Throw Sol 6.1 high (EDIT: and terra, OUCH) into that comparison: https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2-high...
replyNote that Claude models could still do better in some cases, just that because of their refusal to answer sometimes and some weird formatting/stupid errors they make sometimes, they do fail more tests than they should.
replyIn practice they might recover from those errors themselves if they notice it, so they would have better results, but the tests are mostly one-shot and they can either get it wrong or right, no 2nd tries (apart from the agentic ones and a few coding ones which have a limited number of turns available too).
That being said, the pricing and speed are accurate, regardless of the test results.
I checked which tests it failed, and it failed some very basic coding question (to mention which line a bug is on, got the wrong line, and it did so in multiple such tests and accross different retries, weird).
replyIt does seem to be fast though, 2x fast than Opus 5.5
replyI agree, subjectively. I am still satisfied enough with Opus 5.5 I find it hard to change. Typically I would find myself willing to try out the latest & greatest so-called SOTA, but I kind of have "enough." I could get more out of Opus 5.5, and more out of my computer, but the whole idea is I'm trying not to be sitting at the damn computer all day. Fable 5.2 just determined another session is now the "deputy" so I'm wondering what that means.
replyedit: I was seriously annoyed at the fable 200k context limit but apparently that issue has been addressed, or I sent a magic prompt.