Host Massive Minecraft, ARK, or Valheim Serve
The Problem: Lag and Overpriced Game Hosting If youâ...
There is a common misconception that the larger the cloud provider, the faster the hardware. CTOs often assume that Amazon’s multi-billion dollar R&D budget results in virtual machines that are inherently superior to those of specialized providers. In early 2026, we decided to put this theory to the test.
We conducted a head-to-head performance benchmark between the AWS c7i (Compute Optimized) family and the SurferCloud UHost instances. The goal was to determine if we were actually getting "more" for the premium price AWS charges. The results were a wake-up call for our engineering team and the primary reason we moved 50% of our production compute to SurferCloud.
Get Started: SurferCloud: Cloud Computing Services
The Methodology: A Level Playing Field
To ensure accuracy, we chose identical specifications in the Singapore region for both providers:
- Specs: 2 vCPUs, 4GB RAM.
- OS: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS.
- Tools:
Sysbenchfor CPU and Memory,Fiofor Disk I/O, andNginxfor real-world HTTP throughput.
Test 1: CPU Processing Power (Prime Number Generation)
We ran a sysbench cpu --cpu-max-prime=20000 run test to measure raw mathematical throughput.
- AWS c7i.large: 1,420 events per second.
- SurferCloud UHost: 1,495 events per second.
The Insight: Despite the "c7i" being AWS’s flagship compute-optimized instance, SurferCloud’s UHost outperformed it by roughly 5%. How? The answer lies in CPU Steal Time. On AWS, the hypervisor (Nitro) is extremely busy managing thousands of micro-tenants on the same rack. SurferCloud’s environment appeared "cleaner," allowing our process to utilize the physical silicon with fewer interruptions.
Test 2: NVMe Storage Performance (The Game Changer)
Modern applications are almost always I/O bound. We used fio to test random 4K read/write operations.
- AWS (with gp3 EBS): 3,000 IOPS (Throttled unless you pay for provisioned IOPS).
- SurferCloud UHost (Local NVMe): 18,500 IOPS.
The Insight: This wasn't even close. Because SurferCloud utilizes Local NVMe SSDs in its UHost clusters, the data doesn't have to travel over a network to a storage volume (like EBS). For our MySQL database, this meant that complex joins and large index scans were 6x faster on SurferCloud. On AWS, to get 18,000 IOPS, we would have had to pay an additional $100+/month for "Provisioned IOPS" (io2) volumes. On SurferCloud, this performance came standard.
Test 3: Real-World Web Throughput (Nginx + PHP-FPM)
We simulated 500 concurrent users hitting a dynamic PHP page that performed a simple database query.
- AWS c7i.large: 210 Requests Per Second (RPS) before latency spiked over 500ms.
- SurferCloud UHost: 345 Requests Per Second (RPS) before hitting the same latency threshold.
The Insight: The combination of faster CPU cycles and drastically lower I/O wait times allowed the SurferCloud instance to handle 64% more concurrent traffic. This means that in a production environment, we could replace 10 AWS instances with just 6 or 7 SurferCloud instances, compounding our savings even further.
Test 4: Network Latency and Jitter
We measured the stability of the connection over a 24-hour period.
- AWS: Average Latency 42ms; Jitter 4.5ms.
- SurferCloud: Average Latency 38ms; Jitter 1.2ms.
The Insight: SurferCloud’s use of Premium BGP lines resulted in a much "flatter" latency curve. For gaming or real-time communication apps, Jitter (the variance in latency) is more important than the average speed. SurferCloud’s network was significantly more stable, likely because their routers are less congested than the massive public gateways used by AWS.
Conclusion: Data Doesn't Lie
The benchmarks prove that the "Amazon Tax" isn't just a financial burden—it's a performance burden. By moving 50% of our services to SurferCloud, we didn't just cut our costs; we increased our application’s ceiling.
If you are currently on AWS, I challenge you to run sysbench today. Compare your results to a $10 SurferCloud trial instance. You will likely find that you are paying 2x the price for 0.7x the performance. In 2026, staying on AWS isn't just expensive—it's technically inefficient.
