96+ Gemini 4 Carbon Head-to-Head Tests Prompts

No prompt published. A side-by-side 3D test of Carbon's Arena version against Opus 5.5. The author says Carbon is seriously good at 3D and that no model is better at it.

Clip:

Video, 51 s. About 198K views and 2,010 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon is seriously good at 3D; no model beats it there.

Note:

Posted 28 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoint. Subject (an airliner cutaway) is from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. Opus 5.5 and Carbon side by side, offered as proof that Carbon is not just tuned for benchmarks.

Clip:

Video, 12 s. About 64K views and 1,135 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Proof that Carbon is not benchmark-tuned.

Note:

Posted 29 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Subject (a low-poly running giraffe) is from the thumbnail.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "rainbow jelly you can cut, nail and torch."

What it is:

Same prompt, rainbow jelly you can cut, nail and torch: Carbon took 32 minutes and $4.30, Opus 5.5 took 1h 20m and $14.00. The author found Carbon's jelly bright and sharp, throwing rainbow shadows, while Opus looked washed out.

Clip:

Video, 23 s. About 95K views and 969 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Gemini 4 Carbon - $4.30, 32 min · Opus 5.5 - $14.00, 1h 20m

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon's jelly is bright and sharp; Opus looks washed out next to it.

Note:

Posted 29 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. The same Carbon result was later set against Fable 5.5 (2118415577299460432).

No prompt published. Three videos of the same voxel castle kingdom from Gemini 4 Krypton, Carbon and Argon, posted without commentary.

Clip:

Video, 45 s. About 102K views and 798 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Krypton, Gemini 4 Argon. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Posted 9 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Krypton is an unreleased internal checkpoint. Subject is from the thumbnails; the post text is only the model names.

No prompt published. Both models got the same raw clip, the founders' first pitch two weeks into the company, and the same prompt; Fable 5.2's edit is on the left and Carbon's on the right.

Clip:

Video, 79 s. About 49K views and 713 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Posted by a video-editing startup; they ask viewers which edit they would ship.

No prompt published. The Arena checkpoint of Carbon against Argon and GPT-6 Astra on the same animated cyclist. The author says Carbon is already better than Argon and Astra is starting to look dated.

Clip:

Video, 14 s. About 66K views and 586 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6 Astra. Carbon is already better than Argon; Astra is starting to look outdated.

Note:

Posted 21 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoint. Subject is from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. The author added Carbon to a Chrome Dino remake test: Carbon took 34m 41s and $5.20, Opus 5.5 38m 55s and $8.53, GPT-6 Astra 15m and $4.61, and GPT-6.1 Terra 4m and $0.17. Carbon even animated the pterodactyls' flight.

Clip:

Video, 27 s. About 113K views and 570 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Gemini 4 Carbon → 34m 41s · $5.20 · Opus 5.5 → 38m 55s · $8.53 · GPT-6 Astra → 15m · $4.61 · GPT-6.1 Terra → 4m · $0.17

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6.1 Terra. Carbon gave the dino "leg day" and even animated the pterodactyls.

Note:

Posted 29 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Run through a third-party API per the post; the author's rating is at the end of the video.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "the DVD screensaver, but out of jelly."

What it is:

Same prompt: the DVD screensaver, but made of jelly. Carbon used the DVD logo; Claude Opus 5.5 said the DVD logo is trademarked and used the Claude logo instead.

Clip:

Video, 25 s. About 26K views and 433 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon made the DVD logo; Opus cited the trademark and drew the Claude logo.

Note:

Posted 3 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "an animated cutaway of an airplane engine."

What it is:

Same prompt, one try each, for an animated cutaway of an airplane radial engine. All four models got the firing order right; the author rated Carbon the most polished, Opus 5.5 best on engineering detail, Argon the most atmospheric and GPT-6.1 Sol a clean blueprint with dim flames.

Clip:

Video, 11 s. About 88K views and 339 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

one try each

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6.1 Sol. Carbon is the most polished; Opus gets the engineering award.

Note:

Posted 31 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Reposted in Chinese by @AndyL5cc.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "9 tiny troublemakers, a dock full of tools, and one of them has to pop at the end."

What it is:

Same prompt, nine tiny troublemakers on a dock full of tools with one popping at the end: Carbon took 34 minutes and $4.10, Opus 5.5 took 1h 12m and $12.80. The author found Carbon brighter and shinier, and Opus more alive.

Clip:

Video, 29 s. About 42K views and 310 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Gemini 4 Carbon - $4.10, 34 min · Opus 5.5 - $12.80, 1h 12m

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon is brighter and shinier; Opus feels more alive.

Note:

Posted 30 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch.

No prompt published. Two unreleased models in the Arena, Claude Fable 5.5 (routed) and a Carbon checkpoint, on the same animated cyclist. For now the author sees Fable 5.5 slightly ahead.

Clip:

Video, 17 s. About 27K views and 266 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.5. Fable 5.5 edges out Carbon for now.

Note:

Posted 25 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoints. Subject is from the thumbnail; the Carbon clip looks the same as in 2112916947923087364.

No prompt published. A stickman fight animation from DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and from Carbon, posted to see how far the DeepSeek model gets; the author leaves the verdict to viewers.

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 47K views and 212 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. No need to say which is better; viewers can judge.

Note:

Posted 30 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. @xluchuan reposted the same video.

No prompt published. Claude Fable 5.2, Carbon and Argon on the same scene. The author calls Fable 5.2 extraordinary and Carbon very close to it, and picks Carbon because it costs much less and runs faster.

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 21K views and 196 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2, Gemini 4 Argon. Fable 5.2 is extraordinary and Carbon very close; Carbon wins on cost and speed.

Note:

Subject (an SUV in front of a neon night city) is from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. Both models rebuilt Gru dodging rockets in 3D voxels from the same clip. Carbon cost $24.11 in API tokens and Fable 5.2 $53.34, but only Fable's Gru looks like the movie.

