Image · API · Commercial Use · Polycount Control · AI Rigging
Built by DreamTech on their proprietary Direct3D-S2 architecture, Neural4D delivers high-fidelity 3D models with clean topology and PBR textures. Their N4D-2.5 model generates at 2K (2048³) spatial resolution in under 90 seconds — one of the fastest in the industry. Supports text-to-3D and image-to-3D with production-ready, 3D-print-ready output. API available at ~$0.15/generation. A strong newcomer worth watching.
Built by DreamTech on their proprietary Direct3D-S2 architecture, Neural4D delivers high-fidelity 3D models with clean topology and PBR textures. Their N4D-2.5 model generates at 2K (2048³) spatial resolution in under 90 seconds — one of the fastest in the industry. Supports text-to-3D and image-to-3D with production-ready, 3D-print-ready output. API available at ~$0.15/generation. A strong newcomer worth watching.
48% win rate · 545 votes across modes
Community rating · out of 5
Community rating
4 ratings · 0 written reviews
No reviews with comments yet. Be the first to share your experience!
Live performance in the current season. Closed seasons use recorded snapshots.
Arena Rank
#16 / 21
Textured ELO
998
Geometry ELO
1003
Win rate · all modes
48%
264 wins · 281 losses
Total: 545 votes
Average Generation Cost
$0.26
Typical runtime: 8.0 min
Nearby ranks in Textured
#15 · 1000 ELO
N4D-2.5 is ranked #16 (998 ELO) while Hi3D v2.1 currently sits at #15 (1000 ELO).
Hi3D v2.1 holds a 2 point advantage, so N4D-2.5 fans tend to focus on prompts that highlight its strengths.
N4D-2.5 wins about 48% of its judged matches overall, compared to 53% for Hi3D v2.1.
Hi3D v2.1 often returns meshes quicker (4.0 min) while N4D-2.5 focuses on fidelity.
#17 · 997 ELO
N4D-2.5 is ranked #16 (998 ELO) while Triverse 3.0 currently sits at #17 (997 ELO).
N4D-2.5 maintains a 1 point lead, which usually translates to steadier community votes.
N4D-2.5 wins about 48% of its judged matches overall, compared to 43% for Triverse 3.0.
Triverse 3.0 often returns meshes quicker (7.0 min) while N4D-2.5 focuses on fidelity.
#14 · 1009 ELO
N4D-2.5 is ranked #16 (998 ELO) while Hi3D v2.0 currently sits at #14 (1009 ELO).
Hi3D v2.0 holds a 11 point advantage, so N4D-2.5 fans tend to focus on prompts that highlight its strengths.
N4D-2.5 wins about 48% of its judged matches overall, compared to 52% for Hi3D v2.0.
Hi3D v2.0 often returns meshes quicker (7.0 min) while N4D-2.5 focuses on fidelity.
#18 · 933 ELO
N4D-2.5 is ranked #16 (998 ELO) while Pixal3D currently sits at #18 (933 ELO).
N4D-2.5 maintains a 65 point lead, which usually translates to steadier community votes.
N4D-2.5 wins about 48% of its judged matches overall, compared to 37% for Pixal3D.
What is the current Top 3D AI rank for N4D-2.5?
N4D-2.5 is sitting at #16 with an arena ELO of 998. It has participated in 545 community votes so far.
How much does it cost to generate with N4D-2.5?
N4D-2.5 reports an average generation cost of $0.26 per test with a typical runtime of 8.0 min.
When should I choose N4D-2.5 over Hi3D v2.1?
N4D-2.5 is ranked #16 (998 ELO) while Hi3D v2.1 currently sits at #15 (1000 ELO). Hi3D v2.1 holds a 2 point advantage, so N4D-2.5 fans tend to focus on prompts that highlight its strengths. N4D-2.5 wins about 48% of its judged matches overall, compared to 53% for Hi3D v2.1. Hi3D v2.1 often returns meshes quicker (4.0 min) while N4D-2.5 focuses on fidelity.
