The argument in one line.
Fable 5 does not just produce better output than Opus 4.8 -- it self-corrects on visual design, orchestrates parallel agents, and finishes 15 to 20 minutes faster, making the gap feel generational rather than incremental.
Read if. Skip if.
READ IF YOU ARE…
- You are deciding whether to move from Opus 4.8 to Fable 5 for agentic coding work and want raw, unedited session evidence rather than benchmark scores.
- You use Cursor with Claude and want to see how the two models behave differently as agent orchestrators on long multi-file builds.
- You are building something visual in a single session and care about how well the model prompts downstream image generators.
- You are on a Claude Max plan and want a real-world cost-per-build estimate before usage-based pricing activates.
SKIP IF…
- You need controlled benchmarks -- this is one developer session, not a systematic study.
- You are evaluating models for writing, summarization, or analysis -- every test here is agentic coding.
The full version, fast.
Same prompt, three builds, two models side by side in Cursor: Fable 5 consistently outpaces Opus 4.8 on both speed and quality. For the e-commerce build it produced a cleaner storefront with better AI-generated product photography, finishing 15 minutes faster. For the 3D art museum it delivered a fully navigable gallery with nearly 800 Wikipedia paintings, while Opus 4.8 gallery click-to-enter broke due to a canvas event conflict. For the Age of Empires clone Fable 5 shipped a playable 3D RTS with realistic textures; Opus 4.8 produced broken blobs. Fable 5 costs roughly 37% more per build but uses fewer output tokens, and its self-directed design corrections and autonomous agent spawning set it apart beyond raw output quality.
Free for members
Chat with this breakdown — free.
Sign in and you get 23 free chat messages on us — ask for the hook, quote a framework, find the exact transcript moment, generate a markdown action plan. Bring your own key when you want unlimited.
Create a free account →Where the time goes.
00:00 – 00:23
01 · Cold open + premise
Three builds, same rules, results were not even close.
00:24 – 02:47
02 · Build 01: E-commerce setup
Slow Burn candle store prompt, usage tracker intro, both models suggest same three brand directions.
02:47 – 04:39
03 · Opus 4.8 e-commerce review
Readable but imperfect: awkward hero placement, clunky nav, overly granular filters.
04:39 – 07:00
04 · Fable 5 e-commerce review
Cleaner Shopify aesthetic, better GPT Image 2 prompting, ritual-based filters, polished footer.
07:00 – 07:59
05 · Build 01 cost breakdown
Opus $21.41 vs Fable 5 $36.84; Fable 5 15 min faster and more token-efficient.
08:01 – 10:27
06 · Build 02: 3D art museum setup
Zoomable art-history timeline, Wikipedia API, Neon DB, realistic Three.js galleries.
10:27 – 13:05
07 · Live build narration
Fable 5 self-corrects lighting, spawns parallel agents, handles Wikipedia edge cases.
13:05 – 14:07
08 · Opus 4.8 museum review
Atlas of Art -- color-coded timeline works, but gallery click-to-enter is broken.
14:07 – 16:52
09 · Fable 5 museum review
Star-map timeline, 767 paintings, walkable Degas gallery, GSAP animations.
16:52 – 17:22
10 · Build 02 cost breakdown
Opus $46 vs Fable 5 $64; Fable 5 37% more expensive but 36% fewer output tokens.
17:23 – 18:35
11 · Build 03: Age of Empires setup
Full 3D RTS in the browser, Three.js, town center, enemies, buildings.
18:35 – 19:14
12 · Opus 4.8 game review
Broken blobs, no camera movement, non-functional controls.
19:15 – 20:48
13 · Fable 5 game review
Empires of Dawn -- realistic terrain, navigable map, buildable structures, armored enemies.
20:49 – 21:11
14 · Closing
Quality bar is now set; Opus 4.8 cannot match it. Anthropic planned this.
Lines worth screenshotting.
- Fable 5 finished all three builds 15 to 20 minutes faster than Opus 4.8 on identical prompts.
- Fewer output tokens does not mean less code -- Fable 5 was more token-efficient and still produced more working functionality.
- A model that proactively corrects its own visual design decisions without being asked is qualitatively different from one that only executes instructions.
