In IDC’s Future Enterprise Resiliency and Spending (FERS) Survey 2026, Wave 5, 76% of tech leaders ran AI agent spend over forecast. The video below opens on that number, and it leads to a larger question: who sets the pace in the AI economy once promotional pricing ends?

IDC research points to five priorities that sit on nearly every tech leader’s desk right now: Budgeting and cost control, Rethinking sourcing and vendor ecosystems, Proving value, AI governance and ownership, and IT benchmarking. The video covers each one. This post adds the research behind it and the question to bring to your next budget review.

Every priority comes down to a peer comparison, which is where IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders comes in. It puts IDC research, price benchmarks, and peer positioning inside the AI tools you already use.

1. Budgeting and cost control

AI agent spend is running ahead of forecast, and the promotional pricing that softens the bill expires in early 2027. The FERS 2026, Wave 5 numbers show how widespread that is: 76% of tech leaders ran AI agent spend over forecast, and 63% have a quarter or more of that budget on credits that expire by early 2027.

A bill held down by credits has a step-up scheduled into it, so a plan built on today’s invoice will miss. That puts one question at the top of your next budget review: how much of our AI budget sits on credits that expire, and when?

IDC FERS 2026 tracks the overrun and the share of budget on expiring credits. IDC MaturityScape: AI Cost Management 1.0 shows where your cost management practice sits on a maturity scale. IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders adds price benchmarking and peer comparison. 76% are over budget. Are you?

2. Rethinking sourcing and vendor ecosystems

Prices are up in nearly every category, and many leaders are renegotiating without knowing what a good deal looks like. In FERS 2026, Wave 5 (worldwide, n = 1,585), 41% of tech leaders are renegotiating contracts aggressively in response to price increases in software and services. IDC deal guides show negotiated discounts on the same product ranging from 0 to 70%. One in three worry about lock-in and the inability to move workloads, according to IDC research.

A spread that wide on one product means the benchmark matters at the negotiating table. The question to ask: where does our discount sit against peers on the same product? IDC deal guides answer it with negotiated discount data. IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders delivers price benchmarking inside the tools you use, backed by research that covers 5,000+ technology vendors (IDC press release, October 6, 2026). Discounts on the same product span 0 to 70%. Which end are you on?

IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders helps you understand how your AI costs compare to other organizations like yours. Visit IDC Quanta to learn more.

3. Proving value

Departments report savings while the company loses money. IDC AI Economics research finds that 66% of organizations fund AI in ways that let a department show savings while the company loses money on the same work. Visibility is thin. In the IDC AI Economics survey (August 2026, n = 1,184), 35% of organizations see AI spend appear outside IT or procurement, and 19% have no formal way to see or manage AI costs. Only 9% rate their AI FinOps practice, meaning the practice of tracking and managing what AI costs, as fully mature.

This is where the CFO joins the conversation as the economic buyer, and it helps to answer the CFO’s question first: does our business case hold at post-promotion pricing? The IDC AI Economics and Cost of Ownership Survey and IDC MaturityScape: AI Cost Management 1.0 quantify where AI spend sits and how mature the practice is. IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders brings cost benchmarks and peer positioning into your own workflow, so you can build an enterprise-level view of AI cost that a CFO can verify. Only 9% have a fully mature AI FinOps practice. Where do you stand?

4. AI governance and ownership

AI buying is now a committee decision with split decision rights, according to FERS 2026, Wave 5. When decision rights split, no single leader sees the whole AI cost, and the self-assessments show it: 61% of tech leaders rate their AI cost governance as mature while running over budget (FERS 2026, Wave 5). Self-rated maturity and actual results sit far apart, which is why leaders need an outside reference point for what good governance looks like.

In North America, Chief AI Officers report to the CIO or CTO in most organizations, according to IDC research, so the conversation starts with you. Two questions follow. Who owns AI cost end to end? And mature against whom? IDC MaturityScape Benchmark: AI-Fueled Organization benchmarks governance alongside strategy, people, and technology. IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders gives the CIO, CTO, and Chief AI Officer one shared reference point for peer practice, across the governance themes of ownership, sovereignty, and portability. 61% say mature while running over budget. How would you measure it?

5. IT benchmarking

Every leader is being compared with peers on AI transformation, IT spend, and governance maturity, and most do not know where they stand. IDC MaturityScape Benchmark: AI-Fueled Organization Worldwide, 2026 (n = 1,900) places organizations on a five-stage maturity scale across four dimensions: strategy, people, technology, and governance. 61.3% of organizations are in the two earliest stages, ad hoc and opportunistic. 35.6% sit in the middle stages, repeatable and managed, and 3.1% are optimized.

Each priority above is a peer comparison in disguise. A discount, a governance rating, and a maturity stage mean something only next to the same number at an organization like yours. IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders delivers peer positioning on AI transformation, IT spend, and governance inside the tools you already use. Which stage is your organization in, and which dimension is holding it back? 61.3% are still near the start. Where do you stand?

Which of these five is on your desk this quarter?

PriorityThe numberThe question to ask
Budgeting and cost control76% ran AI agent spend over forecast (FERS 2026, Wave 5)How much of our AI budget sits on credits that expire, and when?
Rethinking sourcing and vendor ecosystemsDiscounts on the same product run 0 to 70% (IDC deal guides)Where does our discount sit against peers on the same product?
Proving value66% fund AI so a department shows savings while the company loses money (IDC AI Economics research)Does our business case hold at post-promotion pricing?
AI governance and ownership61% rate AI cost governance mature while running over budget (FERS 2026, Wave 5)Who owns AI cost end to end, and mature against whom?
IT benchmarking61.3% are in the two earliest AI maturity stages (IDC MaturityScape Benchmark, 2026)Where do we stand against peers on AI maturity, spend, and governance?