Clip:

Video, 21 s. About 34K views and 188 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon cost $24.11 in API tokens · Fable 5.2 $53.34

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Only Fable's Gru looks like the movie.

Note:

Promotional post by the Atomic Chat team. @ai_ba_reza reposted the same video.

No prompt published. Carbon and Opus 5.5 each built the U.S. White House in 3D with Three.js. The author found both strong and could not pick a winner.

Clip:

Video, 57 s. About 21K views and 174 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Both delivered strong outputs; no winner picked.

Note:

Posted 29 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch.

No prompt published. Pre-release Carbon and Fable 5.5 on the pelican-riding-a-bicycle test. Fable 5.5 went fully photorealistic while Carbon kept refining a comic style; the author finds Fable more striking but the styles too different to rank.

Clip:

Video, 8 s. About 54K views and 161 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.5. Fable 5.5 is more striking, but the styles differ too much to compare.

Note:

Posted 31 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Both models were pre-release. @xiax0603 reposted it.

No prompt published. Carbon High got the same rocket-scene prompt as Fable 5.2, Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra and took 35 minutes. The author places it near Opus 5.5 in quality, but more efficient.

Clip:

Video, 25 s. About 21K views and 153 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

35 minutes

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2, Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra. Somewhere near Opus 5.5 level, but more efficient.

Note:

@QQTeng reposted it in Chinese.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "rainbow jelly you can cut, nail and torch."

What it is:

The same rainbow-jelly prompt, now against Fable 5.5: Carbon took 32 minutes and $4.30, Fable 5.5 45 minutes and $48.50. Carbon's jelly stays cut; Fable's pulls itself back together after being cut, nailed and torched.

Clip:

Video, 37 s. About 28K views and 142 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Gemini 4 Carbon - $4.30, 32 min · Fable 5.5 - $48.50, 45 min

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.5. Fable 5.5 won with jelly that grows back, at 11x the price.

Note:

Posted 5 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Reuses the Carbon run from 2115891194383200515.

No prompt published. A side-by-side of Claude Fable 5.2 and Carbon, posted with no commentary.

Clip:

Video, 24 s. About 13K views and 139 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Subject (a sailing ship at sea) is from the thumbnail. Reposted by @Shannnu_18, @Stargridcompass and @qingzhoucloud; the last says Fable's water is far better.

No prompt published. A Carbon checkpoint in the Arena against Opus 5.5 and Argon on the same scene; the author jokes that Carbon will make Opus 5.5 unemployed.

Clip:

Video, 17 s. About 12K views and 139 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini 4 Argon. Carbon will make Opus 5.5 unemployed.

Note:

Posted 5 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoint. Subject (a running tiger) is from the thumbnail. An earlier post the same day (2118321845091160167) showed Carbon's clip alone and called it a win over Opus 5.5 in this Three.js test.

No prompt published. Same prompt, both one-shot: Opus 5.5 versus Carbon, again offered as proof that Carbon is not benchmark-tuned.

Clip:

Video, 26 s. About 12K views and 135 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

both one-shot

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Proof that Carbon is not benchmark-tuned.

Note:

Posted 1 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Subject is from the thumbnail (Opus labeled "opus 5.5 high"). The same Carbon island was later set against Fable 5.2 (2120616222140125635).

No prompt published. A stickman fight from Carbon and from Fable 5.2. The author finds Carbon much better than earlier Gemini models but still nowhere near Fable 5.2, or even Opus 5.5, for animation; it was the only model so far that destroyed and used part of the stage in the fight.

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 23K views and 135 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Still nowhere near Fable 5.2 (or even Opus 5.5) for animation.

No prompt published. Same prompt for Fable 5.2 and Carbon. The author says Carbon's run was 103x lower in cost and 5.3x faster, but Claude's graphical fidelity is in another galaxy; still the best Gemini model the author has seen.

Clip:

Video, 52 s. About 14K views and 126 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

103x · 5.3x faster

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Claude's graphical fidelity is in another galaxy.

Note:

Subject (a ride-on mower at an English manor called Ashworth Hall) is from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. Who draws the best T-rex on a bike: Carbon built a volcano valley with a glowing sun, a waterfall and mushrooms; Opus 5.5 drew the most expressive T-rex; Argon a purple sunset with legs bending the wrong way; GPT-6 Astra a scarf with little contrast. The author picks Carbon, with Opus a close second.

Clip:

Video, 12 s. About 27K views and 122 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6 Astra. Carbon wins, Opus is a close second.

Note:

Posted 1 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "a working inline-4 engine. pistons, rods, crank, oil in the pan."

What it is:

Same prompt for Claude Fable 5.2, GPT-6 Astra, Carbon and Argon: a working inline-4 engine with pistons, rods, crank and oil in the pan. The author did not touch the outputs and does not reveal which cost the most.

Clip:

Video, 12 s. About 15K views and 115 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 4 Argon. The verdict is only in the video.

No prompt published. After Opus 5.5 lost to Carbon on the Sisyphus Shark Blender prompt, the author also ran Claude Fable 5.2 on XHigh: Carbon 1h 29m and $8.82, Opus 5.5 1h 10m and $15.66, Fable 5.2 39m and $19.00. Fable finished twice as fast at 2.2x Carbon's cost.

Clip:

Video, 10 s. About 30K views and 114 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon (Top): 1h 29m · $8.82 · Opus 5.5 (Mid): 1h 10m · $15.66 · Fable 5.2 (Bot): 39m · $19.00

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5, Claude Fable 5.2. Opus 5.5 lost to Carbon; Fable was twice as fast at 2.2x the cost.