- The 3D art museum ingested 767 paintings from Wikipedia into a Neon database in roughly 30 minutes from a single one-shot prompt.
- Fable 5 costs approximately 37% more per build than Opus 4.8 at equivalent complexity, due to higher per-token pricing despite lower token count.
- Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 independently suggested the same three brand direction names for the candle store.
- An Age of Empires-quality browser RTS with a navigable 3D world and working unit controls was produced in one shot in 30 minutes.
- The $64 cost for a 3D museum with nearly 1,000 Wikipedia paintings is roughly equivalent to one month of a Shopify subscription.
- Two complex builds burned through 40% of a Claude Max 20x subscription in 30 minutes.
- Fable 5 autonomous agent spawning and self-queuing during the museum build represents a step-change in long agentic sessions.
What the Fable 5 gap means for builders.
WHAT TO LEARN
A faster, more token-efficient model that corrects its own design decisions mid-build changes what you can expect from a single-session prompt.
- Speed compounds: a 15-minute difference per build adds up fast when you iterate on multiple projects in a day.
- Token efficiency is not the same as output quality -- Fable 5 used fewer output tokens on every build while producing more working code.
- A model that proactively flags and fixes its own visual mistakes is operating as a collaborator, not just an executor.
- One-shot agent orchestration -- spawning parallel sub-agents and self-coordinating -- is now a real capability, not a demo trick.
- Usage-based pricing makes cost-per-build a first-class decision: $21 vs. $37 for an e-commerce site, $46 vs. $64 for a database-backed 3D app.
- Image prompting quality is now an emergent model capability -- neither model was given instructions on how to prompt GPT Image 2, yet outputs differed dramatically.
- The same high-level prompt resulted in one model producing a broken game and the other a playable 3D RTS -- the prompt was not the variable.
- Subscription caps become a real operational constraint: two 30-minute builds can consume 40% of a Claude Max 20x plan.
Terms worth knowing.
- One-shot
- A build completed from a single prompt with no revisions -- the model must plan, implement, debug, and deploy entirely on its own.
- Dynamic workflows
- A Claude feature that splits a large task across a swarm of parallel agents; tested in a prior video and found underwhelming for the same e-commerce build.
- Neon DB
- A serverless Postgres database used in the museum build to store artist and painting records extracted from Wikipedia.
- GSAP
- GreenSock Animation Platform -- a JavaScript animation library used for smooth card transitions in the museum timeline.
- GPT Image 2
- The image generation model used by both Claude models to produce the 30 product images for the Slow Burn candle store.
- Claude Max 20x
- An Anthropic subscription tier with 20x the usage of the standard plan; both sessions ran on a single Max account.
- Usage-based pricing
- Anthropic pricing where charges are based on token consumption rather than a flat subscription rate -- Fable 5 transitions to this within weeks of recording.
- Three.js
- A JavaScript library for WebGL-based 3D rendering in the browser, used for both the art museum galleries and the Age of Empires clone.
Things they pointed at.
00:40productClaude dynamic workflows
05:08toolGPT Image 2
Lines you could clip.
00:20
“The results were, I'll be honest, not even close.”
10:56
“The pitch black floor in the museum screenshot bothers me. Let me look at the floor and lighting settings. It is really quite opinionated -- the first time I've ever seen something like that.”
20:40
“We will now be getting used to a certain level of quality that just cannot be matched by Opus 4.8, which is surely Anthropic's plan all along.”
Word for word.
Read-along
Don't just watch it. Burn it in.
See every word as it's spoken — crank it to 2× and still catch all of it. The same dual-channel trick behind Amazon's Kindle + Audible.
So I just gave the exact same prompt to Opus four eight and Claude's brand new flagship model Fable five across three builds, a fully functioning ecommerce store, an entire three d world of famous art pieces, and finally, an Age of Empires clone. Same rules for both models, a single one shot output, no revisions, deployed live in the Internet.
This is Opus four eight versus Fable five head to head, and the results were, I'll be honest, not even close.
First up, we are going to build out a full ecommerce site. So I actually ran this exact build in a recent video testing Claude's dynamic workflows, which is their new feature where Claude splits a big job across a swarm of parallel agents, and I was really underwhelmed with the performance. Even with the ultra code dynamic workflows that spawned like 30 plus agents, it got a store up, but then it missed a lot of the UI stuff.