Start with the priority whose number looks most like your own, and take its question to your next review. Watch the video, then see where your organization stands against peers in IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders.

Your growth plan has a reader you may never meet: the buyer’s CFO. CFOs or their delegates approve 78% of technology purchases, and they want evidence that is independent of the vendor.

That scrutiny arrives alongside pressure from the top. 64% of CEOs rank growth as their number one priority, according to IDC’s 2026 Worldwide CEO Survey.

Even with strategy, campaigns and messaging in place, growth plans stall at two checkpoints IDC’s analysis points to: a buyer’s CFO, who wants defensible evidence that doesn’t come from the vendor, and a buyer who increasingly trusts peers and industry experts over vendor content.

Same 12 months, different growth stories

A rising market doesn’t lift every company equally. In IDC’s Worldwide Semiannual Software Tracker, vendors measured across the first and second halves of 2025 show very different trajectories in individual software markets: an enterprise workflow platform speeding up, an enterprise-service platform slowing from an unusually high base, and a customer-engagement vendor whose two product lines moved in opposite directions.

Aggregate market figures can hide that spread, because they describe the market’s direction and say little about which companies are gaining. The full comparison is in the report.

The buyer you can’t see: Earning trust earlier

Growth plans also depend on reaching buyers who are harder to see and harder to persuade. A recent survey found that 51% say buyers place more weight on peer reviews and industry experts than on vendor content. Buyers also increasingly use AI tools before they visit a vendor’s website, and organizations report that more of the buying journey is invisible to them than it used to be.

Two challenges follow. The first is credibility. A persuasive campaign can generate interest, but buyers want outside perspectives to confirm what they’re hearing. The second is visibility. AI-powered research tools are changing how buyers discover and evaluate technology, and by the time someone visits your website, they may already have compared the alternatives. Much of that research happens outside the channels marketers use to monitor and reach prospects.

Your website, advertising and sales materials still matter. They work harder when third-party evidence supports them, evidence buyers can find and weigh on their own terms.

The CFO gate: Does your business case pass the test?

Picture the deal moving well. Your campaign captured attention, sales conversations are going well, and everything points toward a close, until the proposal reaches the buyer’s CFO.

At that point the conversation turns to whether the investment makes financial sense. A CFO wants evidence that stands on its own, and a business case that can’t withstand scrutiny loses momentum.

For marketing leaders, the CFO review works as a test of the messaging: every claim has to be one that someone else can defend. Third-party research, like the intelligence IDC provides, can back claims about business value and give sales teams reliable information to use with customers. It also gives buyers something to reference when they explain a recommendation to their own financial stakeholders.

What closes the gap?

IDC Multiplier brings together three connected capabilities: Understand, which uses IDC research and analyst expertise to validate where you can win; Activate, which turns that position into content backed by IDC data and analyst expertise; and Grow, which connects you with senior technology decision-makers through events and IDC-moderated roundtables.

Is your growth plan ready to move forward?

Start by finding where your plan is losing momentum. List the claims at the center of your growth story and ask whether each one has evidence a CFO and a skeptical buyer could check without taking the vendor’s word for it. Where the answer is no, that is the gap to close first.

Christina Cardoza - Content Marketing Manager - IDC

Christina Cardoza is a Content Marketing Manager at IDC, where she specializes in brand content and social media strategy. With a background in journalism and editorial leadership, she has a proven ability to transform complex technology topics into clear, actionable insights.

Organizations that fully use cloud marketplace capabilities save more than $1 million a year on average, according to IDC research. Capturing that opportunity starts with deciding earlier which technology decisions deserve your committed cloud spend. 

IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders, now available in AWS Marketplace, is built to support those decisions. It gives technology leaders a new way to put IDC intelligence to work. Ask a question and get a sourced, decision-ready answer. Compare vendors, benchmark pricing and deal terms, and pressure-test AI strategies. Build the evidence for a board recommendation. If your organization holds committed AWS spend and you are weighing vendor selections, renewals, or AI purchases as you plan 2027, this post is for you.

The decisions waiting on that budget are getting harder 

In IDC’s July 2026 Future Enterprise Resiliency and Spending Survey, 67% of organizations went over budget on agent spend at some point in the past 12 months, and 24% ran significantly or extremely over forecast. At the same time, more than 40% of CIOs and CTOs measure vendor performance without enterprise-wide consistency, which leaves negotiators comparing against whatever numbers each team happens to have. 

The implication: whatever budget you hold, your leverage in a vendor negotiation depends on whether you can show what a fair price looks like. 

Getting to yes with finance takes evidence both sides trust 

If you are a CIO or CTO, you carry the technology decision while Finance carries the commitment, and you are expected to bring the two into agreement. IDC understands how demanding that is. In IDC’s May 2026 Worldwide CIO Sentiment Survey, quantifying efficiency gains and demonstrating ROI to executives is tied as the hardest part of measuring technology benefits. Finance faces its own pressure. IDC research shows that CFOs or their delegates approve 78% of technology purchases, and they look for transparent costs, defensible ROI, and visible risk before they say yes. 

