AWS r6gd.16xlargevsAWS r6gd.metal

r6gd.16xlarge pairs 64 vCPUs with 512GB of RAM at $3.6864/hr On-Demand (about $2654/mo at 24×7). r6gd.metal pairs 64 vCPUs with 512GB at $3.6864/hr (~$2654/mo). Both are priced identically per hour on-demand.

r6gd.16xlarge (memory-optimized, AWS Graviton (ARM64)) and r6gd.metal (memory-optimized, AWS Graviton (ARM64)) target different workload shapes. The vCPU:RAM ratios are different (64:512 vs 64:512), and depending on the architectures involved you may also see meaningful single-thread performance and per-hour-cost differences. This kind of cross-category comparison is most useful when you're early in the design phase and not yet sure whether your workload is CPU-bound, memory-bound, or balanced — once that's clear, the right pick is usually obvious.

Benchmark data for at least one of these instances is still being collected, so a direct performance-per-dollar comparison isn't possible yet. Sysbench scores are pending for r6gd.16xlarge and 2817/179396 for r6gd.metal. Check back as the benchmark queue completes — newer-generation instances typically score 10–30% higher on single-thread and 15–50% higher on multi-core vs the previous generation in the same series.

In practice, pick r6gd.16xlarge when your workload is closer to memory-optimized (memory-bound work — in-memory databases, real-time analytics, large caches). Pick r6gd.metal when it's closer to memory-optimized (memory-bound work — in-memory databases, real-time analytics, large caches). 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.