AWS t3 vs t3a: Intel vs AMD — Is the 10% Discount Worth It?
The AWS t3 and t3a instance families are nearly identical — same vCPU counts, same memory, same burstable credit model. The only real difference: t3 runs on Intel Xeon Platinum 8000-series processors, while t3a runs on AMD EPYC 7000-series. The t3a costs about 10% less.
So is the 10% discount worth it, or are you giving up too much performance? Let's look at the data.
What's the Difference?
Both t3 and t3a are burstable general-purpose instances designed for workloads that don't need sustained high CPU. They share the same size options (nano through 2xlarge), the same memory-to-vCPU ratio, and the same CPU credit model.
| Spec | t3 (Intel) | t3a (AMD) |
|---|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Xeon Platinum 8259CL | AMD EPYC 7571 |
| Architecture | x86_64 | x86_64 |
| Base Clock | 2.5 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Turbo Clock | Up to 3.1 GHz | Up to 2.5 GHz |
| Size Options | nano – 2xlarge | nano – 2xlarge |
| Network | Up to 5 Gbps | Up to 5 Gbps |
| EBS Bandwidth | Up to 2,085 Mbps | Up to 2,085 Mbps |
| Price Difference | Baseline | ~10% cheaper |
Intel's Xeon can boost to 3.1 GHz on single-threaded workloads, while AMD's EPYC stays at 2.5 GHz. This gives t3 a ~5–10% edge in single-threaded performance. For multi-threaded workloads, the gap is negligible.
Pricing Comparison (us-east-1, On-Demand)
| Size | vCPU | RAM | t3 Price/hr | t3a Price/hr | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| nano | 2 | 0.5 GB | $0.0052 | $0.0047 | 10% |
| micro | 2 | 1 GB | $0.0104 | $0.0094 | 10% |
| small | 2 | 2 GB | $0.0208 | $0.0188 | 10% |
| medium | 2 | 4 GB | $0.0416 | $0.0376 | 10% |
| large | 2 | 8 GB | $0.0832 | $0.0752 | 10% |
| xlarge | 4 | 16 GB | $0.1664 | $0.1504 | 10% |
| 2xlarge | 8 | 32 GB | $0.3328 | $0.3008 | 10% |
The ~10% discount is consistent across every size. It's not huge per instance, but it adds up when you're running dozens or hundreds of instances.
Benchmark Comparison
Based on industry benchmarks comparing t3 and t3a at equivalent sizes:
| Benchmark | t3 (Intel) | t3a (AMD) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geekbench 5 (single-core) | ~1,050 | ~950 | t3a ~10% slower |
| Geekbench 5 (multi-core) | ~1,950 | ~1,880 | t3a ~4% slower |
| sysbench CPU (single) | ~1,200 events/s | ~1,080 events/s | t3a ~10% slower |
| sysbench CPU (multi) | ~2,350 events/s | ~2,280 events/s | t3a ~3% slower |
| nginx req/s (static) | ~28,000 | ~27,200 | t3a ~3% slower |
| Redis GET ops/s | ~105,000 | ~101,000 | t3a ~4% slower |
Single-threaded benchmarks show a ~10% gap favoring t3. Multi-threaded and real-world application benchmarks (web serving, Redis) show a 3–5% gap — much smaller than the 10% price difference. For most workloads, t3a delivers better value per dollar.
Price-Performance Ratio
When you factor in the 10% lower price of t3a, the price-performance picture flips:
| Metric | t3 (Intel) | t3a (AMD) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-core perf/$ | 1,050 / $0.0104 = 100,962 | 950 / $0.0094 = 101,064 | t3a (marginal) |
| Multi-core perf/$ | 1,950 / $0.0104 = 187,500 | 1,880 / $0.0094 = 200,000 | t3a wins |
| nginx req/$ per hr | 28,000 / $0.0104 = 2.69M | 27,200 / $0.0094 = 2.89M | t3a wins |
The t3a is ~5–10% slower but ~10% cheaper. On a performance-per-dollar basis, t3a wins for multi-threaded workloads and ties for single-threaded. You get more compute per dollar with AMD.