Like every product looked identical. There was no labels. There wasn't even a hero image on the landing page.
So we're gonna run it again. We're gonna hand the same prompt to Fable five on the left and Opus four eight on the right, and we're gonna give Opus a chance to redeem itself. I did also revise the prompt a little to give them more of a chance.
So calling out the product labeling this time and other stuff in the prompt sort of avoid some of these egregious mistakes that I made last time. And this one build is gonna test out a lot at once. So we have landing page and ecommerce design.
We have the database underneath. We have the entire architecture of all of this. So this could actually be useful, especially if you're, I don't know, moving away from platform like Shopify or building out features or trying to build out a whole ecom platform.
So we'll see how both of these do. So here is the prompt. Build me a complete e commerce store for a fictional brand called Slow Burn, a small batch candle company, production quality mimicking a real Shopify store, 30 distinct products, every product image must be visually distinct, all text must be readable, no low contrast text.
Any of those pitfalls that I fell into last time, hopefully, will be missed. And I do have a check-in here even though it's technically not a one shot, but I just wanna see the different design directions that Fable five goes to versus Opus four eight. But that's the only tweaking we're gonna do.
There's no there's no other revisions. So alright. It's already giving me quiet.
Can't pronounce that. Apoth apothecary? Dark ritual modern wellness.
It's already giving me ideas. Whatever. Okay.
So I guess, yeah, fun. I bet Opus four eight is gonna do the same thing. By the way too, I built this usage tracker so we can see exactly the input tokens, output tokens, and the estimated costs if it were to be usage based pricing, which Fable five will go to in a couple weeks.
So you can see the difference in costs there, and I'll also let you know how long each of these builds take. So we'll have it across the ecommerce store, three d army examine, age of empires. This is funny too.
Opus four eight give the exact same options. Warm apothecary, darkritual, editorialcom as Fable five.
Fable five is on the image generation step waiting for an agent to generate all 30 of these images. Claude is still moving through the rest of this build. So Fable five is faster than Opus four eight, dare I say.
And Slowburn is live both from Fable five and Opus four eight. So we're gonna look at Opus four eight's output first. A little link here for opus four eight.
And here is slow burn, rituals for people who work too much. Okay. Not bad.
It's a little bit better than the dynamic workflows example. At least the text is readable. However, I see some little things here and they're already like small batch candle code.
It just doesn't read well. The candle placement really should be placed on the right, not the left because it's hard to read over the text. That's something that, I don't know, I feel like it's relatively simple for the models to notice.
And then we kinda had this weird CTA here. I don't love that button. But let's keep scrolling.
Okay. It's the slow burn idea. You don't need another productivity app, yada yada.
Okay. So it breaks it up by categories. Alright.
Nice little nice little animation. Nothing real new there. Okay.
The actual image generations, they look better. We actually have labels on these candles now, not like last time where there was no labels. And they're yeah.
They're big. We got a nice little studio type setting. Nice little animation, little hover animation on these.
We've got the catalog here. We'll click that in a second. Okay.
And then we have some, like, you know, classic proof points. I don't love these these section colors and then nice lit clock out on a Tuesday and oh, clock out is then candle.
Got it. And actually closed my laptop first time in a month. Attired customer.
Nice. Okay. Nice.
Nice. Little touch. And then we have the footer here.
Alright. Yeah. Not bad.
Let's check out the categories first. Okay. A little all over the place.
Why would you think that this is a proper filter? I mean, are just so many. But okay.
We can filter by alright. That's kind of weird. Unclick each of these.
Blood orange did a good job of categorizing these candles. And then we have these categories based on I guess your use case, morning ritual, deep work, unwind, sleep.
That's not bad. It's not bad. The featured tab here.
What else? Okay. Let's just click into one of these candles.
Alright. I mean, it's readable this time again. And then we have this nice little see more at the bottom, add to cart.
Alright. Oh, nice. Nice little nice little drawer open there.
And this cart here kinda looks like a trash can though. It's a little confusing, but everything is readable. This is a surprise.
Okay. Navbar. Alright.
That's just terrible UX. I I don't know why it thinks that selecting these. The navbar like that, whatever.
Okay. Our story. Alright.
