GPT 6.1
A version of OpenAI's GPT-series large language models, providing message-count estimation and token metering in Codex.
Timeline (last 90 days)
The estimated local message counts within a five-hour cycle for the GPT 6.1, GPT 6 Astra and GPT 6 Luna mentioned in the materials range from single digits to thousands.
In a pixel art generator comparison test, GPT 6.1's visuals were the most refined, Claude Opus 5.5 followed closely, and Gemini 4 Argon and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash lagged noticeably.
GPT 6.1 ranked fourth overall in the Code2Video Benchmark, at an average cost of $0.31 per question, about one-tenth of Claude Opus 5.5's cost.
The uploader believes that claims that DeepSeek V4.1 Flash can challenge GPT 6.1 are somewhat misleading and can easily lead people to over-trust the model.
One of the community works is a retro game built with GPT 6.1, which the host rated as "cooked just right".
When GPT 6.1 first launched, many users reported slower responses; OpenAI subsequently added server capacity, and Tibo indicated that the speed issue has improved.
OpenAI's Tibo confirmed on X that GPT 6.1 is coming soon and revealed that a '6.1 SO Ultra Fast' version is on the way, but the official launch time and pricing have not yet been announced.
The article acknowledges that a large amount of its content references models not yet publicly released (such as Gemini 4 Argon, GPT 6.1, and Opus 5.5) and speculative naming, representing the author's extrapolated assumptions rather than verified facts.
In the test, GPT-6.1's final output was rough and riddled with bugs, the character appeared overly blocky, and a clipping bug occurred when the knight used a special attack.
For complex animations with physical behavior (such as a skeleton collapsing after defeat), Sonnet 5.5's performance approached that of Opus 5.5, while for simple actions (slime movement, bat flight), the gap among the three was not significant.
2 more timeline events
All Facts (8)
The estimated local message counts within a five-hour cycle for the GPT 6.1, GPT 6 Astra and GPT 6 Luna mentioned in the materials range from single digits to thousands.
50%UnverifiedIn a pixel art generator comparison test, GPT 6.1's visuals were the most refined, Claude Opus 5.5 followed closely, and Gemini 4 Argon and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash lagged noticeably.
50%UnverifiedGPT 6.1 ranked fourth overall in the Code2Video Benchmark, at an average cost of $0.31 per question, about one-tenth of Claude Opus 5.5's cost.
50%UnverifiedThe uploader believes that claims that DeepSeek V4.1 Flash can challenge GPT 6.1 are somewhat misleading and can easily lead people to over-trust the model.
50%UnverifiedThe article acknowledges that a large amount of its content references models not yet publicly released (such as Gemini 4 Argon, GPT 6.1, and Opus 5.5) and speculative naming, representing the author's extrapolated assumptions rather than verified facts.
50%UnverifiedIn the test, GPT-6.1's final output was rough and riddled with bugs, the character appeared overly blocky, and a clipping bug occurred when the knight used a special attack.
50%UnverifiedFor complex animations with physical behavior (such as a skeleton collapsing after defeat), Sonnet 5.5's performance approached that of Opus 5.5, while for simple actions (slime movement, bat flight), the gap among the three was not significant.
50%UnverifiedOpus 5.5 constructs stone wall convex surfaces purely from real geometric meshes, with the bottom dark band colored using vertex colors; GPT-6.1 creates 12 types of stone materials via scripts and assigns them to different geometric surfaces.
50%