I could double the cores and mem probably too.
If you operate at sufficient scales to amortize the fixed overhead of operations (which is not that large of a scale), you can break even running your own server infrastructure within 12 months versus AWS if you know what you are doing. That last part is a big caveat, but not a large hurdle.
There are other considerations but in pure hardware terms, on AWS you've bought the hardware after 6 months of utilization.
So in reality I will always times the cost of server ( over X months period ) + colocation / month by 2.5. And Double that to give them Margin for support etc.
That is roughly 5x the cost. And in most cases seems to be what AWS is charging for.
Not saying I agree with their pricing.
Or you could get an eight core / 32GB ram machine for under $230 on eBay.
Oh and you need a DR site too, so double it.
And staff up 4x for 24x7 operations and build an orchestration layer yourself.
I’ve done the math in a lot of scenarios, including (especially) staff time. Running your own real data center doesn’t make long-term financial sense unless you are in the mid-hundreds of physical servers.
Colo might make a bit more sense for some situations, but there’s a reason so much is being moved to cloud providers. The people doing it aren’t stupid.
My guess is the advantage evaporates.
A bit of browsing on Geekbench suggests that one a1.4xlarge instance (i.e. two a1.2xlarges) is roughly comparable to a Ryzen 3400G. Adding in rough costs for the other components (motherboard, power supply, case, and 32GB of RAM), a bare-metal system equivalent to an a1.4xlarge looks like it would cost maybe $500-600 to buy outright.
In other words, if all you care about is raw CPU performance, then over long periods of time AWS costs more than 10x as much as bare-metal per unit of performance, even with up-front reserved instances.
For 3 months, I was charged $11,$23, and finally $4 for 3 days of the 3rd months, where I QUICKLY cancelled the server...this is OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive for a single processor, 1G RAM, 30GB SSD cloud server!
$37 for some 64 days is totally overpriced. You can get high quality low cost cloud servers for less then $5/month, and if you purchase a full year, half that.
Amazon really disappointed me with their FREE bait-n-switch bullshit marketing, and I will NEVER recommend their low end servers again.
Only this many cents to use this thing, which, heh, I guess it requires this thing too, and this thing, and this thing ... man, some of these cents are adding up. Oh, a "NAT Gateway" is $30/mo? Well, OK. Keep going for a few weeks and you're staring down a bill for a rather scary number of cents while the CFO's angry rants can be heard half-way across the office.
There are entire consultancies that specialize in decoding AWS bills. Let's not pull leg here.
Is there any truth to this? Every time I see this claim, it is actually comparing the price tag for servers in the on-prem case with the price tag for compute on AWS/etc (which includes a whole lot of engineering and data center management costs). It's a pretty meaningless comparison.
My guess is that AWS has the economies of scale to outperform your average private data center on a total-cost-of-ownership basis.