You're getting 2 (or X) virtual cores - which means absolutely nothing and can vary from minute to mintue / hour to hour - Linode was even giving 8 virtual cores with the cheapest plan 2/3 years ago. Virtual cores on Linode/DO/Vultr are shared/contended, basically undefined in terms of lower bound performance - you are at the mercy of other tenants - and there's a lot more tenants in the building too (where number of tenants is exponentially more than physical cores), so I maintain if your CPU bound and horizontal scaling these are poor choices. The cost of provisioning high performance networking is very real, Linode/DO/Vultr don't expect 98% of their customers to use anything close to 1TB and this nicely fit with the idea that they are poor choice for horizontal scaling - hence why AWS Lightsail isn't a threat to main cloud offerings. If you're just getting start and no where near the limit of single node then fine, I even use Linode for a few clients myself "Bandwidth:
39GB Used, 13961GB Remaining, 14000GB Quota ".
Disclosure: PM of High-CPU Droplets @ DigitalOcean
I'd highly recommend people check out the performance of the High-CPU Droplets for any compute-bound tasks like CI/CD, batch processing or active front-end web servers.
Someone from our team put together a comparison of compute series machines which includes GCE and you can see the price-to-performance ratio here is pretty solid for DigitalOcean: https://imgur.com/a/o16t2
Interesting, I missed this announcement. This is definitely a step in the right direction to competing for CPU bound workloads. "Achieve up to 4x more CPU performance on High CPU vs Standard Droplets." I guess we can take this to mean that standard droplets virtual CPUs are contended at 4:1 - I would of thought it be higher.
You should also check out Vultr's dedicated core plans [1]. I have ~50 instances running on Vultr and CPU performance / unixbench scores are significantly better than DO and Lightsail's similar sized instances.