Note:

Extends 2119445073352089952 (Carbon vs Opus 5.5) with the same Carbon run; that post has the prompt.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "Dinosaur obstacle run"

What it is:

Same prompt, a dinosaur obstacle run, scored by the author: Fable 5.2 9.6/10 in 45m 12s, Opus 5.5 8.6/10 in 1h 12m 30s, Carbon 8.3/10 in 1h 20m 15s, GPT-6 Astra 7.6/10 in 1h 35m 40s.

Clip:

Video, 27 s. About 11K views and 111 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Fable 5.2: 9.6/10 - 0h 45m 12s · Opus 5.5: 8.6/10 - 1h 12m 30s · Gemini 4 Carbon: 8.3/10 - 1h 20m 15s · GPT-6 Astra: 7.6/10 - 1h 35m 40s

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2, Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra. Fable 5.2 takes the crown with 9.6; Carbon scores 8.3.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "Voxel Floating Kingdom"

What it is:

Same prompt (Voxel Floating Kingdom) on high reasoning: Opus 5.5 took 1h 15m and about $12, Carbon 1h 15m and about $0.95. The author thinks Carbon looks like the better deal at that difference and asks which did better.

Clip:

Video, 58 s. About 6,033 views and 105 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Opus 5.5: high reasoning, 1h 15m, ~$12 · Gemini 4 Carbon: high reasoning, 1h 15m, ~$0.95

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. At that price difference, Carbon looks like the better deal.

Note:

Same Carbon run as 2120245676760052149 (made in Cursor). @laopai1990 reposted it in Chinese.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "fox running side"

What it is:

The same running-fox prompt on Carbon now and on the Carbon checkpoint the author tested in the Arena; the released model looks more natural.

Clip:

Video, 14 s. About 7,251 views and 103 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Carbon (Arena checkpoint). The released model looks more natural.

No prompt published. Gemini 4 Hydrogen against Carbon in the Arena on the same scene; the author says the comparison shows how good Hydrogen is.

Clip:

Video, 18 s. About 5,563 views and 100 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Hydrogen. Shows how good Hydrogen is.

Note:

Posted 6 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoints. Subject (a running tiger) is from the thumbnail; @xulijian1994 reposted it, preferring Hydrogen's motion but praising Carbon's sun and lighting.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "a rainbow jelly pumpkin you can carve and light up."

What it is:

Same prompt, a rainbow jelly pumpkin you can carve and light up: Carbon took 31 minutes and $3.20, Opus 5.5 1h 50m and $28.73. Carbon turned it into a full Halloween night with stars, fireflies, a glowing face and candy you can feed it, while the author could barely see the face on Opus's pumpkin.

Clip:

Video, 26 s. About 6,582 views and 94 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Gemini 4 Carbon - $3.20, 31 min · Opus 5.5 - $28.73, 1h 50m

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon built a full Halloween night; Opus's pumpkin looks washed out.

Note:

Posted 30 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "draw a sunset over a city in about 10 seconds, watch the color flood in, and park an old American muscle car in front."

What it is:

Same prompt, one try each: draw a sunset over a city in about 10 seconds, let the color flood in, and park an old American muscle car in front. The author calls Carbon's moody night city the most cinematic, Opus 5.5's skyline the most detailed, Argon's car nicely drawn and GPT-6 Astra's colors the palest.

Clip:

Video, 11 s. About 23K views and 88 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

one try each

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini 4 Argon, GPT-6 Astra. Carbon is the most cinematic; Opus has the most detail.

Note:

Posted 3 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. All four models painted the car teal.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "build a hyper-realistic first person shooter set on a tropical island"

What it is:

Same prompt for both: a hyper-realistic first-person shooter set on a tropical island. Fable 5.2 is on top and Carbon at the bottom; the author leaves the call to viewers.

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 10K views and 87 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

No prompt published. Same prompt, same jelly, same nails: Claude Fable 5.5 took 52 minutes and $46.00, Carbon 24 minutes and $1.50. Fable hid raspberries inside and added a score and a jelly pulse meter; Carbon gave a red block and a hammer.

Clip:

Video, 19 s. About 23K views and 87 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Claude Fable 5.5 - $46.00, 52 min · Gemini Carbon 4 - $1.50, 24 min

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.5. Fable 5.5 nailed it: the best jelly game the author has seen.

Note:

Posted 8 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch.

No prompt published. Checkpoints of Carbon and Fable 5.5 next to the released Opus 5.5 and Argon; the author sees a clear gap between the upcoming checkpoints and the existing models.

Clip:

Video, 17 s. About 8,951 views and 77 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.5, Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini 4 Argon. A clear gap between the upcoming checkpoints and Opus 5.5 and Argon.

Note:

Posted 4 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoints. Subject (a running zebra) is from the thumbnail.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "an animated SVG of an octopus making breakfast with every single tentacle busy at once."

What it is:

Same prompt, one try: an animated SVG of an octopus making breakfast with every tentacle busy. The author ranks Carbon first for texture, warm lighting and mood, with Argon a close second for character design; all four models added the optional cat gag.

Clip:

Video, 13 s. About 8,711 views and 71 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

one try

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Argon, Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra. Carbon takes #1, Argon is a close second.

Note:

Posted 2 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "a running V8 you can X-ray, cut in half, explode and lay out part by part."

What it is:

Round 3 of the author's Carbon vs Opus 5.5 series, one shot each: a running V8 you can X-ray, cut in half, explode and lay out part by part. After a motorcycle and a watch, the author says Carbon swept all three rounds.

Clip:

Video, 29 s. About 3,257 views and 70 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

3 for 3

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. 3 for 3, Carbon swept it.

Note:

Posted 1 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch.

No prompt published. Fable 5.2, Carbon, Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra each built a '90s arcade fighter from the same prompt: Fable 5.2 $22 / 9 min, Carbon $9 / 10 min, Opus 5.5 $34 / 21 min, GPT-6 Astra $50 / 16 min.

