DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Fable 5.1: Blender scenes at 36x lower cost
In a Blender scripting test, Flash matched Fable on simple props at 36x lower cost, but dropped constraints and contradicted its own naming in complex and long builds.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash writes Blender scenes for 36x less than Fable 5.1, and both of them hold a million tokens of context Both drive Blender through Python, both land a prop or a simple interior, and on that tier the premium buys you nothing at all. The split shows up where one script has to keep hundreds of objects consistent with each other: > Props: identical output, Flash wins outright on price > Parametric assemblies: Flash drops a constraint, Fable keeps the chain intact > Long builds: Flash contradicts its own naming by object 40, Fable stays coherent • What they cost per million tokens > DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: $0.30 in, $1.20 out, 1M context, MIT open weights > Fable 5.1: $10 in, $50 out, 1M context, cache reads at $0.25, batch at half > A 400K-in, 80K-out scene build: about $0.22 against $8.00 • Where each one earns its rate > Flash: bulk variants, retopo, UV passes, anything you can check by eye > Fable: rigs, modifier stacks, anything where one wrong value kills the file > Flash rewrites the whole script on a failure, Fable edits the broken object And the part that broke my brain: Flash looked 36x cheaper, then needed 5 passes on a rigged character. Fable landed it on the first, and came out under the cost of attempt five. Same scene file. The cheap one was only cheap on simple geometry. The number worth tracking isn't price per million tokens. It's price per scene that opens clean ↓
This post quotes another post: x.com/0xcodio/status/2110684404800536970