GPU racks draw power at a rate that simply was not on the roadmap for most facilities built even five years ago, which is why power delivery — not floor space — is now the binding constraint.
The economics of data center capacity have changed faster in the last two years than in the previous decade. Anyone evaluating their options today is working in a genuinely different market.
A practical way to evaluate
Then shortlist on objective data and validate with your own eyes. Marketplace intelligence is excellent for narrowing the field quickly, but a site visit and a couple of reference calls will tell you things no datasheet can.
Start with requirements, not providers. Pin down your power per rack, total committed capacity, connectivity needs, and the compliance regimes you answer to. That single page of clarity will shape every conversation that follows.
Where buyers get it wrong
Treating tier level as a proxy for reliability is a common shortcut that backfires. Design tier describes redundancy on paper; actual uptime depends on maintenance discipline, staffing, and how the facility has behaved under real incidents.
Underestimating growth is more common than overestimating it. Teams that lock in exactly what they need today frequently find themselves negotiating from a weaker position twelve months later, once the facility has less spare capacity to offer.
Why it matters now
Power has overtaken floor space as the binding constraint in most primary markets. Vacancy rates have fallen to record lows, and the practical effect is that capacity — particularly high-density capacity — increasingly needs to be reserved well ahead of when you actually need it.
The market has split in two. Standard enterprise workloads still run comfortably at three to five kilowatts a rack, while accelerated-compute deployments are pushing twenty, fifty, even a hundred kilowatts. Those two worlds are priced and provisioned very differently, and conflating them is a common and expensive mistake.
What good looks like in practice
The strongest operators are transparent by default — uptime history, incident reports, and maintenance schedules are available without a special request. That openness is itself a signal worth weighing.
Good facilities make the boring things boring: predictable billing, clear escalation paths, and remote-hands requests that get done on the timeline promised, not the timeline hoped for.
A short checklist before you sign
- Confirm the certifications your industry and customers actually require
- Leave headroom for growth, including higher-density racks down the line
- Ask what happens operationally when a single system fails, not just what the tier rating implies
- Map the network ecosystem: carriers, internet exchanges, and cloud on-ramps
- Request recent incident reports, not just a summary uptime percentage
The bottom line
The teams that get this right are rarely the ones with the most resources — they are the ones who asked better questions earlier in the process.