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 14K views and 68 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Fable 5.2 → $22 / 9 min · Gemini 4 Carbon → $9 / 10 min · Opus 5.5 → $34 / 21 min · GPT-6 Astra → $50 / 16 min

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2, Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Promotional post by Runable, where all four models are available.

No prompt published. A Carbon checkpoint against Argon in the Arena; the author sees a huge difference between the two.

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 3,345 views and 64 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Argon. There is a huge difference between Carbon and Argon.

Note:

Posted 8 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoint. Subjects (a running tiger, a flying eagle and an orange sports car) are from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. With the same prompt, Claude Fable 5.2 cost $18 and Carbon $6.2; the author says time and results were about the same and asks what the extra $11.8 buys.

Clip:

Video, null s. About 17K views and 63 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Claude Fable 5.2 花了 18 美元 · Gemini 4 Carbon 花了 6.2 美元

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Time and results were about the same.

Note:

Subject (a futuristic waterside city) is from the GIF thumbnail; the post does not say who ran the prompt.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "a mechanical watch you can X-ray, cut in half, explode and lay out part by part."

What it is:

Round 2 against Opus 5.5, one shot each: a mechanical watch you can X-ray, cut in half, explode and lay out part by part. Carbon's balance wheel ticks and every gear turns at the right speed.

Clip:

Video, 30 s. About 2,551 views and 57 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

2 for 2

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. 2 for 2; Carbon is the 3D king right now.

Note:

Posted 31 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch.

No prompt published. Carbon from the Arena next to Claude Opus 5.5, posted with a note on Carbon's Artificial Analysis index score and no verdict.

Clip:

Video, 17 s. About 5,118 views and 52 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Posted 31 Oct, before the 10 Nov API launch. Arena checkpoint. Subject (a bull running across a savanna at sunset) is from the thumbnail.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "What will Sisyphus Shark look like in Hungry Shark:World"

What it is:

The same Blender Python prompt on Carbon (High) and Claude Opus 5.5 (XHigh): what the Sisyphus Shark would look like in Hungry Shark World. Carbon took 1h 29m and $8.82, Opus 5.5 1h 10m and $15.66, counting coding only.

Clip:

Video, 10 s. About 6,603 views and 48 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon: [1h 29m] · $[8.82] · Opus 5.5: [1h 10m] · $[15.66]

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Posted 8 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Follow-up with Fable 5.2 added: 2120031344701128927.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "a sewing machine you can X-ray, cut in half, explode and lay out part by part. And it has to actually make a stitch."

What it is:

Round 4 against Opus 5.5, one shot each: a sewing machine you can X-ray, cut in half, explode and lay out, and it has to make a stitch. The author says Carbon made a great steel machine and is now 4 for 4.

Clip:

Video, 32 s. About 3,745 views and 47 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

4 for 4

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. 4 for 4; Carbon is untouchable.

Note:

Posted 4 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch.

No prompt published. The author's animated peacock SVG test on Fable 5.2 and Carbon, with viewers asked to pick. In the quoted earlier post, the author called Carbon's peacock genuinely impressive in its feathers, bicycle and motion.

Clip:

Video, 10 s. About 2,011 views and 46 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "create a whale breaching scene"

What it is:

Carbon's whale breaching scene next to Opus 5.5's. The author finds Carbon's result impressive by comparison and a huge step up from Argon.

Clip:

Video, 20 s. About 3,562 views and 42 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Pretty impressive next to Opus 5.5; a huge step up from Argon.

No prompt published. A realistic 3D cola-soda animation in pure front-end code from Fable 5.5 and Carbon. The author finds Fable 5.5 more realistic, but Carbon's frosty dripping effect stands out.

Clip:

Video, 8 s. About 3,143 views and 38 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.5. Fable 5.5 is more realistic, but Carbon's frosty drips are striking.

Note:

Posted 2 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch.

No prompt published. Claude Sonnet 5.5 against Carbon, with viewers asked to judge the winner.

Clip:

Video, 99 s. About 3,143 views and 38 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Sonnet 5.5. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

From the thumbnail: a first-person "Mage vs Dragon" game; same prompt, 30 minutes each, one agent on high effort, Three.js from scratch.

No prompt published. Carbon on high (left) against Fable 5.2 on high (right); the author finds Carbon's result more striking.

Clip:

Video, 10 s. About 6,667 views and 37 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Carbon looks more striking.

Note:

Subject (an animated diagram of jaw lever mechanics and bite forces) is from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. A ruined-robot animation from Carbon and Fable 5.2 side by side. The poster thinks Fable 5.2 has dropped noticeably from Fable 5.5 but is still a bit stronger than Carbon.

Clip:

Video, 43 s. About 11K views and 36 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Fable 5.2 is still a bit stronger than Carbon.

Note:

Carbon output by @itsPaulAi (credited in the post); side-by-side posted by @leo114119, whose post is the url here. Reposted by @Smlay_ero (who adds that Carbon's cost is far lower) and @xiax0603.

No prompt published. Gemini 4 Krypton, a new internal Google checkpoint, against Carbon and Argon; the author notes early reports that Krypton beats Carbon.

Clip:

Video, 12 s. About 2,314 views and 36 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Krypton, Gemini 4 Argon. Early reports say Krypton is better than Carbon.

Note:

Posted 9 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Subject is from the thumbnail and @leo114119's repost of the same video.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "a robot that transforms into a car, and you can X-ray it, cut it in half, explode it and lay it out part by part."

What it is:

Round 5, now against Claude Fable 5.1, one shot each: a robot that transforms into a car and can be X-rayed, cut in half, exploded and laid out. Carbon took 55 minutes and $11.2, Fable 1h10m and $7.34; the author left the pick to viewers.

Clip:

Video, 39 s. About 2,944 views and 34 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon: 55m, $11.2 · Fable: 1h10m, $7.34

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.1. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Posted 6 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Rounds 2 to 4 of this series are separate cases.