The same CIO survey shows what helps. A lack of transparency is the leading frustration with AI vendors, and client reviews and testimonials rank near the bottom of the criteria CIOs and CTOs use to select vendors. The appetite is for first party evidence. 

Alignment grows from shared evidence: trusted, credible, and verified intelligence, together with access to the experts who developed it. When your CFO can see where a recommendation came from, and an IDC analyst is available to pressure test it with you, the conversation can focus on how best to spend. That is what IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders is built to provide. 

Alignment grows from shared evidence: trusted, credible, and verified intelligence, together with access to the experts who developed it. When your CFO can see where a recommendation came from, and an IDC analyst is available to pressure test it with you, the conversation can focus on how best to spend. That is what IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders is built to provide. 

From marketplace discovery to the right vendor at the right price 

AWS Marketplace makes vendors easy to find. Describe what you need, and it returns recommended products built from vendor supplied listings and customer ratings. But choosing among them calls for objective depth, and that is the role of IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders. 

The Sourcing Workspace in IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders takes a technology leader from a need to a negotiated deal in five steps, with IDC research and data behind each one: 

  • Identify a market. Start from the IDC defined market that aligns with your need, such as AI governance. 
  • Define your requirements. Set the criteria that matter most to your organization and rank each one, from critical deal breakers to nice to haves. You can upload your own requirements. 
  • Build your shortlist. IDC Quanta evaluates vendors against each requirement using IDC research, including IDC MarketScape assessments, and shows where each vendor passes or falls short. When no single vendor clears every deal breaker, IDC Quanta says so and suggests how to pair providers to cover the gaps. 
  • Build the RFP. Generate a custom RFP from IDC’s proprietary data, with your requirements, weighted evaluation criteria, and timeline built in. 
  • Prepare negotiations. Upload your vendor quotes and an IDC analyst reviews the terms and comes back to you, with pricing benchmarked against IDC data. 

IDC Quanta draws on thousands of published technology vendor research documents and 15B+ proprietary data points, and it shows the source behind each answer so you can verify it before you take a recommendation to your CFO or board. Because that depth comes from proprietary IDC data and analyst research, it gives you a view of the market that general purpose AI tools cannot draw on. 

The result is a decision you can defend: requirements that trace to your priorities, a shortlist built on independent evidence, and a price tested against benchmarks, with IDC experts available at each step. 

Buying through AWS Marketplace gives you the same IDC Quanta, simply paid for by drawing down the AWS spend you have already committed. IDC’s trusted, verified data helps you navigate those purchases with confidence and helps ensure your spend drives the best possible outcomes. 

What to do next

Find the IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders listing in AWS Marketplace and get in touch with IDC. Then, bring your next technology decision, such as a renewal, a vendor consolidation, or an AI purchase, into IDC Quanta for Tech Leaders, set your requirements, and build the shortlist and the case you will take to Finance. The research and analyst expertise behind it are what IDC has always sold. What’s different is that your existing AWS commitment can now cover the cost. 

Haroon Zahid - Director of Corporate Strategy and Partnerships - IDC

Haroon Zahid is Director of Corporate Strategy and Strageic Partnerships at IDC.

过去两年,中国液冷服务器市场快速增长。IDC中国液冷服务器追踪显示,2026年上半年中国液冷服务器市场厂商收入同比增长153.1%,未来五年出货量年均复合增长率预计接近49%。

但比增速更值得注意的,是采购端正在发生的变化:越来越多高密度算力项目不再以“台”为单位选型,而是把计算节点、节点间互联、供电和柜内液冷配套作为一整套系统配置和交付。

机柜,正在从机房里的物理容器,变成算力采购的交付单元。这一变化的影响并不止于采购环节。当整柜成为交付单元,服务器厂商交付的是一套已集成的系统,数据中心承接的也不再是若干台设备,而是一组对供电、冷却和接口条件有明确要求的负载。

设备形态的变化,正在把竞争力问题从“能不能买到”,推向“能不能接得住”。在推理与智能体(Agent)应用快速扩散的背景下,这一变化的节奏可能比预期更快。

IDC 持续跟踪中国液冷市场的发展,在液冷服务器市场研究的基础上,进一步观察产品形态与部署条件的变化。结合近期市场数据及与厂商、用户的交流沟通,IDC有以下三大最新洞察与发现。

首先:在需求侧,液冷增长背后,是需求分化而非全面铺开

中国液冷服务器市场的增长,与人工智能带来的计算需求密切相关。IDC 中国液冷服务器市场研究显示,互联网企业是当前最主要的采购来源,占中国液冷服务器市场的65.6%;电信运营商和 IT 服务也是主要应用领域;部分传统行业客户尚未采用液冷,主要因为其现有业务以通用计算为主,风冷方案已能满足散热要求,但这些行业正在积极探索适合本行业业务特点的液冷方案。

因此,我们现在更需要看清增长的锚点在哪里。IDC 中国服务器市场季度跟踪显示,未来五年中国服务器市场出货量年均复合增长率约 6.8%,而市场收入的年均复合增长率达 24.6%。出货量的温和增长与收入的高增长并存,说明增量价值正在向高配置、高密度的算力系统集中,液冷的增长正来自这些场景。

