Fable 5 did well in a hands-on furniture modeling test
A personal test used several to build the same furniture model from the same prompt. The comparison looked at build time, token use, cost, and model quality. GPT 5.5 was fast and used tokens efficiently, but it did not follow the prompt well.
Its dovetail joints were not placed at the corners, and it created joinery that could not realistically be assembled. Fable 5 was also fast and cost less than expected, while getting the joinery right. It added an extra panel with sliding dovetails inserted from the back, and it considered a wall-mounting method using a , though the hook direction was wrong.
Opus 4.8 and Sonnet 5 needed many more and tokens, but their final models still did not get the dovetails right. GLM5.2 failed. A basic physics checked that no board floated by itself and that no two boards overlapped in volume, and the agents had to pass that check before the model counted as ready.
Key points
- Several were tested on the same furniture prompt.
- The comparison covered build time, token use, cost, and model quality.
- GPT 5.5 was fast and efficient, but produced physically unrealistic joinery.
- Fable 5 gave the strongest result in this test and was not as costly as expected.
- Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, and GLM5.2 did not perform as well on this task.