Grok Code Fast 1

Tested this yesterday with Cline. It's fast, works well with agentic flows, and produces decent code. No idea why this thread is so negative (also got flagged while I was typing this?) but it's a decent model. I'd say it's at or above gpt5-mini level, which is awesome in my book (I've been maining gpt5-mini for a few weeks now, does the job on a budget).

Things I noted:

- It's fast. I tested it in EU tz, so ymmv

- It does agentic in an interesting way. Instead of editing a file whole or in many places, it does many small passes.

- Had a feature take ~110k tokens (parsing html w/ bs4). Still finished the task. Didn't notice any problems at high context.

- When things didn't work first try, it created a new file to test, did all the mocking / testing there, and then once it worked edited the main module file. Nice. GPT5-mini would often times edit working files, and then get confused and fail the task.

All in all, not bad. At the price point it's at, I could see it as a daily driver. Even agentic stuff w/ opus + gpt5 high as planners and this thing as an implementer. It's fast enough that it might be worth setting it up in parallel and basically replicate pass@x from research.

IMO it's good to have options at every level. Having many providers fight for the market is good, it keeps them on their toes, and brings prices down. GPT5-mini is at 2$/MTok, this is at 1.5$/MTok. This is basically "free", in the great scheme of things. I ndon't get the negativity.

Qwen3-Coder-480B hosted by Cerebras is $2/Mtok (both input and output) through OpenRouter.

OpenRouter claims Cerebras is providing at least 2000 tokens per second, which would be around 10x as fast, and the feedback I'm seeing from independent benchmarks indicates that Qwen3-Coder-480B is a better model.

There is a national superset of “NIH” bias that I think will impede adoption of Chinese-origin models for the foreseeable future. That’s a shame because by many objective metrics they’re a better value.

In my case it's not NIH, but rather that I don't trust or wish to support my nation's largest geopolitical adversary.

"largest geopolitical adversary"

I can't believe Americans all are falling for propaganda like this. So Russia is all fine now huh. You know the country you literally had nuclear warheads pointed at for decades and decades and decades on end.

The fact is that China is one of the largest foreign USA debt holders makes it actually scarier than nuclear warheads.

If China would decide to sell US treasuries, it will be more devastating to the US economy than effect of 10 nuclear strikes.

That is absurd!

it's a fact?

The fact is that weapons kill people. Treasuries are just promises. China cannot dump treasures without hurting its own economoy at least as much as they are hurting the US.

They would be incinerating their own foreign exchange reserves just to cause a spike in US interest rates and/or inflation.

Neither Russia nor China has ever deployed nuclear weapons against civilian populations, a distinction held solely by the United States. Their reasons for restraint diverge significantly, rooted in distinct strategic and cultural priorities, yet China’s rising global influence positions it as a greater long-term threat to the United States than Russia, despite Russia’s more overt aggression.

Russia’s behavior, exemplified by the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, reflects an aggressive posture driven by a desire to counter NATO’s eastward expansion and maintain regional dominance. However, its economic challenges sanctions, energy export dependence, and a GDP of approximately $2.1 trillion in 2023 (World Bank) constrain its global reach, rendering it a struggling, though resilient, power. With the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, Russia’s restraint in nuclear use stems from a pragmatic focus on national survival. Its actions prioritize geopolitical relevance over a quixotic pursuit of Soviet-era glory, but its declining economic and demographic strength limits its capacity to challenge the United States on a global scale.

In contrast, China’s non-use of nuclear weapons aligns with its cultural and strategic emphasis on economic expansion over territorial conquest. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, which has invested over $1.2 trillion globally since 2013, China has built a network of economic influence. Its military modernization, backed by a $292 billion defense budget in 2023 (SIPRI) and a nuclear arsenal projected to reach 1,000 warheads by 2030, complements this economic dominance. While China’s “no first use” nuclear policy, established in 1964, reflects a commitment to strategic stability, its assertive actions such as militarizing the South China Sea and pressuring Taiwan signal a willingness to use force to secure economic and territorial interests. Unlike Russia’s regionally focused aggression, China’s global economic leverage, technological advancements, and growing military capabilities pose a more systemic challenge to U.S. primacy, particularly in critical domains like trade, technology, and Indo-Pacific influence.