Grok 4.7 与 GPT-6 Astra 同题生成 three.js 3D 场景
三个电影级场景对比：Astra 花 4.11 美元、25 分钟、思考占 34%；Grok 4.7 花 1.31 美元但慢 2.4 倍，思考占 84%，还渲染出白球。
grok 4.7 vs gpt-6 astra in 3d scenes we put the two models on one job: three cinematic three.js scenes, each a single self-contained html file, no textures, no models, no libraries beyond three.js. a rocket launch with stage separation, a meteor strike that knocks down a city, a dam break that washes away a town. gpt-6 astra – @OpenAI, $5/$25 per m tokens on the flex tier via @OpenRouter grok 4.7 – @SpaceXAI, shipped sep 21, $1.6/$4.8 per m tokens via @OpenRouter - cost, three scenes #1 grok 4.7 – $1.31 #2 gpt-6 astra – $4.11 - tries #1 gpt-6 astra – 12 #2 grok 4.7 – 15 - wall clock, all calls summed #1 gpt-6 astra – 25m 14s #2 grok 4.7 – 60m 43s - output tokens spent on thinking #1 gpt-6 astra – ~34% (14–17k per scene) #2 grok 4.7 – ~84% (62–86k per scene) observations: • grok thinks for 17–23 minutes per scene. 79k of its 93k rocket tokens were reasoning. a streaming request goes silent that long: one attempt was cut off and two more hung with zero bytes before a plain non-streaming call got through • astra's first rocket had a concrete plain, we asked for grass, and a square bloom halo around the distant stage – both fixed by asking, not by editing. its meteor only switched the city lights off; "the buildings must physically collapse" was one more request • grok's dam break rendered as a white ball. 6,200 spray particles drawn additively on top of a bloom pass, fixed by hand grok 4.7 is 3x cheaper per scene and 2.4x slower
这条是引用着另一条写的：x.com/spacexai/status/2102069815225586149