Astra Low vs Sol High vs Terra High credit usage measurement
一位开发者进行了一项测试，比较了 GPT-6 Astra Low、GPT-5.6 Sol High 和 GPT-5.6 Terra High 在相同 Codex 任务上的信用使用情况。Astra Low 的首次测试成本为 2.23 美元。为了确保准确性并排除缓存令牌的影响，Astra Low 测试被重新运行，结果显示成本完全相同，仍为 2.23 美元，这证实了这些模型比较测量的结果一致性。
时间与来源
时间显示为 UTC
显示时区：UTC
本地时区尚不可用，暂时显示 UTC。
发布当时偏移：UTC+02026年9月11日 12:46 UTC
收录当时偏移：UTC+02026年9月12日 12:01 UTC
- 发布
- 2026年9月11日 12:46
- 收录
- 2026年9月12日 12:01
- 来源类型
- 开发者社区
- 档位
- 社区
- 信源状态
- 正常
档位是按信源手工设定的编辑判断，不是逐条打分。
讨论趋势
百分比基于采集到的讨论信号，不代表新增评论数或独立参与人数。曲线仅用于同一话题在不同时段的比较。
I ran a small test comparing the cost of GPT-6 Astra Low, GPT-5.6 Sol High, and GPT-5.6 Terra High on the exact same Codex task.
I asked all three to export the full conversation history from a medium-sized Codex chat as an .md file, using the least amount of tokens possible. I used the exact same prompt for each model.
I recorded my account balance before and after each task, then calculated the actual cost of each individual run from the difference.
Cost per completed task:
- Astra Low: $2.23
- Sol High: $0.32
- Terra High: $0.42
Yeah... I was very surprised by the difference between Astra and the other models. Astra Low cost roughly 6.9× as much as Sol High for the exact same task.
Obviously, this is a tiny test, so the results may or may not be representative of broader real-world usage. But it is a measurement nonetheless.
Clarification: Same session, same task. Changed the model, "edited" the last message, sent it again.
Edit: To check whether running the same task was using cached tokens and therefore lowering the cost of subsequent tests, I ran the first test (Astra Low) again. The result was exactly the same, down to the last cent: $2.23.