跳到正文
Rohan Paul· @rohanpaul_ai · X·· 2026-09-03AI 评分61
AI 导读

@thehypedotnews 用 Three.js 让 Fable 5.1、Fable 5 和 Opus 5 分别从单张参考图程序化重建 bag end、barad-dûr、rivendell 三个《魔戒》场景,全程经 OpenRouter 运行。

正文 · 原文

Fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5

cool experiments by @thehypedotnews

the test gave Fable 5, 5.1, and Opus 5 the same reference scenes and asked each to recreate them procedurally from scratch in Three.js.

Fable 5 was both the cheapest and the fastest, but fable 5.1 stood out on visual detail.

This test also exposed a token constraint because Fable 5.1 spent 102,116 tokens reasoning and hit its output ceiling before finishing the file.

Anthropic documents a 128K maximum output for Fable 5.1, and current-turn thinking counts against that same limit, so heavy reasoning can leave less room for code. If the model spends too much of it thinking, it can hit the 128k limit before finishing a large codebase.

引用thehype.@thehypedotnews
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 @threejs 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: @anthropicai 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 @thehypedotnews for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
在 X 查看被引用的帖子

来源:Rohan Paul · x.com