CPU Credit Behavior
Both t3 and t3a use the identical CPU credit model. There is no difference in how credits are earned, spent, or banked:
- Baseline CPU utilization — Same percentages for matching sizes (e.g., t3.micro and t3a.micro both get 10% baseline)
- Credits earned per hour — Same (e.g., 12 credits/hr for micro)
- Max credit balance — Same (e.g., 288 credits for micro)
- Unlimited mode — Both support unlimited mode with the same surplus credit pricing
When running in unlimited mode, surplus CPU credits cost $0.05 per vCPU-hour on both t3 and t3a. This pricing is identical — the 10% discount on base instance price does not apply to surplus credit charges.
Software Compatibility
Both t3 and t3a are x86_64 architecture. There are no software compatibility differences for the vast majority of workloads:
- Operating systems — All Linux distros, Windows Server, and macOS AMIs work on both
- Docker containers — Any x86_64 container image runs identically
- Programming languages — Python, Node.js, Java, Go, Ruby, PHP — all run unchanged
- Databases — PostgreSQL, MySQL, Redis, MongoDB — no configuration changes needed
You can switch between t3 and t3a by simply stopping the instance, changing the type, and starting it again. No AMI changes, no software reinstallation.
Intel's Xeon supports AVX-512 instructions, which AMD EPYC 7000-series does not. If your workload uses AVX-512 (some scientific computing, custom SIMD-optimized code), it won't work on t3a. Most applications don't use AVX-512 directly.
When t3 (Intel) Wins
- Single-threaded performance matters — If your workload is bottlenecked on single-core speed (e.g., a single-threaded legacy app), the t3's higher turbo clock gives a meaningful edge.
- AVX-512 required — Scientific computing or SIMD-optimized code that uses AVX-512 instructions needs Intel.
- Specific software licensing — Some enterprise software is licensed per-core and optimized/certified only for Intel processors.
- Maximum per-request latency matters — If p99 latency on individual requests is a critical SLA metric, the ~10% single-thread advantage could keep you under a threshold.
When t3a (AMD) Wins
- Cost-sensitive workloads — When budget is the primary constraint, 10% savings per instance adds up across a fleet.
- Web serving & API backends — Multi-threaded request handling shows minimal performance difference, making the lower price a clear win.
- General-purpose computing — Running standard web apps, microservices, or small databases where you're not pushing CPU limits.
- Dev/staging environments — No reason to pay the Intel premium for non-production workloads.
- Large fleets — Running 50+ instances? The 10% discount saves $50–500+/month depending on instance sizes.
Monthly Cost Breakdown
Running a single instance 24/7 in us-east-1 (730 hours/month):
💰 t3.micro vs t3a.micro
💰 t3.small vs t3a.small
✅ Fleet example: 20× t3a.small vs t3.small
For individual instances, the savings are modest. But for fleets of 10+ instances, the 10% discount becomes meaningful — especially combined with Savings Plans for additional 30–40% off.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is t3a slower than t3?
Slightly. Single-threaded workloads are ~5–10% slower on t3a due to the lower turbo clock. Multi-threaded workloads show a much smaller gap of 3–5%. For typical web serving, API backends, and general computing, the difference is barely noticeable in practice.
How much cheaper is t3a?
Consistently about 10% cheaper across all sizes. A t3a.micro costs $0.0094/hr vs $0.0104/hr for t3.micro in us-east-1. The percentage holds for nano through 2xlarge. See detailed pricing on the t3.micro and t3a.micro instance pages.
Should I switch from t3 to t3a?
For most workloads, yes. Both are x86_64 — no code changes needed, just stop the instance, change the type, and start it. The only reasons to stay on t3 are: your workload is single-thread sensitive and the ~10% performance edge matters, you need AVX-512, or your software is Intel-certified only.
Compare t3 and t3a Pricing
CloudBench shows live pricing, benchmarks, and Spot rates for t3, t3a, and 600+ other instance types across all AWS regions.
Explore Instance Pricing →