AWS c6gd.largevsAWS c6gd.medium

c6gd.large pairs 2 vCPUs with 4GB of RAM at $0.0768/hr On-Demand (about $55/mo at 24×7). c6gd.medium pairs 1 vCPUs with 2GB at $0.0384/hr (~$28/mo). c6gd.medium is 50% cheaper per hour than c6gd.large ($0.0384/hr gap).

Because both instances are in the **c6gd family**, the only thing that changes between them is sizing — same silicon, same architecture (AWS Graviton (ARM64)), same burstable/sustained behavior. The choice is purely about how much capacity you actually need: c6gd.large gives you 2 vCPUs and 4GB of RAM, c6gd.medium gives you 1 vCPUs and 2GB. AWS scales pricing close to linearly within a family, so picking the right size is mostly about right-sizing your workload, not getting a better deal per vCPU.

On raw price-per-performance, the two are c6gd.medium delivers ~85% more single-thread Sysbench score per dollar (36510 vs 67500 points per $1/hr). That's the cleanest signal we have for "which one runs your workload faster per dollar," but it only matters if your workload is single-thread-bound; for parallel workloads the multi-core scores (5327 vs 2535) are what to weigh. Spot pricing flips many of these comparisons — when c6gd.large drops to $0.0249/hr and c6gd.medium drops to $0.0056/hr, the cheap-per-hour winner can swing meaningfully.

In practice, pick c6gd.large when your workload is closer to compute-optimized (CPU-bound work — batch processing, web servers under sustained load, game servers). Pick c6gd.medium when it's closer to compute-optimized (CPU-bound work — batch processing, web servers under sustained load, game servers). When neither side is obviously right, the cheaper hourly rate usually wins for fault-tolerant batch workloads, while the higher single-core score usually wins for latency-sensitive web traffic. The regional pricing tables linked from each instance page below show where each is currently cheapest — sometimes a >20% regional gap flips the comparison entirely.