Not bad. It was better than the last dynamic workflows demo. However, let's see how Fable five matches up.
So I got that link from cursor here. Let me just open this up. Still that funky font, but way cleaner.
We've got this nice little I don't know what you call this little notification thing at the top. It's a classic ecom thing. I've got these nice flavors, guess, kind of rotating, much better buttons.
We have this nice gradient here in the background. The header image calls out the candle like the CTAs as a whole. Yeah.
This is just much cleaner of a header at least. Interesting. Yeah.
Even these images, it's it's it's funny how the, like, model is smart enough to know how to prompt the image generation model, in this case, GBT image two. Like, I didn't give any prompting on how to prompt the model, but it did a way better job of capturing this sort of candle aesthetic type shoot with these little, you know, these little branches and shadows and sun and textured backgrounds, all that kind of stuff.
Even the colors of the candles looks better, and then it just nice subtle little zoom in here on these. Then we have a nice view all candles. Okay.
This is nice too. Shop by ritual, morning rituals, deep work, unwind, what happens? Okay.
Cool. So that's way better filters here as a whole. Nice little product call out.
Go here. Nice. Looks good.
Very similar drawer. Nice little step one, two, three. Here's how to use a candle case you didn't realize.
A nice little testimonial here, email. Oh, I like that. I like that footer.
That's a nice touch. Okay. Yeah.
I mean, I think you see the difference here. Our story. Okay.
Let's go to view all candles. Oh, and then a nice beautiful little three column grid here with all of the different candles. I mean, just nice touch.
So it like took this color from the candle and it knew to, you know, have something like with a similar color, just image prompting, really well done. Looking good. Look at all these.
I mean, again, g p t image two just never seems to amaze me. That's a completely separate aside, but yeah, this is a nice touch. Even like the the little, like, rainy day in the background, like, was it image prompting all of these as it went through one by one?
Like, that is just freaking impressive. Nice filters here. That's not filtered by the flavors, those ugly looking flavors that we had here.
This come on. Come on, Opus. What are you doing?
So I think we have a clear winner. Yeah. You can just see how Fable five is going extra mile and even the little stuff, the tiny details like image generation, like filtering the categories, the nav bar at the top here, even this little notification here, it just kind of matched like a ecommerce type feeling site.
So I think Fable five is the clear winner. Now how much would this have cost me in usage based pricing? So if we go to our tracker here, we can see that Opus $4.08, 198,000 output tokens estimated $21.41.
And then Fable five, a 188 k. Output tokens, so a little bit less, more token efficient, $36.84 equivalent.
Not bad for a entire ecommerce site. I mean, that's like what? One month in a Shopify bill?
And then speed wise, Fable five was probably fifteen minutes faster than Opus four eight, so thirty five ish minutes. Whereas Opus four eight was like closer to 50. So Fable five, at least for this build, despite what people are saying, seems to be faster than four eight.
So that's one point of the board, but one build, of course, doesn't settle everything just yet. Not to mention I'm having way too much fun with these builds. Anyway, so this next one I've been trying to build for literally years and no model has ever come close to pulling it off.
So let's go back into Cursor. I'm just like in the ecom build. We have Fable on the left and Opus on the right.
And what we're building is an interactive three d museum of art history. I am a total art history nerd. And one thing that's always bothered me is if you wanna actually understand the time period, the art pieces that are part of that, your options are basically a textbook or some kind of Wikipedia rabbit hole.
There's no real clear visualization for this. So what I wanna build is a zoomable timeline of every major art period. So you can zoom in to say Baroque and then the famous artists of that era show up.
You can click on Caravaggio for example, and you get this museum placard about him, and then you can actually look at his paintings in a full kind of three d Caravaggio gallery. We're gonna use the Wikimedia comments API to actually pull all of this from Wikipedia, and I'm gonna be extracting it into a database, in this case, Neon.
So this tests a bunch of things at once. First, architecting something this complex from scratch. Second, the actual data side, so extracting hundreds of paintings from Wikipedia, storing them, organizing them.
And then the third, this is the big one, the actual three d world itself and how realistic these models can make it. Because typically, you'll have an output that is just blobby, kind of ugly three JS, but I really want it to look realistic and have shading and lighting and have it be beautiful, like just an immersive experience across the board.
