Build1 distinct publisher3 min readPublished
Microsoft Foundry's sizing constants turn provisioned throughput into a division problem you can finish before you buy anything, which matters because the quota you commit does not travel across regions or deployment types.
The Engineer · Build desk

Compiled by The EngineerSomething wrong?How this is made
Start with the division. A 1,000 RPM peak at 1,200 tokens per prompt is 1,200,000 input tokens per minute [5]. Luna's listed constant is 30,000 input TPM per PTU, so the input side of that workload is 40 PTUs [4][2]. Run the identical workload against Terra and it is 400 PTUs; against Sol, 1,000 [2]. Only the divisor moved, and the divisor is a property of the model version pinned in the deployment [2].
The dev.to walkthrough's own answer for that example is 80 PTUs before caching [6]. Input accounts for half of it [3]. The other 40 has to come from the output-side constants in Foundry's sizing table, and that table did not survive into the text supplied to me [3]. The caching delta is a decent check on the reading: cached input tokens consume no PTU capacity, and the drop from 80 to 60 is 20 PTUs, exactly half the input-side 40 [6][4]. Half the input tokens served from cache produces that number.
Then the rounding grammar. Estimates below the 15-PTU minimum go up to 15, and everything else lands on a 5-PTU increment, which is why 62.4 becomes 65, a 4.2 percent overshoot on the computed figure [8][5].
The PayGo case is checkable too. Six four-hour blocks summing to 7,000 RPM give 1,680,000 requests a day at 240 minutes per block, 2.016B input tokens a day, 60.48B over 30 days [9][6]. That reconciles with the published split of 24.192B regular input, 30.24B cached and 6.048B written, and output lands at 10.08B [11][6]. Against $19,051.20 for the month, the blend is $0.27 per million tokens across all 70.56B [12][7]. That looks cheap until you price the peak: 2,500 RPM against a 1,166 RPM daily mean, a factor of 2.14 [9][8]. Provisioned capacity is sized to the peak while PayGo is billed on the mean, and that gap is the spillover argument, one the rates could settle if they had reached me: the figures were pulled on 27 August 2026 from the Azure OpenAI pricing page and the Retail Prices API [13], and neither source reached the text I have.
One unit mismatch is worth catching before anyone signs. The hourly PTU monthly equivalent assumes 720 hours [14], while the PayGo annual figure assumes 365 days [12]. Those are not the same year. The annual total is 12.1667 of those 30-day months, and twelve 720-hour months is 8,640 hours against the 8,760 in a 365-day year, so multiplying a monthly PTU equivalent by twelve drops 120 hours, about 1.4 percent [9].
For any of this to transfer, your workload has to look like the example: an average prompt near 1,200 tokens whose first 1,024 tokens are identical across requests, which is what a cache hit requires [7]; roughly half your input tokens actually reading from cache [10]; and your region and deployment type matching the ones priced. The last condition is the one you cannot fix afterwards, because quota is granted per subscription, region and deployment type, and East US quota stays East US quota; it will not convert into West Europe quota [3]. The quota pool applies the same way no matter which model you point it at [2].
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Prompt caching is available for Provisioned Throughput deployments and cached input tokens do not consume PTU capacity; in the example, caching reduces the calculated requirement from 80 PTUs to 60 PTUs, a reduction of 20 PTUs or 25 percent.
Provisioned Throughput provides a dedicated, fixed amount of processing capacity exclusively for a model deployment; unlike Standard/PayGo it provides a model-specific latency SLA and its capacity is not shared across tenants.
PTU quota is model-independent, so the same quota pool can be allocated across supported models, while throughput per PTU remains model- and version-specific.
PTU quota is granted per subscription, region and deployment type: quota in East US does not carry over to West Europe, and Global Provisioned quota does not carry over to Data Zone Provisioned.
Input TPM per PTU is a model-specific sizing constant, distinct from workload-calculated Input TPM; listed values include 30,000 for GPT-5.6 Luna, 3,000 for GPT-5.6 Terra and 1,200 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
The worked provisioned example assumes a peak rate of 1,000 RPM, an average prompt of 1,200 tokens and an average response of 200 tokens, on gpt-5.6-luna with a Global Provisioned deployment.
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
dev.to
1 article · August 30, 2026
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
build
OpenAI's top model at $4/$20 is a three-month answer to a permanent build decision1 distinct publisher
build
Bedrock turns GPT-5.6 throughput into a routing choice, with residency as the price1 distinct publisher
build
Same-day GPT-5.6 on Azure kills the parity argument, leaving auth and residency to decide1 distinct publisher
build
Changing one model-ID prefix pins GPT-5.6 inference to Mumbai and Hyderabad1 distinct publisher
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Self-consistent where it shows its work
The verifiable parts survive recalculation: the traffic curve, the 50/10/40 cache split and the four 30-day token totals all agree with each other to the last decimal, and both rate sources are named with a retrieval date. The unverifiable parts are structural rather than incidental — the Foundry per-PTU table and the Sweden Central rate card are cited but not reproduced, so the 40 output-side PTUs inside the 80-PTU headline exist only on the author's authority. One practitioner, no second reading of the same tables.
A method, not a rollout
Nobody in this reporting deploys anything. There is no team running 60 PTUs of Luna, no reserved-capacity purchase, no throttling incident, no vendor disclosure of who is buying provisioned throughput — only a worked example with invented traffic and a same-day price lookup. Rate cards tell you what capacity costs, never who took it.
Cent-level precision on invented traffic
The prose overpromises nothing — there is no best-in-class language anywhere — but the numbers wear more confidence than their inputs earn. $231,789.60 a year is quoted to the penny from a six-block traffic curve someone made up and a 50 percent cache-hit rate assumed rather than measured. The 720-hour month adds a smaller distortion in the same direction: twelve of those months are 8,640 hours against a real 8,760, so any PTU-versus-PayGo total assembled by multiplying by twelve runs about 1.4 percent light.
Community post with no visible sponsor
An individual publishing on dev.to, and it reads that way. The details a vendor deck skips are exactly the ones foregrounded here: quota that expires at the region boundary, a 5-PTU increment that overshoots your estimate, a hybrid baseline that ends up costing slightly more per day than plain pay-as-you-go. There is no disclosure in either direction, and the whole exercise does end with the reader on Azure's meter, but nothing in the text is doing sales work.
Trust the arithmetic, verify the tables
Confidence here is uneven by construction and that is the honest reading. Where the post shows its inputs, the outputs replicate and the assessment is firm. Where it points at a Microsoft table, we are one unverified transcription away from every conclusion, and a single publisher offers no way to close that gap. Anyone acting on the sizing should pull the Foundry constants and the current rate card themselves; the method will survive the check even if a number does not.