pixelkilnStart building
Workflows

Environment provider benchmark

Twelve matched PixelLab and Retro Diffusion outputs, with measured costs and review notes.

This benchmark compares PixelLab and Retro Diffusion on three 256×256 game-art briefs. Each brief has two attempts. The test uses the same prompt text and seed numbers for both providers, but seeds are not portable between models.

The benchmark tests the adapters that PixelKiln ships. It does not rank every model or endpoint sold by either provider.

Setup

BriefPixelLab routeRetro Diffusion styleIntended output
Mountain observatorymap, high top-down viewrd_plus__isometric_assetIsolated building on a snowy ridge
River gatemap, low top-down viewrd_plus__topdown_assetIsolated landmark spanning water
Alpine valleypixflux, background keptrd_plus__environmentFull scenic background

Both manifests request 256×256 output with seeds 31415 and 27182. The provider-specific route or style is allowed to do its job. No image was picked, edited, cropped, or post-processed.

PixelLab rejected view: "isometric" on the map endpoint with HTTP 422. The successful observatory attempts use the supported high top-down view while the shared prompt still asks for an isometric three-quarter view. This is a real adapter constraint, so the benchmark records it instead of hiding it.

The committed manifests and lockfiles are here:

Mountain observatory

Prompt: a compact stone observatory built into a snowy mountain ridge, isometric three-quarter view, cedar roof, warm windows, isolated with no scenery

PixelLab APixelLab BRetro Diffusion ARetro Diffusion B
PixelLab mountain observatory attempt APixelLab mountain observatory attempt BRetro Diffusion mountain observatory attempt ARetro Diffusion mountain observatory attempt B

PixelLab followed more of the brief. Both attempts place a substantial stone building on a snowy ridge, and the first reads as an observatory. Retro Diffusion produced tidy cutouts, but both are small cabins on snow-covered rocks. The observatory and mountain-ridge ideas mostly disappeared.

The trade-off is file readiness. Retro Diffusion removed the background and used 35 and 36 colors. PixelLab returned opaque pale backgrounds and used 264 and 266 colors. PixelLab wins prompt coverage. Retro Diffusion needs less cleanup before placement in a game map.

River gate

Prompt: a fortified village gate spanning a narrow river, three-quarter top-down view, stone towers, timber bridge, isolated with no scenery

PixelLab APixelLab BRetro Diffusion ARetro Diffusion B
PixelLab river gate attempt APixelLab river gate attempt BRetro Diffusion river gate attempt ARetro Diffusion river gate attempt B

All four results are usable concepts. PixelLab shows more of the surrounding riverbank and makes the bridge-water relationship obvious. Its outputs are opaque scene patches. Retro Diffusion gives cleaner standalone fortifications. Attempt B carries water through the gate; attempt A reads more like a drawbridge than a river crossing.

PixelLab again follows the whole brief more reliably. Retro Diffusion is easier to drop onto an existing map because its outputs have 56% to 64% transparent pixels. The Retro Diffusion files also stay between 43 and 47 colors, compared with PixelLab's 226 to 240.

Alpine valley background

Prompt: a wide alpine valley at dusk, layered mountains, pine forest, winding river, small warm-lit village, full-bleed scenic background

PixelLab APixelLab BRetro Diffusion ARetro Diffusion B
PixelLab alpine valley attempt APixelLab alpine valley attempt BRetro Diffusion alpine valley attempt ARetro Diffusion alpine valley attempt B

PixelLab's Pixflux route is the surprise here. Both results preserve the wide valley, layered mountains, dusk light, winding river, and tiny settlement. They also use only 22 and 38 colors. The shapes read cleanly at native size.

Retro Diffusion produced attractive scenes with stronger foreground framing and more conventional depth. They feel like places the player could enter, but the framing narrows the valley and pushes the result toward illustration rather than a reusable background layer. They use 37 and 46 colors.

For this brief, PixelLab wins on prompt coverage, graphic clarity, consistency, and cost. Retro Diffusion wins if the desired result is a closer, more cinematic scene.

Cost and operational results

ProviderSuccessful imagesCharged amountFinal balance
PixelLab66 generations4,415 generations
Retro Diffusion6$0.348$0.135

PixelLab charged one generation per image. Retro Diffusion quoted and charged $0.058 per RD Plus image.

The run also caught two integration details:

  • PixelLab's map endpoint rejected the literal isometric view. PixelKiln should document or validate the accepted values before submission.
  • Retro Diffusion rounded its live quote up from PixelKiln's formula result of $0.057768 to $0.058. PixelKiln now rounds offline estimates up to the live quote precision, so planning remains a safe ceiling.

Both manifests now pass doctor, report a current plan, and have six healthy PNG cache entries.

Recommendation

For large isolated buildings or landmarks, start with PixelLab when prompt coverage matters most. Budget for background cleanup. Start with Retro Diffusion when a transparent, compact, low-color asset matters more than capturing every noun in a complex prompt.

For full scenic backgrounds, start with PixelLab Pixflux. These two attempts were cheaper and more faithful to the brief. Try Retro Diffusion when you want foreground framing and a closer illustrated scene.

Do not ask either provider for one giant finished level. Generate terrain, background, buildings, landmarks, and foreground pieces separately. Compose them in the engine, then use integer nearest-neighbor scaling for display.

This sample is useful, not definitive. Two attempts expose obvious tendencies, but they do not measure every style, prompt family, or model update. Rerun the committed manifests when either provider changes its models.