AWS adds 32-vCPU option and an easier on-ramp to its cloudy desktops Amazon Web Services has flicked the switch on a pair of workstation-grade cloud desktops that, ironically, highlight a problem with the tech. The cloud giant’s desktop-as-a-service offering is called “WorkSpaces” and on Wednesday two new instance types were annoucned: the GeneralPurpose.4xlarge with 16vCPUs and 64GB of memory …
A top-of-the-line, non-AI-featured, gaming-optimized Intel Core i9-14900K retails for about US$450.
In three or four months, perhaps five, the fees for using an AWS GeneralPurpose.8xlarge VM would pay for a similar desktop system (Yes, AWS' offering is for 32 cores, vs the Core i9-14900K's 24 cores. But the AWS cores are virtual cores, with the performance reduction that implies.)
Or, is this offering aimed at businesses crippled by the OPEX/CAPEX artificial distinction?
Rental is always expensive compared to buying, but there wouldn't be a business in it otherwise.
Though it does demonstrate a lot of the confused thinking around cloud - the model works great for things you only need temporarily, but if it's for anything truly permanent the direct cost benefit isn't exactly obvious.
Guess it's like any other rental or lease then.
It's not like the numbers are difficult to understand but there does seem to be a blindness to cost when it comes to paying for cloud services vs buying actual kit. Like it's not real money, at least up to the point where the massive accidental bills appear. Though again that's exactly how many people get into PCP/lease/phone contracts on a personal basis because they can't understand what the 'affordable' monthly bill really costs overall.
You use cloud for flexibility and the possibilities that gives, not because it's a cheaper way to build the same capacity as your fixed systems. As I repeatedly have to point out when explaining about my private cloud infrastructure when discussing costs.
For that kind of money, you could get a set up a GNUbooted KGPE-D16 with dual 6282 SE's to get 32 cores and install 128GB (or 256GB) of ECC-DDR3 and have control over the business's computing.
Even assuming those are half as fast as you need and you need 2 and the internet and power is expensive, that still works out to be much less expensive after a handful of months.
Even if the business doesn't want to have control over its own computing, you'll be able to find a second hand, or even brand new server that is better for cheaper (many businesses even have a perfectly usable server that is sitting there unused as windows eventually slowed down on it, but that turns out to be plenty fast once you install GNU/Linux).
Remote VMs only appear to ever make financial sense if you want to test something out for a few days or weeks before purchasing and installing hardware.
If you are wanting a 'workstation grade' computer, most people are wanting a dedicated GPU to go with their high spec CPU and since the article only mentions 'dedicated video memory' and not a dedicated GPU it sound like its not really a service that most people could use to replace their workstations.
And if your just wanting a Windows PC in the cloud to run Office 365 or similar on then its way overkill for that and cheaper alternatives are available. So i'm struggling to see who is actually going to want to use this?
Yes but I literally bought that machine; 32-core, 256ram for less than 3.5 months of that rental price, yes its previously owned but the difference between consumer machines and the servers that are now being disposed of is huge.
If i was looking to shift things for a couple of months and there was a cash-point transit available i'd buy it. And then likely just take scrap value for it after it had done the job.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