从技术路线看,冷板式液冷仍是主流,占比约90.2%,成熟的供应链、散热能力与规模化部署的成本优势,使其在当前阶段更具落地条件。

另一个值得注意的变化,是 AI 负载结构本身正在改变。早期建设阶段,主要围绕大模型训练展开,集群规模大、部署集中;随着模型进入应用阶段,推理负载占比持续上升——在线推理更接近终端用户,对时延和持续在线提出更高要求;以智能体(Agent)为代表的应用形态,一次用户请求往往触发多轮模型调用与工具调用,推理算力消耗被成倍放大。

近期国内新建的大规模算力集群中,已有项目在设计阶段就同时面向训练与推理,推理正成为需要长期、规模化承载的常驻负载。

这里有一个容易混淆的观察点:同样是数据中心扩建,承接日常业务系统、存储备份,还是集中部署高密度计算集群,对计算设备和基础设施的要求并不相同。液冷的价值之一,恰恰是帮助识别其中真正的高密度算力需求。

因此,中国液冷市场的增长,并不意味着各类数据中心都在同步扩大液冷部署。是否采用,取决于业务对计算性能的要求、设备配置与部署密度,以及能耗和运维成本的综合权衡。

其次,在采购侧,从“买服务器”到“买整柜”,采购单位正在改变

在明确计算需求之后,还需要观察客户以什么单位采购计算系统。液冷整机柜的意义,不只是把更多服务器装进一个机柜,而是把计算节点及相关互联、供电和柜内液冷配套,作为一套系统进行配置和交付。

两种采购方式的区别在于购买和评估的对象:

  • 按独立服务器采购:客户以单台设备的配置和性能为选型基础,再由自身或集成方组织相关配套;
  • 按机柜级系统采购:客户以整套系统为评估对象,综合考虑计算能力、节点协同、扩展方式和集成交付要求。

这一变化并非中国市场的特例。IDC 全球服务器追踪显示,2026 年上半年,Rackscale(整柜级)服务器已占全球服务器支出的 34.5%,同比增长约 250%——大规模 GPU 部署正加速向高密度机柜系统集中;以 NVIDIA GB300 / Vera Rubin NVL72 为代表的液冷整机柜方案,从设计、交付到验收都以整柜为单位。

据 IDC 统计,2026 年上半年北美以整柜方式交付的比例已达 47.4%,中国为 5.0%。在中国市场,超节点形态的推进还有一层现实原因:高端加速卡可获得性趋紧,采购方倾向于通过超节点与整柜方案锁定算力,整柜交付因此从“效率选择”部分变成了“供给约束下的路径选择”。

从负载特征看,推理场景也在强化整柜采购的逻辑。推理集群通常需要成规模、成批次部署,并保持配置一致以便统一运维;Agent 类应用的并发请求有明显波峰波谷,扩容往往分批进行。这对交付节奏和配置一致性提出要求,也是机柜级方案在推理场景中更容易被接受的原因。

当然,是否采用整柜采购,仍取决于业务规模、扩展计划和既有设施条件,不能预设所有客户都会选择相同路径。观察液冷整机柜市场,除了关注出货规模,还需要了解机柜级系统在不同客户和应用场景中的实际采用情况。

再次,在部署侧,设备已经就绪,机房准备好了吗?

液冷设备需求的快速增长,并不意味着数据中心已经具备相应的部署条件。IDC 数据显示,2025 年中国数据中心 IT 设备装机功率为 9403MW,仅为北美的 21.5%;与此同时,中国液冷服务器新增装机功率预计将从 2025 年的约 1.1GW 增长到 2030 年的约 6.9GW。由此可见,设备侧的增长曲线,与设施侧的承接能力之间存在明显的时间差。

密度是另一个变量。IDC 全球数据中心设施电力预测显示,全球每机柜功率密度自 2010 年代以来已提升约 25 倍(从约 10kW 起步)。从机柜类型看,通用计算机柜多处于 5—30kW 区间,而 GPU 集群机柜与超算机柜已进入 50/100/250kW 的分档——同一个机房里,不同业务对应的机柜功率可能相差一个数量级。

IDC 调研同时显示,≥50kW 的机柜配置将在 2027 年前成为结构性主流;对 ≥80kW 高密机柜的需求占比预计将从当前的 5% 提升到 34%;76% 的服务商已经部署了 AI/HPC 专用机柜。

亚太地区目前在大规模环境中采用液冷的比例较低,但在未来 12—24 个月的计划部署上最为领先——中国正处在这样一个拐点上。

以冷板式液冷为例,服务器冷板需要通过分配管路、冷却液分配单元(CDU)等与机房冷却系统连接,柜内集成只解决了部分配套问题,机房仍需提供相应的运行条件。

由此引出一个更具体的观察:数据中心的液冷部署能力,应当具体说明能够承载哪些配置的计算系统,而不只是笼统地表示“支持液冷”。在项目准备中:

  • 新建数据中心:需要在设计阶段结合目标设备确定配套方案;
  • 既有机房:则需要评估拟部署系统与现有设施之间的差距,再确定必要的改造范围。

衔接成本居高不下的另一层原因,在于液冷数据中心建设标准尚不统一:整机柜与机房之间在机械安装、供电、液冷管路等接口上缺乏一致规范,项目往往需要逐案适配,拉长了从设备就绪到规模化部署的周期。产业侧正在推动收敛,如全球计算联盟(GCC)旗下的 Open AI Infra 社区联合互联网企业、运营商、设备厂商、数据中心及科研机构,已发布《GCC液冷整机柜接口规范》《GCC液冷整机柜系统架构设计规范-A型》等系列规范,统一机柜与机房在供电、液冷及机械对接上的要求,为多厂商整机柜的规模化部署提供技术参考依据。

