot of time overthinking and running random tests, which slowed it down thanks AIHubmix for providing api access so i could test v4.1 flash hoping that team will cut down the overthinking before the full release, but for now here are the results which model did better here?

J A Z I I

28,763 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen