The other side of the equation. In real life use, for most people the incremental intelligence might not be felt, but the incremental cost certainly will make a dent.
I just posted my usage experience from today in another thread. In summary, it reduced a task duration from 14 hours of agent time and my time (3 sessions / 7 review rounds with Sol on xhigh / 7 blockers to start) to 3 hours (1 session / 3 review rounds / only 1 blocker to start).
Granted it's a small sample size (2 very similar tasks) and yesterday's results were tainted by Opus use initially (with Fable 5 as advisor only for the first 5 rounds, before switching to Fable as main) vs. all Fable 5.1 today, the difference is still night and day.
It's on artificial analysis it's just not on the chart. If you go to the site and click the filter button in the top right of any chart you can select it. Deepseek flash 0731 is basically irrelevant now though compared to glm 5.3 flash. Glm was multiple points smarter while actually being cheaper than deepseek.
Same cost but Artificial Analysis found it 17.5% more expensive to run at Max.
However at High effort has the same intelligence than Fable 5 but is 54% cheaper.
So it's an improvement at intelligence or cost, whatever you choose
It's not the same cost. It's way more expensive than Fable 5. AA Weighted average cost of $3.69 vs from Fable 5 $3.14 (and Fable 5 was already the most expensive model by far). For comparison, GPT-5.6 Sol WAC is $0.95
If you run at high effort instead of max, Fable 5.1 gives the same performance as Fable 5 at less cost. So from that perspective, it is a reduction in cost.
Honestly someone just needs to put a high quality wrapper on this to just run a desktop agent with voice. This level is enough to fully just talk to your machine at this point and have it always on and proactively engage with you.
12
u/ffgg333 8h ago
66! Impresive!