推理负载的部署特征,进一步放大了这一衔接问题。与集中在少数园区的大规模训练集群不同,面向用户的在线推理更可能在多个区域、多个既有机房中分期部署,单点扩容规模未必很大,但对时延和可用性有明确要求。这类项目的改造窗口、供电余量和冷却条件各不相同——越是贴近用户侧的分期扩容,越考验机房“能不能接得住”的具体能力。

综合来看,中国在整柜交付比例、在用功率基数和液冷成熟度上与北美仍有差距,但在计划部署速度、超节点形态推进和大型项目落地节奏上并不慢——差距主要不在设备,而在承接设备的设施与配套能力。

从液冷服务器部署方式的改变,进一步看清数据中心需求

目前,IDC正进一步展开中国液冷整机柜市场的相关研究。在既有液冷服务器市场研究的基础上,我们将继续分析整柜市场规模、产品结构、配置特征与采购交付方式,并结合厂商与用户交流,理解机柜级系统在不同场景中的采用情况,以及不同功率和接口要求对数据中心设施的具体影响。

IDC中国研究经理辛一表示:观察液冷对服务器市场的意义,应看到服务器应用方式的联动变化:

  • 负载层:训练和推理对硬件提出完全不同的配置要求;
  • 形态层:服务器从单台交付转向整机柜与超节点交付,采购单位由”台”变”柜”;
  • 交付层:整柜把服务器的部署门槛从设备本身抬升到功率密度与液冷配套。

正是智能算力负载把单柜功率推上风冷失效的区间,促使形态走向液冷,而整柜又反过来改变了采购与部署的决策链条。

因此,液冷渗透率不只是散热指标,而是观察服务器应用方式变迁的前置指标:它抬升的速度,本质上是负载结构、交付形态与部署能力三者对齐的速度。

IDC相关研究规划

  • 中国液冷服务器市场跟踪报告,1H26(2026年9月)
  • IDC Market Glance: 中国AI基础设施生态系统,4Q26 (即将发布)

进一步交流

如果您希望了解液冷服务器或者企业数据中心基础架构相关的研究或开展进一步交流,欢迎点击这里,与我们联系!

Richard Xin

Richard Xin - Research Manager Enterprise, IDC China

Richard Xin serves as Research Manager Enterprise in IDC’s China Industry Insights Department. He focuses on research and analysis of the Chinese server market and provides intelligence and consulting services to the IT suppliers of local and multinational corporations. His…

Spatial intelligence is the ability to understand a physical or virtual space, and how it changes over time, well enough to reason about the likelihood of outcomes based on specific actions. As AI moves from making decisions and taking actions in business processes to doing so in the physical world, spatial intelligence is what allows it to act autonomously, safely, and effectively.

What is spatial intelligence?

Spatial intelligence is the ability to understand a physical or virtual space, and how it changes over time, well enough to reason about the likelihood of outcomes based on specific actions. It combines four capabilities:

  1. Perceive a physical space or design a representational space (such as a 3D model).
  2. Identify the objects within that space and the relationships between them.
  3. Simulate how changes to an object’s state or activity, and the order of events, alter conditions and outcomes over time.
  4. Reason about what actions to take to achieve a desired outcome.

People use spatial intelligence every day without thinking about it. Take a driver heading down a residential street.

  1. Perceive: The driver sees the street and the houses lining it.
  2. Identify: The driver identifies a child playing with a ball in a driveway.
  3. Simulate: The driver predicts that if the ball bounces into the street, the child may chase it without looking for cars.
  4. Reason: The driver slows down and keeps watching the child and the ball so they can stop if the child runs out.

Image 1: Human using spatial intelligence

That’s an example of human spatial intelligence. Hardware and software enable machines to perform the same four capabilities. Take an autonomous vehicle heading down the same street where the child is playing with the ball.

  1. Perceive: Cameras, LiDAR, and radar capture the street, and sensor fusion merges their readings into one continuously updated model of the surroundings.
  2. Identify: Computer vision models recognize the child and the ball, then track how far each is from the road and how it is moving.
  3. Simulate: Prediction models built on physics, probabilities, and patterns learned from data estimate what happens next, including the ball entering the road and the child following it.
  4. Reason: Safety rules and motion planning choose a response, and vehicle control carries it out: the car slows and keeps tracking the child and the ball so it can stop if the child runs out.

Image 2: Autonomous vehicle using spatial intelligence

Predicting outcomes requires understanding cause and effect, not just patterns. A system that has learned that this street is usually empty at 3 p.m. will be wrong the moment a ball rolls out. Spatial intelligence tracks an object’s state, what it is doing, and the sequence of events, so it can reason that the ball came first and the child may follow.

What are the technologies that enable spatial intelligence in machines?

Machines get spatial intelligence from hardware that senses, computes, and acts, and from software that models spaces, recognizes objects, predicts outcomes, and decides on actions. Each of the four spatial intelligence capabilities draws on both.