So here is the prompt. Build me an interactive three d art museum of art history that runs in the browser, the timeline, basically everything that I explained, infinite canvas timeline, you go into different artists, has all the different periods, museum view, data all from Wikipedia API, visual quality, and I just emphasize this cannot be a lazy three JS demo.
Make the galleries as realistic as possible, lighting, tone mapping, all of that. Fable five is already asking me about the design direction, but I told it to just come up with three design directions. So I'm gonna say, like I said, just do all three.
Opus is asking me the same thing like I told Fable five. I'm just gonna copy exactly what I told Fable five. Already ran into an issue that Opus four eight called out, public domain constraint versus modern art.
So things like Picasso, Daldi, etcetera, they're not in public domain, so we can't actually get their images. Surprised we can't just take these from Wikipedia. I'm actually gonna push back on that because I think this is just a free app.
I don't see why it can't just include those as images. So apparently, is a copyright thing. Claude's refusing to extract these images, which is fine.
We'll just use the images that are in the public domain for now. So interestingly, Fable five is looks to be done with its output faster than OPUS four eight.
Fable five is testing in the Claw Chrome extension right now, which I'm not looking at, I promise, and it's going through, like, zoom scroll wheels. This is actually something I've ran into quite a bit doing this exact build in the past where the actual zoom, the pan, the movement is is terrible. So it's good that it's actually finding those issues already.
And then Opus four eight, still just building this out. I can just see a lot of things that Fable five is picking up on that is just really complex. This is like needle in the haystack type stuff.
Francis Bacon failed because his article title is Francis Bacon, parentheses artist. So the derived category name is wrong. I don't know even know what that means, but the fact that it's going through all of these different artists, there's probably hundreds of artists here.
It's finding these errors. Oh, I see what happened because in Wikipedia, there's also probably another Francis Bacon that's not an artist. So the parenthesis artist is throwing off the entire category as a whole.
Pretty darn impressive. Another thing I noticed too with Fable five is it's saying, still editing. Meanwhile, the pitch black floor in the museum screenshot bothers me.
Let me look at the floor and lighting settings. Like, it is really quite opinionated even with design, which that is the first time I've ever seen something like that. Fable five two finished probably fifteen minutes before Claude, and it's just been queuing its work the entire time.
Status check so far on Fable five, sixteen periods, sixteen hours, 767 paintings in our NEO database. We have a few timeline views for me to react to.
I'm not gonna look at those yet, and then it's also working on the museum view as a whole. It's also doing a good job of just, like, coordinating agents. So it looks like it has a bunch of different agents here.
It's saying that agent will reinvoke me when it finishes. I'll continue then. So it's just working on stuff in the meantime on its own and then spawning parallel agents.
So it seems to be a pretty good agent orchestrator as a whole. Meanwhile, we've got opus four eight still humming through this build. Okay.
Infable five is officially finished. Let's take a look at it in a second. I'm gonna give Opus four eight a second to catch up.
It looks like it's QA ing its work right now, but that took probably, I'd say, thirty minutes. I'm also almost out of my usage already. I started at, like, 65% usage on the max 20 x subscription plan.
So between the two of these, it burned through almost 40% of my usage in, like, thirty minutes. That's pretty wild. So literally about twenty minutes later, Claude or Opus 40 is running into the same issue that Fable five had twenty minutes ago, where it's this pointer moving around the actual space.
So we'll see how it navigates this. It is actually quite interesting that Fable five is that much faster than 4.8. That definitely did not seem to be the case in all of the demos I've seen.
You can see it's been coding for forty three minutes now. Alright. Let's check out Opus four eight's three d museum first.
Art history, zoom through nine centuries. Enter the Atlas. Okay.
Okay. We've got a we've got a timeline view. I actually like how it color coded this.
Got some nice overlapping with early Renaissance, Northern Renaissance. Is this a proper canvas?
Can I zoom in? Oh, I can. Look at that.
Oh, nice. So they, like, kinda pop up. Ba boom.
Ba boom. It's a little scattered. They're kinda bleeding into each other.
But this is not bad. Not bad at all. Oopus.
Okay. That's where it gets messy. I click in.
No. No. It just isn't working.