No prompt published. Same prompt on Qwen 4-Max and Carbon with different outcomes; the author frames it as a one-on-one.

Clip:

Video, 43 s. About 3,441 views and 34 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Qwen 4-Max. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Subject (a cockatiel perched on a branch) is from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. Fable 5.2 and Carbon each generated this snow globe in a single shot, with no external assets and everything rendered in code in one HTML file. The author found it hard to decide.

Clip:

Video, 42 s. About 1,821 views and 33 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

single shot

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Hard to decide which is better.

No prompt published. Same prompt, four models: Carbon took 41m 20s and 178k tokens (delicate river reflections, quiet and realistic), Argon 52m 41s and 162k, Fable 5.2 27m 28s and 149k (vivid street neon), Opus 5.5 12m 31s and 76k (fastest, clean reflections).

Clip:

Video, 12 s. About 11K views and 30 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

41分20秒 | 178k Tokens · 52分41秒 | 162k Tokens · 27分28秒 | 149k Tokens · 12分31秒 | 76k Tokens

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Argon, Claude Fable 5.2, Claude Opus 5.5. Opus 5.5 wins on speed and efficiency; viewers pick the most realistic Bund.

No prompt published. The author's floating-island test on Fable 5.2 and Carbon with the same prompt, asking viewers who did it better.

Clip:

Video, 26 s. About 2,199 views and 30 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Subject is from the thumbnail; the Carbon island appears to match the earlier run against Opus 5.5 (2116813166009106935).

No prompt published. Claude Fable 5.2 and Carbon each made an explainer video under a $5 API limit, all in code.

Clip:

Video, 47 s. About 3,384 views and 29 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

$5 dollar api limit

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Posted by the Viewgum team. Subject (a CPU vs graphics card explainer) is from the thumbnail.

No prompt published. A black hole simulation demo from Carbon and from Gemini 4 Hydrogen (the Flash model), shared before both were expected to launch.

Clip:

Video, 59 s. About 3,209 views and 24 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Gemini 4 Hydrogen. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Posted 7 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Made by "Inmersion" as credited in the post (X handle not given), shared by @leo114119.

No prompt published. A Bentley side view in Three.js from Carbon and Claude Opus 5.5. The author says Carbon finally outperformed Opus 5.5 and broke its streak, with higher quality at half the cost.

Clip:

Video, 16 s. About 1,177 views and 23 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Half the cost

Compared with:

Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon finally outperformed Opus 5.5: higher quality at half the cost.

No prompt published. Carbon and Fable 5.5 on a bicycle riding a pelican through the sky. The poster finds Fable 5.5's pelican and overall animation better and Carbon's bicycle a bit more detailed, so Carbon loses this one.

Clip:

Video, 20 s. About 3,041 views and 22 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.5. Fable 5.5 wins on the pelican and overall animation.

Note:

Posted 5 Nov, before the 10 Nov API launch. Carbon output by @Haleeeemahh (credited in the post); comparison posted by @leo114119, whose post is the url here.

No prompt published. The author gave Carbon the video Anthropic had posted of a Fable 5.2 creation and asked it to rebuild it as a web page; the result was good. Takeaways: a big step up from earlier Gemini models, taste still behind Fable and Opus, and it needs detailed prompts or reference examples rather than one-line wishes.

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 4,822 views and 14 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Big progress, but taste is still behind Fable and Opus.

No prompt published. A group member ran the same prompt on Fable 5.2 as the author's three-hour Carbon motor-and-generator demo. The author says Fable's result looks like a work of art and that a big gap remains between Carbon and Fable 5.2.

Clip:

Video, 34 s. About 2,353 views and 12 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Fable's output looks like art; a big gap remains.

Note:

Carbon side is the author's own run (2120403057364369472); the Fable 5.2 run is by an unnamed group member.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "夜の東京をドローンで飛んで、60秒でネオンコインを集める"

What it is:

The same one-line instruction for a 3D game: fly a drone over night Tokyo and collect neon coins in 60 seconds. Carbon took 24m 28s and 2,753 lines, Fable 9m 42s and 833 lines, Opus 5.5 4m 13s and 793 lines; only Carbon added Tokyo Tower, a radar, combos and rankings unasked.

Clip:

Video, 35 s. About 396 views and 12 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon：24分28秒／2,753行 · Fable：9分42秒／833行 · Opus：4分13秒／793行

Compared with:

Claude Fable (version not stated), Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon for looks, Opus for speed.

No prompt published. Claude Fable 5.2 and Carbon each built a small interactive digital garden, from custom colors and lighting to picking leaves one by one.

Clip:

Video, 77 s. About 366 views and 12 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Promotional post by HIX AI; both runs were made on their platform.

No prompt published. A Gyeongbokgung palace simulator from Fable 5.2 and Carbon; the author says Gemini comes nowhere close to Fable.

Clip:

Video, 60 s. About 277 views and 9 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. Gemini comes nowhere close to Fable.

No prompt published. Two long videos, one by Carbon and one by Fable 5.2, posted as a guessing game; the author says the difference is obvious enough that nobody should guess wrong.

Clip:

Video, 218 s. About 2,105 views and 8 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2. The difference is obvious.

Note:

Subject (an animated world-music "passport" tour through Japan, Spain, Italy and Scotland; 218 s and 284 s) is from frames of the videos; the post does not say which video is which.

Only the creator's request is public, not a full prompt: "a ramen stall in the rain, with a moped riding through."

What it is:

Same prompt, one run each in the same Blender on High: a ramen stall in the rain with a moped riding through. Carbon (in Cursor) made the cleanest stall for $2.78 but took about 4 hours of wall clock, much of it provider errors; Fable 5.2 had mirror puddles but a dark stall ($18.60 est., 39m); Opus 5.5 had real steam ($7.54 est., 27m).

