---
type: xpost
source_url: https://x.com/atomic_chat_hq/status/2072446067962978411
author: "@atomic_chat_hq"
author_name: atomic.chat
posted: 2026-07-01
engagement:
  likes: 4005
  reposts: 309
  quotes: 82
  replies: 168
  bookmarks: 2028
  views: 1730000
posted_by: "@NetLightning"
posted_by_name: Netbits ⚡️ Stachelbanane
posted_by_id: 303303834
posted_in: OME-Gruppe
posted_in_topic: "News & Infos"
posted_date: 2026-07-02
tags: [xpost, coding-benchmark, fable5, gpt-5.5, opus-4.8, glm-5.2, price-performance, one-shot, html5-canvas, physics-simulation, chinese-models, cost-routing]
---

# atomic.chat — Coding Benchmark: Fable 5 vs GPT 5.5 vs Opus 4.8 vs GLM 5.2

## Original Post

> Fable 5 crushed a coding contest, but cost 6x more than Opus 4.8.
>
> 4 models got the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos:
> 1. A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water
> 2. Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon
> 3. A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars

## Results (One-Shot, Same Prompt)

| Model | Tokens | Cost | Grade | Notes |
|-------|--------|------|-------|-------|
| **Fable 5** (Anthropic) | 62,158 | $3.12 | **A+** | Best quality, all three scenes |
| **GPT 5.5** (OpenAI) | 37,753 | $1.14 | A− | Close to Fable, beat it on monster truck scene |
| **Opus 4.8** (Anthropic) | 22,280 | $0.56 | — | (Grade not specified in post) |
| **GLM 5.2** (Z.ai) | 36,246 | $0.08 | B+ | Cheapest by far, competitive but didn't win any scene |

## Cost-Performance Matrix

| Metric | Fable 5 | GPT 5.5 | Opus 4.8 | GLM 5.2 |
|--------|---------|---------|----------|---------|
| Cost | $3.12 | $1.14 | $0.56 | **$0.08** |
| Tokens | 62,158 | 37,753 | 22,280 | 36,246 |
| Cost per 1K tokens | $0.050 | $0.030 | $0.025 | **$0.002** |
| vs Fable 5 cost | 1× | 2.7× cheaper | 5.6× cheaper | **39× cheaper** |
| Quality grade | A+ | A− | — | B+ |

**Key finding:** GLM 5.2 is **39× cheaper than Fable 5** while remaining competitive (B+ grade). Opus 4.8 is 5.6× cheaper than Fable 5 with lowest token count.

## Key Takeaways from Replies

| User | Takeaway |
|------|----------|
| @Krysoph | GLM 5.2 could be better with more iterations + vision model assistance |
| @suzzvsworld | "GLM at $0.08 and still competitive is the real story. Chinese models are making the price conversation impossible to ignore" |
| @rohanpaul_ai | Quality scales with spend; would love to see test with strict max-token limit |
| @debugging_yami | GPT 5.5 best value — nearly par with Fable at 1/3 cost |

## Context Notes

- **Test type:** One-shot, same prompt, no iteration — measures raw generation quality per dollar
- **Task domain:** HTML5 Canvas physics simulations (derailing train, mid-air car collision, monster truck crushing)
- **Engagement:** 1.73M views, 4K likes, 2K bookmarks — viral resonance indicates market hunger for transparent cost-performance comparisons
- **Narrative:** Reinforces [[../../wiki/concepts/llm/chinese-model-cost-routing.md]] thesis — Chinese models (GLM 5.2) make price-performance conversation impossible to ignore
- **GLM 5.2 at $0.08:** This is the hardest data point yet for the "39× cheaper" narrative. Previous benchmark: DeRonin's 87% cost-cut (5-12× per task). This is 39× on a single task.

## Cross-References

- [[../../wiki/concepts/llm/glm-5.2-zai-coding-model.md]] — GLM 5.2 deep-dive
- [[../../wiki/concepts/llm/chinese-model-cost-routing.md]] — DeRonin's 87% cost-cut playbook
- [[../../wiki/concepts/llm/ai-investment-bubble.md]] — Cost pressure narrative
- [[../../wiki/tools/anthropic-claude.md]] — Fable 5 + Opus 4.8
- [[../../wiki/tools/openai-gpt.md]] — GPT 5.5
- [[../../wiki/concepts/llm/real-world-coding-showdown.md]] — Fahd Mirza's head-to-head methodology

## External Links

- [Original X Post](https://x.com/atomic_chat_hq/status/2072446067962978411)
- [atomic.chat](https://atomic.chat)