• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Rohan Paul Shares Fable 5.1 Cost Test Results

    Rohan Paul reports Fable 5.1 costs far more than GPT-5.6 Sol on a Three.js test.

    RP
    3 Sources, 29d ago, first seen 29d ago

    TLDR

    Rohan Paul posted a comparison from an AI/ML API 1-shot Three.js test. He stated Fable 5.1 cost $5.69 while GPT-5.6 Sol cost $0.88. Paul noted Fable used the higher spend on scene density including waves, shoreline depth, thousands of chandelier crystals, a larger water-park structure, and smoother helicopter motion. The post includes a 32-second video of side-by-side 3D renders. Paul is identified in the post as a Bengaluru-based machine learning engineer and creator.

    Combined views

    26.4K

    3 Sources, first seen 29d ago

    Combined views

    26.4K

    3 Sources, first seen 29d ago

    121 likes
    121 likes
    15 comments
    33 saves
    24 reposts
    15 comments
    33 saves
    24 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    3 Sources

    @rohanpaul_aiFable 5.1's cost gap is still huge. On AI/ML API's (@aimlapi) 1-shot Three.js test, Fable 5.1 cost $5.69 versus $0.88 for GPT-5.6 Sol. Fable spent that extra budget on scene density: waves, shoreline depth, thousands of chandelier crystals, a much larger water-park structure, smoother helicopter motion. Sol produced less detail, but kept the same low-poly visual language across all 5 independently generated scenes. And both still made basic state mistakes. Fable rendered the pool without water. Sol simplified some scenes enough that important geometry disappeared. This is a nice example of why "better coding model" gets fuzzy once the output is a whole visual system. You are trading off object count, physical plausibility, cross-scene consistency, instruction coverage, and inference cost at the same time. you can try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com

    3 Sources

    @rohanpaul_aiFable 5.1's cost gap is still huge. On AI/ML API's (@aimlapi) 1-shot Three.js test, Fable 5.1 cost $5.69 versus $0.88 for GPT-5.6 Sol. Fable spent that extra budget on scene density: waves, shoreline depth, thousands of chandelier crystals, a much larger water-park structure, smoother helicopter motion. Sol produced less detail, but kept the same low-poly visual language across all 5 independently generated scenes. And both still made basic state mistakes. Fable rendered the pool without water. Sol simplified some scenes enough that important geometry disappeared. This is a nice example of why "better coding model" gets fuzzy once the output is a whole visual system. You are trading off object count, physical plausibility, cross-scene consistency, instruction coverage, and inference cost at the same time. you can try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com