Clip:

Video, 15 s. About 287 views and 5 likes on X as of 12 November 2026.

Tool:

Cursor

Numbers the author reported:

$2.78 in Cursor credits · ~4h wall clock · $18.60 est. · 39m · $7.54 est. · 27m

Compared with:

Claude Fable 5.2, Claude Opus 5.5. Carbon cost the least and won the stall.

Note:

Carbon ran in Cursor; Fable and Opus ran in Claude Code. All Python, procedural materials only.

制作一个高还原度的cs游戏，建模精美，玩法高度还原，地图高度还原dust2

What it is:

Carbon High in Google Antigravity (Turbo mode, Google AI Ultra) built 15 projects, including a GTA-style game, CS Dust2, a Minecraft sunset, promo films, a course-selection redesign, a holo card opener, a video editor, a rabies explainer and an ink web page. The verdict: strong at long tasks, average taste, and one-line wishes rarely work.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Tool:

Google Antigravity, Carbon High, Turbo mode

Numbers the author reported:

GTA-style game: 34 min · CS: 36 min · self-intro: 43 min · promo: 2 rounds, ~45 and ~56 min · Minecraft rerun: 32 min in one pass (Argon took 6 rounds, ~2 h 18 min) · course system: 22 min · holo cards: 48 min · video editor: 1 h 13 min · headphone site: 1 h 49 min · rabies explainer: ~1 h 33 min (2 rounds) · ink page: ~42 min · India-city short: ~1 h 10 min · after ~5 h and 17 sessions: 75% of the 5-hour quota and 78% of the weekly quota left

Compared with:

Argon, Opus 5.5. Strong at long tasks with average taste; one-line wishes rarely work.

Note:

All prompts are published verbatim in each folder's PROMPT.md; the one shown is for the CS project. Two items (01_gta6, 05_minecraft-sunset) were first run on Argon and redone on Carbon; the Opus 5.5 comparison is the author's earlier GTA build.

Also:

https://github.com/Yari-tuber/gemini4-carbon-tests · https://yari.lol/gemini-4-carbon-test/ · https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV16MW26oE8t

No prompt published. Three hard builds, one run each: a pixel-for-pixel clone of agrumeafarm.it, a 30-45 s launch film for Motion, and a browser 1940s dogfight flight sim with a Blender coastline (plus a bonus Eiffel Tower build). Carbon in Antigravity cost the least in total of the four models but ranked 4th, 4th and 3rd.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Tool:

Antigravity

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon $27.68 / 269 min · Fable $883.30 / 1,024 min · Opus $181.29 / 564 min · Astra $126.43 / 181 min (API-equivalent) · Carbon ranked 4th, 4th and 3rd

Compared with:

Fable 5.2, Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra. A clear step up from Argon that costs much less, but behind Opus and Fable; the author still prefers Opus 5.5.

Note:

Astra ran in Codex, Opus and Fable in Claude Code. Prompts are published in full on the blog (each well over 600 characters).

Also:

https://www.aiformortals.co/blog/gemini-4-carbon-review

No prompt published. KingBench 4 scored six app builds, including a Pokemon Red build and a 3D room designer: Carbon placed 8th of 13 models at 53.3%, while Fable 5.2 was first at 70%. Every one of Carbon's six final messages claimed at least one feature the reviewer found broken or overstated, because Carbon only tested via its own tests and never clicked through the apps.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon 32/60 (53.3%), 8th of 13 models · Fable 5.2 first at 70% · Argon 54.3% on the same builds · Pokemon Red 8.2 vs 8.4 · 3D room designer 6.3 vs 9.2 · Carbon's six builds about $23 and 76M tokens vs Fable 212M tokens and about $222

Compared with:

Fable 5.2, Argon. Fable when it has to work; Carbon for fast first drafts that cost little and that you check yourself.

No prompt published. Carbon and Fable 5.2 took on five builds: a desktop OS, a browser game, a launch ad, tank AIs and Split or Steal. Carbon cost about $3.40 in total versus about $29.50 for Fable, but broke the tank rules sheet twice.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon about $3.40 vs Fable about $29.50 in total · Carbon broke the tank rules sheet twice

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. Fable for one big, careful build; Carbon when you need many builds and spend matters.

Make a browser arcade racer "Neon Night Racer": a night highway, a neon synthwave city, the 80s. The main thing is the feeling of insane speed at night, when one mistake means a crash. Imagine it's a game for a real arcade cabinet: you want to play it again. Surprise me. Music and sounds in code, no external files. …

What it is:

Carbon in Antigravity (High) and Fable 5.2 in Claude Code 2.1.321 (High) each built a neon arcade racer, a Shenzhen night-market voxel diorama and a channel intro made in OpenMontage. Carbon won the race and the diorama (judged blind) for a 2:1 result; Fable won the intro, which is now the channel's real intro.

Where:

GitHub, 2026-11-11

Tool:

Antigravity (High)

Numbers the author reported:

Carbon ~2 h 07 min, $7.54 (up to $12.36 counting the Flash browser helper) · Fable ~2 h 05 min, $41.71 · paid image/video generation capped at $1 · Carbon's first race attempt broke 3 times on network timeouts ($0.68, excluded) · 2:1 to Carbon

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. Carbon won the race and the diorama (judged blind); Fable won the intro.

Note:

Prompts were written in Russian; the quoted race prompt is the author's English translation (all translations in prompts/en/). Fable used a headless Playwright browser. A Russian video is promised.

Full prompt:

445 characters, in the original post

Also:

https://kostikoneuro.github.io/gemini-carbon-vs-fable-5-2/

No prompt published. With identical prompts and no intervention, Carbon and Fable 5.2 each coded a horror game, an EV landing page and a walkable 3D loft in their own folders. Each round is worth one point, then time and API cost are compared.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Russian-language video; results only in the video.

