42 ms·

I think you need to spend more time with Sol. If you think there is nothing even close to as good as Fable - my guess is you haven’t spent as much time getting

by aroman 1mo ago

I think you need to spend more time with Sol. If you think there is nothing even close to as good as Fable - my guess is you haven’t spent as much time getting as familiar with working with those models as you have with Claude’s. Codex is more token efficient and tends to get better results than Fable with less need for extreme token burning shenanigans like 18 hours of subagents. I spend 10+ hours a day in both agents, typically side by side. I often have them do direct “bakeoffs” from identical prompts in separate work trees. Most of the time, Sol’s work is better than Fable’s. Not always. It’s situational. But it’s certainly not the case that Fable is in a league of its own or anything.

gr_norm 1mo ago
Agree, Sol and Fable consistently trade blows on Rust dev. I prefer Sol since it's faster, as far as proprietary models go.
ttul 1mo ago
My sense is that Fable 5 has “taste”. But Sol gets to work and gets shit done. I reserve Fable for when things need a refresh or if I want a flawless front end. Sol does the majority of actual work. I max out two of each at the Max/Pro level every week.
nl 1mo ago
> Codex is more token efficient This is very true, especially vs Opus 5. > tends to get better results than Fable with less need for extreme token burning shenanigans like 18 hours of subagents. The strength here was less the code quality and rather the long horizon task tracking. This was a very large task - I was chatting with the maintainers and we estimated 4 to 6 months work over multiple phases for human coding. Fable is able to handle that long goal, with incremental steps along the way, handle the verification and course correct when it finds a problem. I think the larger context helps here some, but the strength of the model on this specific thing is notably better. I'm not alone in noticing this. https://www.primeintellect.ai/research/nanogpt-speedrun https://www.primeintellect.ai/research/nanogpt-speedrun shows Fable is able to manage a run nearly 1/3 longer than Sol (8.7 days vs 6.1 days). In my use cases Sol is much closer to Opus 5 though.
__rito__ 1mo ago
After one month of substantial testing, for coding and Math related tasks, I am going to keep Codex over Claude.

by aroman 1mo ago

gr_norm 1mo ago

Agree, Sol and Fable consistently trade blows on Rust dev. I prefer Sol since it's faster, as far as proprietary models go.

ttul 1mo ago

My sense is that Fable 5 has “taste”. But Sol gets to work and gets shit done. I reserve Fable for when things need a refresh or if I want a flawless front end. Sol does the majority of actual work. I max out two of each at the Max/Pro level every week.

nl 1mo ago

> Codex is more token efficient This is very true, especially vs Opus 5. > tends to get better results than Fable with less need for extreme token burning shenanigans like 18 hours of subagents. The strength here was less the code quality and rather the long horizon task tracking. This was a very large task - I was chatting with the maintainers and we estimated 4 to 6 months work over multiple phases for human coding. Fable is able to handle that long goal, with incremental steps along the way, handle the verification and course correct when it finds a problem. I think the larger context helps here some, but the strength of the model on this specific thing is notably better. I'm not alone in noticing this. https://www.primeintellect.ai/research/nanogpt-speedrun https://www.primeintellect.ai/research/nanogpt-speedrun shows Fable is able to manage a run nearly 1/3 longer than Sol (8.7 days vs 6.1 days). In my use cases Sol is much closer to Opus 5 though.

__rito__ 1mo ago

After one month of substantial testing, for coding and Math related tasks, I am going to keep Codex over Claude.