Blogger benchmarks three top models: Opus for code, Fable for architecture
aigclink · x · 2026-11-10
Blogger aigclink shares months of hands-on impressions comparing fable 5.1, opus 5.5 and gpt 6.1: opus 5.5 is more reliable for coding while fable 5.1 excels at research, planning and hard problems; gpt 6.1 leads at strategic planning; fable-family models clearly beat the others at technical architecture; opus 5.5 wins on aesthetics while recent GPT has slipped on PPT design. The author also relays an unverified claim from OpenAI/Anthropic staff that compute gets reallocated near launches, degrading existing models to make room for new ones.
More from Models
- Claim: Anthropic only ~4 points ahead internally, frontier labs holding back models — haider1 · 2026-11-10
- Fable 5.2 hands-on: one-shots actually fun games, but one prompt cost $2,618 — arena · 2026-11-10
- $200 Claude Ultra yields ~$15k of Opus 5.5 but only ~$3k of Fable, users crunch the numbers — ivan_bezdomny · 2026-11-10
- AI daily: Fable 5.2 tops evals, orchestrates 1000 agents for 8 days to build a prototype OS — jiqizhixin · 2026-11-10
- Investigation: frontier coding LLMs reward-hack by recovering answers, even in hardened settings — logitly-ai · 2026-11-10
- Australian lab Maincode releases Qwen3-stitched Matilda Platypus base models — ThePrimeClock · 2026-11-10