No prompt published. Opus in Claude Code and Carbon in Antigravity, both at High, did the same 3 jobs: a Korean learning app, an automation dashboard and a code-made animated explainer. Time and API cost are shown for every run at today's and December prices, with a blind round for the explainer.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Tool:

Antigravity

Compared with:

Opus 5.5. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Results only in the video.

No prompt published. Six projects built with Carbon in the Antigravity CLI, with real API cost: a watch landing page, a full-stack app with login and AI, a 3D kart race, a 3D delivery game, a 3D tower defense and a browser music studio.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Tool:

Antigravity CLI

Numbers the author reported:

prompts gist: one file, 12,210 characters

Note:

Portuguese-language video. The prompts are in the linked gist (one file, 12,210 characters); results and costs are only in the video.

Also:

https://gist.github.com/matheusbattisti/89555b77779a56094f3661bd93acde2e

No prompt published. Agents ran for 5 hours to build an ultra-realistic Minecraft-style game in Three.js, and the video also shows real pull requests on production code. It used Antigravity and Cursor, and compares latency across a third-party API, Vertex and AI Studio.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Tool:

Antigravity (prompts shown), Cursor

Numbers the author reported:

5 hours of agents

Note:

Portuguese-language video. Prompts are shown in the video; results only in the video.

No prompt published. Carbon in the Antigravity CLI (medium) took on nine complex builds: a pixel cloud castle, a native macOS music player, a Unity 3D archer, a Godot 4 Jurassic sandbox, a floor plan to 3D room, the Sagrada Familia, an AAA shooter, a starship and a black hole eating a star.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Tool:

Antigravity CLI (medium)

Compared with:

Fable 5.2, Opus 5.5. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Same tasks were run on Claude Fable 5.2 and Opus 5.5; results only in the video.

Also:

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1VEWy6GE6o

No prompt published. Carbon and Argon compared on novel writing, front-end code, SVG and an animated short. Writing and animation improved, the front-end test flopped, and a peacock SVG used a lot of tokens.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-11

Compared with:

Argon. Writing and animation improved; front-end flopped; the peacock SVG cost a lot of tokens.

Also:

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ubWy6vEKw

No prompt published. Carbon and Argon compared on front-end, back-end, writing, 3D and security: front-end was a tie, Argon took back-end and the security deliverables, and Carbon took writing (slightly) and 3D. All five of Carbon's first attempts errored, and failed AI Studio previews were retested on a VPS.

Where:

Bilibili video, 2026-11-11

Numbers the author reported:

front-end: Carbon 24 min vs Argon 18 · writing: Argon 2.25x faster · security: both found 5/5 bugs · all five Carbon first attempts errored

Compared with:

Argon. Front-end tie; back-end and security deliverables to Argon; writing (slightly) and 3D to Carbon.

Note:

On back-end, Carbon's output was truncated and would not run; on security, Carbon refused a PoC and its patch was truncated.

No prompt published. Carbon and Fable 5.2 compared on long constrained sentences, a compound-bow archery SVG and a browser OS UI. Carbon's archery SVG beat the rival's, its browser OS UI was ordinary, and the whole Carbon test cost ¥73.

Where:

Bilibili video, 2026-11-11

Numbers the author reported:

whole Carbon test cost ¥73

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. The archery SVG beat the rival; the browser OS UI was ordinary.

No prompt published. Seven tests at max reasoning through a third-party API: an Elden Ring Margit boss fight, a Cybertruck showroom, a Banana Drama animated SVG, a Comic Book Studio, a Three.js Stone Labs site remake, an NBA 2K clone and a Pengi game trailer. Carbon averaged 83, just behind Claude Opus, and the whole benchmark cost $13.90.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Tool:

Third-party API

Numbers the author reported:

average 83 · whole benchmark $13.90

Compared with:

Claude Opus. Averaged 83, just behind Claude Opus.

Note:

Banana Drama had a real code bug, and the site remake had reproducible rendering glitches.

No prompt published. Carbon ran the same five tests the author had given Fable 5.2 the day before (3D room from photos, battle royale, stone age to future civilization, water simulation, game trailer), plus a ship simulator. Results are shown side by side with the earlier Fable video.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Turkish-language video; verdict only in the video.

No prompt published. Fable in Claude Code and Carbon in Antigravity, one shot each, did the same 3 jobs: a Duolingo-style app, an agency automation plan and a 30 s animated explainer. Time and API cost are on screen, with a blind round for the explainer.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Tool:

Antigravity

Numbers the author reported:

30 s animated explainer

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Results only in the video.

No prompt published. In a livestream, Carbon worked a frozen ~100-ticket Notion backlog, rebuilt the podcast room in Blender/Three.js/Unity over ~24 h (repeatedly crashing a Mac Studio), built a UI suite and took a Miami travel test, among other tasks. As reported by BigGo, it finished 15-16 tickets in ~4.5 h (others did 8-9 in under an hour), caught a clipped audio line and opened a PR that was merged, made a ginkgo-leaf macOS icon judged best of all models, and was the first Google model to pass Shipper's coffee-shop travel test.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Numbers the author reported:

15-16 tickets from a frozen ~100-ticket Notion backlog over ~4.5 h · others 8-9 tickets in under an hour · ~24 h Blender/Three.js/Unity rebuild

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. Mixed: its racing game was below Fable 5.2, but its Typeform-clone landing page was more distinctive than Fable's generic one.

Note:

The video description is empty; all details are second-hand from a BigGo write-up of the podcast. BigGo also reports Carbon timed out on many personal-dashboard tasks.

