Olezhka

AI models, tested side by side. Free tools when I find them.

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

Same prompt, one shot: an interactive 3D mechanical skeleton watch with an exploded view in Three.js.

- Claude Sonnet 5.5: 38m 35s | ~43.4M tokens | $13.47
- GPT-6.1 Sol: ~15m 24s | ~6.4M tokens | $1.40

Costs are estimated API prices.

Sol went for a luxury product showcase with smooth case separation and clean typography. But Sonnet built a fully labeled mechanical movement with every individual gear floating on the central axis.

Almost a 10x cost difference. Which approach do you like more?

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

Here:
Build a single self-contained HTML file using Three.js: an interactive 3D deep-sea bioluminescent jellyfish simulation with squishy soft-body physics.
Requirements:
- Visuals: Dark abyss environment with glowing suspended marine snow particles. The jellyfish bell must use a translucent, refractive shader with subsurface scattering (SSS) and pulsing neon emissive veins.
- Physics: When the user clicks/drags the jellyfish bell, it should deform elastically like soft jelly with satisfying wobble and spring-back damping. Tentacles should follow realistically using a verlet or chain-physics solver.
- Interaction: Click-drag to pull and bounce the jellyfish; mouse move controls the camera orbit. Include a minimal HUD overlay showing swim velocity and a toggle for wireframe/glow intensity.
- Single file only, no external 3D models or textures, 60 FPS performance.

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

Same prompt, one shot: an interactive 3D bioluminescent jellyfish with soft-body squish physics in Three.js.

Claude Opus 5.5: 17m 31s | ~2.3M tokens | $3.65
GPT-6.1 Sol: 12m 43s | ~2.4M tokens | $0.82

Costs are estimated API prices.

Sol built a clean interactive page with sleek typography and subtle glow. But Opus went all-in on the organism: dense volumetric fog, glowing emissive veins and actual jet propulsion pushing it forward on every pulse.

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@keydol123 Agreed, both delivered solid results

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@theaidesk_ Yeah, that neon palette and minimalist UI look so clean

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@Soocoorroo Opus got the math right, but I kinda prefer Sonnet’s visuals. Just looks a bit cleaner to me

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@keydol123 Astra actually nailed the translucency and liquid honey inside. Opus turned the entire bottle itself into a block of jelly

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@aipulseda1ly Being #1 on text benchmarks means nothing when your 3D spatial awareness is this cooked. Sonnet completely destroyed Argon here

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@AI_Screening @claudeai @GeminiApp Muse Wonderful getting completely exposed here. Benchmarks mean nothing when your 3D bike looks like it was drawn in Paint

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@liamxbtt Opus getting that water shader and moody lighting on the first try is insane. Argon looks nice and stylized, but Opus feels like an actual cinematic render

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@rubenssoto_ai @opencode LongCat making the bird microscopic and having its legs do complete 360 barrel rolls around the axis is hilarious.
Mimo the first one, depseek - second one

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@EnvolDev That mirror water reflection on Opus completely steals all my attention. Astra is cool, it bilded detailed plain, but Opus feels like a full cinematic flyover

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@vib3coded Opus nailed the plush texture, but Astra built an actual pigeon shape. The Opus one looks more like a tiny penguin to be honest

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@AdityaJhajhar12 Rare to see Grok win in 3D. The jelly bounce and soft glow look so much cleaner than Argon

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@N1njaCodex $10 for this is crazy good. Looks straight out of an indie game.

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@SahilPanhotra Google is genuinely closing the gap with top frontier models by Argon. It’s actually a seriously solid model

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

Same prompt, one shot: an interactive first-person spaceship cockpit with an Earth-to-Mars warp jump in Three.js.

- Claude Opus 5.5: 41m 18s | ~23.6M tokens | $11.77
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 23m 40s | ~9.6M tokens | $2.15

Costs are estimated API prices.

Sol went for a clean, hard sci-fi aesthetic with sharp vector telemetry and a classic hyperspace starfield. But Opus turned the cockpit into a full sci-fi cockpit with warm interior lighting, animated holo-radar, and a chromatic warp tunnel.

A 5.5x price difference. Which warp jump feels more immersive to you?

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@federicodonaton True, at under $2 Sol definitely leaves plenty of budget for iteration. A quick second pass on bloom and wet pavement reflections might close the gap

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

Same prompt, one shot: an interactive Tokyo street alley at night in the rain.

- Claude Opus 5.5: 34m 14s | ~30.7M tokens | $12.82
- GPT-6.1 Sol: ~16m 42s | ~7.8M tokens | $1.76

Costs are estimated API prices.

Sol gave it a little moody, minimal vibe. But Opus went all out on the neon bloom, steam vents, arcade machines, and street props.

Opus cost 7x more, but visually it feels like a finished scene with much more details. Which vibe do you prefer here?

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@itsfazley Cool little toy, but the physics and animations feel pretty mid honestly. Sonnet or Opus definitely would’ve handled the squishy jelly momentum much better

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@0xRhinoX Sonnet getting real transmission and refraction for $7 is the real winner here. Astra giving you a standard plastic cube after an hour of thinking is hilarious

[Olezhka @olezhavich]

@AIMind_Ai Honestly, the agent approach here really shows. 1h 50m of self-testing sounds crazy, but those micro-details like the birds and blowing petals make it feel like an actual piece of art instead of just a generic 3D demo