CapabilityHardwareSoftware
PerceiveCameras, LiDAR, radar, ultrasonic and sonar sensors, motion sensors (IMUs), GPS and indoor positioning (e.g., UWB), 3D scanners, IoT sensors (mounted on vehicles, robots, headsets, drones, and satellites)Sensor fusion, localization and mapping, 3D reconstruction, geospatial data (GIS), 3D design (CAD, BIM, AI-generated environments)
IdentifyAI processors in devices and edge systems, including AI built into cameras and sensorsComputer vision, object detection and classification, scene segmentation, tracking, models of how objects relate, vision-language models
SimulateOnboard AI processors for real-time prediction; data-center GPUs and high-performance computing for large-scale simulationPhysics-based, probabilistic, and learned prediction models; physics engines; simulation and digital twin software; world models
ReasonOnboard computers and real-time controllers; actuators that carry out decisions (motors, steering, brakes, robot arms)Rules and safety constraints, motion and path planning, optimization and routing, learned control policies (e.g., reinforcement learning), AI agents, control software

Note: These lists are representative, not exhaustive. In most machines, the same hardware runs Identify, Simulate, and Reason regardless of the deployment model (edge, cloud, on-premises). Actuators appear under Reason because they enable a machine to complete actions in the physical world. In virtual spaces, the “action” may be a design change or the execution of an operational process.

What are some examples of spatial intelligence use cases across industries and spatial scales?

Spatial intelligence is used across industries and at scales from celestial to molecular. Below are a few examples of the outcomes each use case targets.

IndustryUse caseScale
Space agenciesAssess the threat from near-Earth asteroids by measuring their size and tracking their pathsCelestial
Defense and militaryReduce troop and equipment loss by tracking forces and threats across continents in near real timeGlobal
InsuranceReduce loss ratios by forecasting severe weather and flood risk to improve policy pricingRegional
TelecomLower tower deployment costs by modeling signal coverage across a 3D city to place towers where they work bestCity
Retail and real estateMore revenue per square foot by predicting how a new store will perform from demographics, foot traffic, and competitor locationsNeighborhood
AgricultureIncrease yield and cut fertilizer costs by predicting how parts of a field will respond to varying inputs based on soil, moisture, and crop stress at specific locationsField
Warehousing and logisticsHigher storage density and shorter pick and pack time from testing warehouse layouts virtually before changing the floorFacility
ManufacturingThroughput gains from designing production lines in 3D to avoid collisions and physical bottlenecks before equipment is installedProduction line
Architecture, engineering, and constructionReduce cost overruns by simulating the impact of design changes before approving field changes, such as having to change the roof support beams when walls move further apartStructural element
PharmaceuticalsFaster drug discovery from simulating how compounds fit target proteins to rule out unlikely candidates before lab testingMolecular
GamingReduce design time and speed game release by automatically generating a virtual world’s terrain and the paths non-player characters use to move through itVirtual world

What kind of value does spatial intelligence deliver?

No single benefit dominated in IDC’s 2025 Power of Place survey. Asked to pick the top 3 benefits of their geospatial investments from 13 categories, 609 respondents in 12 countries most often chose increased productivity and cost savings (27% each). By industry, the leading benefit varied:

  • Financial services: respondents most often named improved compliance (31%).
  • Manufacturing: cost savings led, at 43%.
  • Retail: respondents most often named improved customer experience (31%).

Because the leading benefit varies by industry, build the business case around the benefit your industry values most.

Conclusion

Spatial intelligence gives AI the ability to understand a space as it changes over time and to reason about the outcomes of its actions, whether the space is a street, a factory floor, a building design, or a molecule. Understanding cause and effect makes predictions and reasoning more likely to hold when conditions change.

The more decisions and actions carry a spatial dimension, the more it costs to misjudge their consequences: underpriced insurance policies and autonomous vehicle collisions, to name a few. Reducing those risks starts with choosing high-value use cases and mapping the capabilities each one requires, then building a deployment roadmap you can execute. IDC can help you navigate each step. Contact IDC to learn more.

Dan Everett

Dan Everett - Research Director, Spatial Applications and World Models

Dan Everett is a Research Director in IDC’s AI & Data Management practice, covering Spatial Applications and World Models. Mr. Everett’s core research coverage includes spatial intelligence platform capabilities and generative world models, supporting geospatial analytics, 3D environment modeling, digital…

In October 2024, IDC’s FutureScape: Worldwide Future of Industry Ecosystems 2025 Predictions forecast that by 2026, 50% of marketplaces would expand community capabilities, using fair-value monitoring to incent collaboration, and grow their data and application inventory. The other 50% would see participation decline. Two years later, Jeff Hojlo, Research Vice President at IDC, says the split roughly holds.

The route there looked different from the one the prediction described, and he now expects the next couple of years to land closer to 80-20.

Why did IDC call it a 50-50 split?

The call rested on how fast ecosystems were widening. Organizations have always worked with a small, finite set of partners, but in recent years the breadth and scope of those partnerships grew sharply. IDC’s 2023 Data as a Service and Data Marketplace Survey found that more than 80% of respondents considered external data critical to the success of every enterprise.

Hojlo ties that appetite for outside data to several pressures: ESG goals and the energy transition, the need to innovate faster with fewer people and thinner skills, customer experience optimization, and the move to software development. As he puts it, “everything is becoming software defined, whether it’s a product, whether it’s a building, whether it’s a process.”

Marketplaces already supplied data and applications, along with the APIs to connect them. Using them as a place to work with partners was a smaller habit. IDC’s 2024 Future of Industry Ecosystems Global Survey found that just 22% of respondents considered the marketplace a place to work directly with their partners and customers. In Hojlo’s account, the trend lines and IDC’s conversations with end users pointed toward 50%. Wanting external data and collaborating inside a marketplace to get it are separate habits, which kept the call from going higher.

