Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
3 posts71 likes12.9K views
Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol in real side-by-side tests: 3 posts from X where both got the same prompt; 2 posts report cost or time. Judge coding ability from the actual outputs.
Posts
3
Same prompt, separate runs
3Not a controlled comparison: prompts, tools and time differ.
Summary
Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol appear together in 3 posts on X: self-solving Rubik's cube, 3 models (@anyapi_ai), Gargantua from Interstellar, 4 models (@AiHubMix) and No Man's Sky from scratch, 4 models (@remakebench). All are part of larger lineups with other models. In @anyapi_ai's self-solving Rubik's cube, 3 models, GPT-5.6 Sol was cheaper ($1.53 vs $3.16) and used fewer tokens (8.6K tokens vs 10.7K tokens), as reported in the post. In @remakebench's No Man's Sky from scratch, 4 models, GPT-5.6 Sol was cheaper ($20.84 vs $280.14) and faster (1 h 30 min vs 2 h 05 min), as reported in the post.
What each post reports
| Post | Model | Time | Cost | Tokens | Lines of code | Original |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-solving Rubik's cube, 3 models@anyapi_ai | GPT-5.6 Sol | — | $1.53 | 8,612 | 825 | X post |
| Self-solving Rubik's cube, 3 models@anyapi_ai | Claude Fable 5 | — | $3.16 | 10,725 | 465 | X post |
| Gargantua from Interstellar, 4 models@AiHubMix | GPT-5.6 Sol | — | — | — | — | X post |
| Gargantua from Interstellar, 4 models@AiHubMix | Claude Fable 5 | — | — | — | — | X post |
| No Man's Sky from scratch, 4 models@remakebench | Claude Fable 5 | 2 h 05 min | $280.14 | — | — | X post |
| No Man's Sky from scratch, 4 models@remakebench | GPT-5.6 Sol | 1 h 30 min | $20.84 | — | — | X post |
Only numbers stated in each post. “—” means the post doesn’t say.
Prompts shown in the posts
a fully functional 3D Rubik's Cube simulation in one HTML file, using Three.js via CDN, with automatic self-solving — @anyapi_ai
recreate Gargantua from Interstellar as an animated, self-contained HTML/WebGL scene — @AiHubMix