Also:

https://finance.biggo.com/news/d9cd20e5275494cc

No prompt published. Early-access interactive builds: a Three.js open world, an SDF dragon, a 1949 blueprint turned into a 3D walk-through, a fort rebuilt over 100+ unattended passes (~20 hours per the chapter list) in the 67.js engine, a galaxy collision, an RL quadruped and hand-written neural-net weights for Breakout. Four prompting rules for long tasks are shared in the video.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Numbers the author reported:

fort reconstruction: 100+ unattended passes · ~20 hours per the chapter list · four prompting rules for long tasks

Note:

The channel discloses that the author recently joined Google and had early access from Google DeepMind.

No prompt published. After two weeks of early access, the video covers games and visuals, images made with code, business apps, fixing app bugs, writing and video editing, compared with Argon.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Compared with:

Argon. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Early access from Google. No numbers in the description; results only in the video.

No prompt published. Demos of a 3D Marina Bay Sands, a Pomodoro Mac app from one prompt and an app mashing up Bear and Obsidian. A benchmark section also covers Carbon vs Fable 5.2 cost per task.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Compared with:

Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

No numbers in the description for the demos; the cost comparison is only in the video.

No prompt published. Tests include a browser OS, a C++ skate game, Jerry's apartment, a subway FPS, a pool-party swarm, and 3D printing and engineering tasks.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Note:

No numbers in the description; results only in the video.

No prompt published. Five things in a day: an SFO-style airport in Blender with a 737 take-off, a cable-car game, the Golden Gate Bridge 1933-37 from archive photos, a remixed AI Studio game, and a swarm checking a coffee shop's lease. The agent team reading four files flagged a lease line that keeps the shop closed during the morning rush.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Tool:

Antigravity (incl. swarm), AI Studio, Blender

Numbers the author reported:

737 take-off · Golden Gate Bridge 1933-37 · four files

Note:

The lease files were made up for the video.

No prompt published. Seven tests through Cursor and Droid: Along the River During Qingming, creative writing, a blind-box animation, a tuk-tuk ad, image recognition, a soft-furnishing designer and a glue-free mooncake gift box. The mooncake box (structure, die line, folding animation) took 3 hours; problems included image-recognition mistakes, slowness and an unstable connection.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Tool:

Cursor and Droid

Numbers the author reported:

mooncake box took 3 hours

Note:

The Bilibili version was posted 2026-11-11.

Also:

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ToWL6XE2c

No prompt published. Carbon, Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.2 got the same prompts for a 3D pirate ship, a Rube Goldberg machine and a Newton's cradle in Three.js.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Compared with:

Opus 5.5, Fable 5.2. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Turkish-language video; the winner is announced only in the video.

No prompt published. Using the API and Cursor, the author tested video-input feedback on a past upload, 3D game and slide comparisons with Fable, LP/editor/SNS demos, and 3D fighting and goblin games. Given a past video, Carbon said where to cut for a 1-minute version and found noise the author had missed.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-10

Tool:

API and Cursor

Numbers the author reported:

cut suggestions for a 1-minute version

Compared with:

Fable. The verdict is only in the video.

Note:

Japanese-language video; the comparison results are only in the video.

No prompt published. Browser-native code demos: a pelican SVG with inverse kinematics, a zero-dependency 3D pelican backflip, a deforming buckyball/diamond/nanotube, and a one-sentence 3D neon canyon jet game, recorded at 1080p.

Where:

Bilibili video, 2026-11-10

Numbers the author reported:

recorded at 1080p

Note:

Only the 5 s intro is AI video; the rest is browser-native code.

Make a Breakout game I can play right now with the keyboard or the mouse. Give it several levels, a score and some juice. It must be one complete, self-contained HTML file: inline all CSS and JavaScript, and make no network requests of any kind (no CDNs, web fonts or remote images). Reply with the file in a single `` ```html `` code block.

What it is:

hypeorcode.com, which runs daily, sends six fixed one-shot prompts (pelican, wristwatch, landing page, Breakout, logo, About copy) through a third-party API as one user message at medium effort with a 32,768 output-token limit. Carbon's runs took from 33 s to 5 min 21 s and cost from $0.020 to $0.27 each.

Where:

Web page, 2026-11-10

Tool:

Third-party API

Numbers the author reported:

Pelican 3 min 2 s, $0.12 · Watch 5 min 21 s, $0.22 · Landing 3 min 59 s, $0.27 · Breakout 2 min 25 s, $0.19 (109 in / 19,175 out tokens, 1,622 lines) · Logo 3 min 20 s, $0.23 · About 33 s, $0.020 · 32,768 output-token limit

Note:

The prompt shown is the Breakout one. Other models' runs are on the same site, with no verdict text.

Also:

https://hypeorcode.com/

No prompt published. Carbon and Opus 5.5 built a hotel website, a cast-iron skillet launch ad and a "Mission Clock" from the 586-page Apollo 11 transcript. Opus won the website and Carbon won the ad and the long document for 2-1 overall, using ~29% fewer tokens for the same job.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-11-01

Tool:

Runable

Numbers the author reported:

586-page Apollo 11 transcript · Carbon used ~29% fewer tokens for the same job · overall Carbon 2-1

Compared with:

Opus 5.5. Carbon won 2-1: Opus took the website, Carbon the launch ad and the long document.

Note:

Vendor test run inside Runable's own product, dated 2026-11-01, before the 11-10 public API.

No prompt published. First-impression tests on 3D scenes (White House, Stonehenge, Golden Gate, cities), painting worlds, visual explainers and UI, compared with Argon, Opus 5.5, GPT-6.1 Sol, Muse Wonderful, Kimi and DeepSeek. In the first test Opus added more detail but cost $27.50 vs $2.70 for Carbon.

Where:

YouTube video, 2026-10-28

Numbers the author reported:

first test: Opus $27.50 vs Carbon $2.70

Compared with:

Argon, Opus 5.5, GPT-6.1 Sol, Muse Wonderful, Kimi, DeepSeek. A clear step up from Argon and "solidly in the top three"; Sol was more complete and precise.

Note:

LMArena channel, using "Peter's prompts".