I can't click in anymore. Okay. For some okay.
I think it's getting the canvases like canvas movement is overlapping the actual click.
So I can't actually click into these people. View is not bad. I just can't get into the galleries which is kind of annoying that it's broken.
Agent should have QA'd this. These are kinda messy too. Would have been nice to get into the galleries.
We have some other views here. These are just like different types of categories and art movements. This cosmos, I see where it's going with this.
It's a little messy. So I'm in Opus for it. This is probably the best output I've seen.
I've tried this on other models. This is probably when it comes to actual organization and a visual hierarchy.
It did a good job of just me telling it, you know, create a timeline and add artists that way. So that is Opus four eight. Kinda failed a little bit because we didn't actually see the museum gallery, but let's see if Fable five did any better.
So we'll go to five here. View. And k.
I'm liking where this is going. So it did kind of that, like, astrological motif, but a much better job than Opus.
So it's just like it has a nice little timeline. Let me zoom in and like the stars are, you know, people and they kind of like overlap depending on what their when they lived. Pretty sweet.
So you can like zoom in. You could see all the different artists that are featured, you know, in the Northern Renaissance. If you zoom out enough, they like change to little dots.
It's a nice little touch. And then as you zoom in, there's no like overlap between all these people. And it's doing some sort of relation.
I don't know what it is, but these are like connecting to themselves. I'm not sure if that was intentional, if that's just an accident. So really clean.
This is actually exactly what I pictured when I pictured like this moving kind of zoom in infinite canvas timeline. So let's actually go to an artist now. Let's go, uh, let's go dig a nice little click animation there.
We got a little GSAP action. I did request some GSAP. Let's click it one more time.
It's cool. You can like, you know, you can like learn about these. This is who Renoir was.
This is Manet. Let's go into Degas. So Degas and Manet technically should be connected if we're we're being picky because they were friends in real life.
Little fun fact. For that aside, let's go into Degas. Okay.
Here's the gallery. I'm I'm liking what I'm seeing already. Click to enter.
Very cool. Very freaking cool. Wow.
This is awesome. Oh my goodness. So you can move around.
It just just the left and right arrow here and I can move around with my mouse here to actually look at these paintings. I mean, look how cool this is. And then I can walk and look.
This is incredible. They gotta love painting ballerinas by the way and horses. Big ballerina horses guy.
Uh, this is incredible. I mean, imagine having this as a kid. How much more fun would you have learning if you're able to do something like this?
You can go in, you can look at this, you can click into it, we can learn all about this. I mean, this is incredible. This is so freaking cool.
And this is all just from Wikipedia. And it did this across hundreds of artists. Like what?
A thousand painting? Almost a thousand paintings? Fable five, no surprise.
Actually, I am pretty surprised because it's the first time I've seen a model that actually is able to achieve this level of detail and interactivity. The motions are really fluid. We have all the paintings just extracted everything so easily in, like, literally, like, what, thirty minutes.
So definitely have to give this to Fable five considering Opus four eight. I couldn't actually click into the gallery to actually see the gallery. I am curious how Opus four eight designed the gallery, but those are rules.
We only gave Opus four eight one shot. So let's now just look over at costs. Refresh this.
It's four eight, 51,000 input tokens, 437,000 output tokens, estimated cost about $46. Then Fable five, fifty four thousand input, 280,000 output.
Interesting. So it's less output tokens. I wonder if that's right.
Yeah. So it's much more token efficient. I mean, that's what Anthropic said in their announcement, but about 37% more expensive.
So if you think about the actual usage based pricing here, comes into effect in a couple weeks, you're gonna be paying like $64 for this kind of build. Is it worth it?
Probably not. Anyway, moving on. So in my Fable five announcement video, I had it one shot a roller coaster tycoon style game, and it actually worked, which was really impressive.
But the game, it was it was two d if I'm being picky. It was a little too pixelated for my liking. So instead, we're gonna put it to the test with a favorite of mine from my childhood, Age of Empires.
So this thing's gonna be a whole new beast. We're gonna have a full three d world. We're gonna have dozens of units.
We're gonna have enemies that attack you, a whole kind of, like, building the civilization component. I highly doubt it will get even close to this, but we're gonna put it to the test and see both with Fable five and Opus four eight. So we'll open cursor, Fable five on the left, Opus four eight on the right, and paste in this prompt.