The prediction also named what would divide the two halves. According to the report, organizations often take part in several marketplaces at once, and IDC expected participation to fall wherever fair-value monitoring was missing. The report called it one of the top roadblocks to a successful ecosystem.

What played out differently than expected?

Hojlo says usage moved the way IDC expected: roughly half of organizations now use marketplaces to engage partners and customers more closely and to co-innovate, as well as to pull data and applications. Who delivered the community features is where the story changes.

Major infrastructure and platform providers have not broadly added community management and co-innovation features such as sandboxes. They expanded AI model gardens and data marketplaces for sharing and marketing applications, and they added ways to make sure participants are paid for their work. That bears on the fair-value piece of the prediction. Fair-value monitoring has not emerged as such, in Hojlo’s view: no one is checking whether revenue is allocated fairly to partners on a given project. Providers do have strong incentives to draw participants and bring them back.

Enterprise app and industry-specific providers picked up more of the collaborative features. Their customers and partners need to share data, co-innovate on products and services, and source data relevant to their own domain. Hojlo has seen this most in the industrial space, where participants want targeted contextual data to complement what they already hold.

AI sits underneath much of this growth. Hojlo describes marketplaces as the supplier of the living data model that feeds the language models behind AI tools, and organizations now look to them for external agents as well as data and applications. Beyond agents embedded in applications, companies want outside sources that support their use cases and help them respond to disruption.

Does 50-50 still hold?

For today, yes. Looking a couple of years out, Hojlo sees closer to 80-20. The 20% would be marketplaces without payment mechanisms, a fair-value sharing approach, or a rich, contextual set of data and applications.

“

I expect all marketplaces, if they want to survive, will have some level of that.

— Jeff Hojlo, Research Vice President at IDC

In his words, “I expect all marketplaces, if they want to survive, will have some level of that.”

That outlook changes what “participation decline” means. Hojlo now frames it as a stickiness question: how well a marketplace gets people to stay and come back. There is room for both kinds of marketplace, in his view. A community-oriented one is built to keep partners returning to co-innovate. A transactional one, where someone grabs a data model, an application, or a software development resource, is a quick visit by design.

What should marketplace participants watch next?

That difference in purpose shapes where marketplaces compete next. Hojlo says differentiation still comes from data sharing and from community and co-innovation environments, whether a marketplace serves one industry or runs as a transactional model garden. Both depend on the data sharing infrastructure underneath. A newer requirement is the ability to look across multiple data sets and to orchestrate agents and data models with governance, so participants can find the best next step when an opportunity or an unexpected disruption appears.

The obstacles to getting there are mostly operational. In an IDC data as a service survey from last year, the challenges he describes were predominantly operational, not technical:

  • Privacy and compliance concerns, which act as the first gate on whether data can be shared at all
  • Infrastructure cost
  • Token management and allocation across partners and participants
  • IP management and legal complexity
  • Confirming that a partner is who they say they are, through standard cybersecurity tools plus a validation mechanism and legal framework

Delivery matters just as much. On top of open APIs for connecting new data sources and models, database integrations, and data clean rooms to cleanse and operationalize data, Hojlo points to a workflow-ready approach and to monetization and incentive structures for the work partners do together.

The takeaway: decide what your marketplace is for

Hojlo notes that marketplaces have operated for hundreds of years, going back to medieval France. A successful one, physical or digital, offers breadth of options and a dynamic mix of partners serving different purposes, plus the architecture to support co-innovation and ongoing learning. For anyone building or joining one, his advice starts with privacy and compliance, which decide first whether data can be shared at all. From there, settle which need the marketplace serves and build data sharing and governance to match, with incentives that bring partners back.

Christina Cardoza - Content Marketing Manager - IDC

Christina Cardoza is a Content Marketing Manager at IDC, where she specializes in brand content and social media strategy. With a background in journalism and editorial leadership, she has a proven ability to transform complex technology topics into clear, actionable insights.

Talk of an AI correction usually starts with a change in investor sentiment. Coupled with rocky macroeconomic headwinds, this impacts company valuations, thereby straining financing for AI-specific buildouts. In short, it affects supply. IDC tracks markets, not balance sheets, so we start with the demand side, and it is strong.

The constraint is capacity. Power, memory, packaging, and site buildouts have not kept pace with demand for AI adoption; as a result, supply-side constraints will set the pace of growth through 2027 and into 2028. The IDC view is that this is not a demand bubble. A bubble is oversupply versus demand, and today, memory, power, and packaging are all in short supply.

AI demand is real and compounding

The inferencing economy has arrived and is rapidly gaining traction, driven by agentic AI. We have witnessed agentic AI move from pilot programs into production. 95.3% of enterprises run at least one agent workflow in production, with an average of about 11, according to IDC’s Future Enterprise Resiliency and Spending (FERS) survey (Wave 4, July 2026). By 2030, we forecast there will be 2.5 billion agents, with the number of active agents nearly tripling next year, according to IDC’s Worldwide Agentic AI Adoption Guide (June 2026). Enterprises also expect AI-enabled applications to account for over half of enterprise workloads within two years, according to IDC’s June 2026 Digital Infrastructure Sentiment Study.

