0

You don’t have to own the hardware for AI. But should you?

Every organization building with AI eventually has to decide whether to own the hardware or rent it. This isn’t necessarily always a financial calculation. It touches data security, talent pipelines, hardware obsolescence, and the fundamentally unpredictable nature of AI workloads. A startup spinning up its first large language model faces completely different constraints than an enterprise running production inference at scale. 

As AI compute demands have exploded, so has the complexity of this choice. Cloud providers deliver instant access to cutting-edge GPUs, while a growing wave of organizations are pulling workloads back to their own data centers to escape spiraling rental costs. Here’s a look at the two choices — and why you might choose one over the other.

Building for full control

Organizations with predictable, sustained computing needs often discover that owning infrastructure makes the most strategic sense. Large, continuous training pipelines running month after month benefit from the cost efficiency that comes with ownership. After a payback window that depends on your usage, the economics can favor owned hardware over perpetual rental — at least for workloads that would otherwise generate high monthly cloud bills.

Data sovereignty adds another powerful argument for building. In heavily regulated industries like healthcare and finance, maintaining complete control over sensitive information can override purely economic considerations. As Tom Sanfilippo, CTO of WhiteFiber, explains: “Security and compliance considerations often influence this decision for companies. In highly regulated industries such as healthcare and financial services, the need to secure and protect sensitive data is paramount. A private cloud approach ensures that data and models remain isolated and secure.” For organizations navigating HIPAA, GDPR, or similar frameworks, the compliance overhead of cloud deployments may simply outweigh operational convenience.

Building also eliminates data egress fees — often-overlooked costs of shuttling large datasets in and out of cloud environments. For AI workloads involving terabytes of training data, transfer charges compound fast.

The drawbacks, though, are substantial. Initial hardware investment is much higher, especially for enterprise-grade GPU clusters. That’s a major capital commitment many organizations can’t justify. Beyond sticker price, hidden costs pile up — real estate, power draw, cooling infrastructure, networking redundancy. All of it adds to true cost of ownership.

Perhaps more concerning is the obsolescence risk. AI chips evolve rapidly. Today’s cutting-edge H100s and even H200s may underperform the next-generation TPUs arriving within two to three years. Capital locked into hardware can become stranded as newer, more efficient options emerge. Then there’s the talent problem.

“We often hear that companies struggle to identify, recruit, and retain the skilled resources required to deploy and manage AI infrastructure,” Scott Impelmance, Senior Architect at Myriad360 noted in an interview with RCR Tech. “Maintaining reliability and performance of AI clusters is a unique challenge. Things go wrong and GPUs go off-line, companies need to ensure that they have the appropriate expertise to troubleshoot and remediate to achieve the desired ROI for their infrastructure investments.”

Renting for flexibility

For startups, experimental teams, and organizations facing spiky or unpredictable demand, cloud GPU services present compelling advantages. Spinning up thousands of GPUs for a week-long training run, then shutting them down immediately (while paying only for actual usage) turns hardware from capital expenditure into operational cost. This shift matters enormously for financial planning, cash flow, and organizational agility.

Cloud services also deliver instant access to cutting-edge hardware without depreciation risk. Organizations can experiment with H100s, H200s, or specialized TPUs without committing to multi-million-dollar purchases that may become outdated. The provider handles maintenance, security patches, cooling logistics, and all the operational complexity that would otherwise land on internal teams.

Initial cost uncertainty pushes many organizations toward cloud. As Impelmance observes: “Initial cost is certainly a driving factor given that most companies do not understand how sizable their AI initiatives will be and how much they would need to build if they did it themselves as opposed to leverage Cloud Providers which can grow and scale as their needs do.”

The risks of cloud-first, however, tend to surface over time. Monthly compute bills exceeding $20,000 often signal that ownership would be more economical. Cost creep can be dramatic too. AI workloads frequently grow faster than organizations can plan for, and consumption-based pricing amplifies every expansion. Impelmance warns that “increased cost due to increase in consumption is the immediate challenge of cloud-first as AI workloads are growing faster than orgs can plan around them.”

Vendor lock-in presents another concern, particularly with proprietary cloud chips like Google TPUs or AWS Inferentia. While these specialized processors can deliver exceptional efficiency for specific workloads, they create dependency on a single provider. Organizations pursuing multi-cloud strategies for resilience must manage portability carefully across different environments. General-purpose Nvidia GPUs offer better cross-platform compatibility thanks to the mature CUDA ecosystem, but even they aren’t entirely immune to provider-specific optimizations.

Break-even points

The economics of “build versus rent” have grown increasingly nuanced as the GPU cloud market has fragmented. Nvidia H100 rental rates currently sit at around $3 or $4 per hour on specialized cloud providers, while hyperscalers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud charge $6 to $9 per hour for equivalent hardware. This pricing gap reflects bundled services, ecosystem integrations, and enterprise support—valuable for some organizations, unnecessary overhead for others.

Specialized providers like Lambda Labs, GMI Cloud, and Thunder Compute have carved out significant market share by undercutting hyperscalers by 50 to 70 percent on pure compute workloads. For teams needing raw GPU power without extensive cloud services, these alternatives can dramatically extend runway.

The break even point for an organization, of course, can vary dramatically depending on usage and monthly spend. That said, enterprises spending six-figure monthly numbers may find that pulling workloads back to on-prem systems is financially better than renting off-site usage.

Hardware choice matters too. Inference costs via TPUs can yield savings compared to standard GPUs for large language model deployments. However, general-purpose Nvidia GPUs remain the standard for training due to CUDA ecosystem maturity, flexibility for custom kernels, and broader cross-platform support. Organizations need to match hardware type to workload characteristics, not just compare hourly rates.

The hybrid model

Most sophisticated AI strategies today embrace neither pure ownership nor pure rental, but a blend of both. The hybrid approach deploys cloud resources for development and experimentation while running steady-state production workloads on owned infrastructure. This captures cloud flexibility while achieving long-term cost efficiency from hardware ownership.

“Cloud bursting” exemplifies this strategy: organizations maintain baseline on-premises capacity for predictable workloads but elastically scale to cloud providers during peak demand. Sanfilippo points to inference workloads as a prime example: “Workloads that experience bursting make the most sense for hybrid approaches. As an example, inference workloads supporting consumer applications such as shopping may see significant timebound increases in processing requirements. The ability to burst to the cloud to effectively support the need for additional compute is a viable strategy that also helps reduce costs related to purchasing infrastructure that might be idle during other time periods.”

The key decision factors for structuring a hybrid approach include capital availability, timeline pressure, and access to infrastructure talent. Organizations with strong engineering teams and patient capital can build more aggressively; those facing rapid deployment deadlines or talent constraints should lean more heavily on cloud services.

A growing “repatriation” trend has emerged as large firms pull workloads from hyperscalers to cut costs at scale. These organizations typically have the expertise and capital to manage their own infrastructure, and they’ve accumulated enough operational history to predict compute needs with confidence. For them, the flexibility premium of cloud services no longer justifies ongoing expense.

Workload characteristics should ultimately drive hardware allocation. TPUs excel at large model inference; GPUs remain superior for research and custom kernel development. Stable, high-utilization workloads belong on owned hardware; spiky, experimental work belongs in the cloud. Multi-cloud strategies help avoid lock-in but require careful attention to portability across providers.

As Impelmance summarizes: “The workloads that make the most sense to stay on-prem are stable, predictable, and high utilization workloads. These could be large model training on very large datasets, recurrent training cycles on the same model family or retraining pipelines that have a predictable cadence. The cost of doing this in the cloud or GPU-as-a-Service would likely be prohibitive to the business outcome in most cases.”