Build me a fully playable Age of Empires style real time strategy game in the browser. Core loop all in a full three d world, three JS or WebGL equivalent. I start with the town center, make it look like a real game, playable lighting, and then it's already asking which visual style?
Stylize a low poly recommended. No. I don't want that.
I want it real. Painterly realistic. Multi texture.
I honestly have no idea. It's funny. It's the exact same questions.
Okay. So that only took about thirty minutes. Thirty three minutes for Opus and thirty minutes for Fable five.
Now let's see which one is better. Opus first, Bronzedon, Forging the World.
Okay. Already not even close to Age of Empire graphics. I mean, are just blobs.
Can I move around? No. Left click select.
Every time I do these game demos, don't know how to play these things. It's just so confusing. Not intuitive.
I almost need Opus to just show me how to do it. Left click select. Okay.
I can select town center, bottom left here, right click move, gather attack, rally point set. Okay. Not sure what this that means.
House. Can't build there. There's not like a town center.
Can't zoom in. There's no movement. I think this app is not working.
Yeah. Okay. I'm not gonna waste any more time on this.
It looks like the completely broken. I can't even move like around the world. So Opus did not complete the task.
So let's see if Fable five is any better. Again, my expectations are relatively low. I know this is hard.
We'll go to Fable five's demo here. Empires of Dawn, begin your reign. Select with left click.
Drag command with right click. Okay. I'll figure it out.
Okay. Now we're talking. Woah.
Alright. Map moves. There's our civilization.
This is insane. This is I mean, this is exactly what the, like, graphics were. Like, this is just as good as Age of Empires.
This is wild. I mean, look at the freaking difference. Like, is like, this is not a single model upgrade just in terms of graphics.
Nothing else. I don't know what the actual gameplay is and I'm probably not gonna get too much of the gameplay because I never know how to play these actual games. But like, look at this freaking thing.
This is wild. So okay. Alright.
Let's just try to click some buttons here for idle. Okay. House.
Oh, nice. You can oh, wow. That's cool.
Look at this. Oh, my god. Alright.
Farm. Left click to place. Right.
That's and then it looks like we have, I don't know, some things over here, and then we have some these are the enemies. Look at this. They already have they already have armor.
I mean, I just cannot get over these graphics. This is insane. Enemy town center.
Do we attack them? This, by the way, is gonna be available on Steam, February. Okay.
What do we do here? I don't know. Less five population.
I don't know how to actually play these games, but it looks like it's fully playable. And, like, the map is navigable. Okay.
Not enough resources, I need it. I need resources? This.
Wow. Uh, Yeah. It just absolutely crushed it.
Like, I knew it was good at three d. I've seen some game demos of Fable five. They're really good, but, like, this is this is just on another level, especially compared to opus four eight.
I will let you be the judge, but I think we've got a clear winner here. I, of course, don't love this though because we will now be getting used to a certain level of quality that just cannot be matched by opus four eight, which is surely Anthropics plan all along. Anyway, let me know what I should be experimenting with next.
If you made it this far, I hope you had fun watching along. Be sure to leave a like, subscribe, helps out a ton. Now get back to building.
We've got less than two weeks of
The Hook
The bait, then the rug-pull.
Three builds. One prompt each. No revisions. Pat Simmons gave identical instructions to Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 simultaneously inside Cursor, deployed every output live, and filmed the results -- and the gap was, in his words, not even close.
Named ideas worth stealing.
00:00model
One-shot build comparison methodology
- Same prompt to both models
- No revisions after initial output
- Deploy live
- Measure: quality, speed, cost, token efficiency
A reproducible framework for comparing AI coding models on real-world agentic tasks rather than benchmarks.
Steal forEvaluating LLM upgrades for production coding workflows
How they asked for the click.
VERBAL ASK
20:55subscribe
“Let me know what I should be experimenting with next. Be sure to leave a like, subscribe, helps out a ton.”
Soft and brief -- comes after strong genuine enthusiasm so it lands naturally.
MENTIONED ON CAMERA
FROM THE DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY CTAWhere the creator wants you to go next.
OTHER LINKSAlso linked in the description.
Visual structure at a glance.