Enterprises are also spending faster on AI initiatives than planned. In the past 12 months, 67% exceeded their agent budgets, and 24% overshot by 25% or more, according to the IDC FERS survey. We view these overruns as a demand signal. Even though organizations are consuming more tokens than they forecast, they continue to expand agent use across more workflows. Rather than reducing agent use to align with an existing budget, they are increasing budgets and pursuing technology enhancements, such as model routing and improved inference memory management, to reduce per-action costs.

Cheaper tokens will lead to increased spending

A common industry statement is that falling token prices will flatten demand. But cheaper tokens do not mean cheaper agents.

We believe that Jevons paradox is real, and we are in the midst of experiencing it today.

Efficiency gains are real. Agents confirm context, chain steps, call tools, and pass messages to other agents. In parallel, agent-driven inference delivers two to four times more throughput per GPU. Model routing cuts average cost per token by 30% to 60%. These gains will lower unit token costs. They will not slow total consumption. Volume outpaces price for structural reasons. A single business outcome can consume tens or hundreds of thousands of tokens. History shows that sharply cutting the cost of a basic unit accelerates innovation, because teams can take on a wider range of workflows.

The build-out of AI infrastructure

With strong AI demand for the foreseeable future, the question is whether enough AI infrastructure will be available to meet inference demand. Two primary groups buy that infrastructure: service providers and non-service providers (aka enterprises and governments). IDC’s AI Infrastructure Tracker projects revenue from service provider (including Hyperscalers and cloud service providers) procurement to grow from $401 billion in 2025 to $1.45 trillion annually in 2030. To keep up, datacenter facilities capex (excluding the cost of IT infrastructure) is forecast to rise from $276 billion to $655 billion over the same period. Increasingly, we see specialty cloud service providers (aka Neoclouds), frontier model makers, and extremely large hybrid enterprise/service providers emerging as a secondary source of infrastructure buyers.

Across the two principal buyer types, IDC is seeing a consistent trend toward distributed, purpose-built AI infrastructure, or “AI factories,” that are optimized for AI workloads, with specific components optimized for complex training, inference, and agent environments. Tech leaders view AI factories as a way to operationalize AI workloads by turning data into tokens and actionable intelligence at predictable costs. IDC’s AI Strategies survey shows that they prioritize security and governance controls, as well as built-in operational intelligence, over rapid deployment. These specialized systems can be deployed in various locations, including at the edge, in the datacenter, in the cloud, or on service provider infrastructure, enabling flexible deployment that scales with AI use cases.

The supply chain problem: serving AI demand has structural limitations

As agentic AI and AI inference workloads expand, especially in mainstream enterprises, capacity challenges are about more than just the strain on total available compute. They also raise the question of whether the right infrastructure can be deployed where needed, with sufficient power, cooling, and connectivity, at an economically viable cost. Shortages in these areas can coexist with underused capacity elsewhere. Two constraints stand out.

The first constraint is physical capacity, i.e., datacenter facilities. Our data shows that power, grid access, and datacenter capacity could limit near-term growth. IDC’s Datacenter Facilities Tracker shows that the number of provisioned racks will rise from 25 million to 58 million from 2026 to 2030, leading to a corresponding increase in energy consumption from 519 TWh in 2025 to 1,308 TWh. This represents an increase of about 2.5-fold and 2.3-fold, respectively (while AI infrastructure spending rises 3.35-fold, leading to a supply shortage). We find that just in the U.S., almost 7 GW of planned datacenter capacity for 2026 has been delayed or canceled due to a lack of power. U.S. colocation vacancy is at record lows, and IDC projects a 45 GW power shortfall in the U.S. by 2028.

The second constraint is the semiconductor and enabling technologies supply chain. Take the global memory shortage, for example. IDC describes it as structural because demand for AI has shifted fab capacity toward high-bandwidth memory (HBM). IDC forecasts supply growth of just 16% for DRAM and 17% for NAND in 2026, well below historical norms. HBM4 output is not expected to meet demand until mid-2027.

Another example is TSMC’s wafer-level system integration platform (CoWoS). It remains the most critical bottleneck for GPUs, CPUs, and custom ASICs. IDC expects industry wafer capacity to grow by about 80% in 2027, while demand grows close to 2x. Semiconductor packaging (ABF substrate suppliers) remains near full capacity, with no meaningful additions expected before the second half of 2027. We also find that supply shortages and long lead times have spread beyond memory, chips, and packaging to optical components, power parts, liquid cooling, and basic datacenter power equipment. We expect these shortages to persist through 2027, with memory remaining tight into 2028.

What happens next

We see AI demand hitting real-world constraints; the problem is a mismatch in time horizons. AI-ready datacenters take five to seven years to site and build, while backers want a return on investment and customers need capacity now. Investments in datacenter facilities last for decades. However, the same cannot be said for the IT infrastructure housed in them: we see a new generation of accelerators (e.g., GPUs) every 12 to 18 months.

Growing AI usage is shifting risk from demand to supply, rather than eliminating it. When demand outruns supply, history has consistently shown that scarce market capacity leads to persistently inflated per-unit prices.

Demand that cannot be served or pushed out does not disappear altogether. It spreads, shifting from segment to segment. In the past 12 months, 31% of companies have shifted at least some workloads from proprietary to open-weight models, according to the IDC AI Economics and Cost Management Survey. We expect easily adoptable open-weight models to shift inference to private, sovereign, and edge environments, diverting some inference demand away from public cloud providers. More than half of organizations globally already use sovereign cloud for AI, with another third considering it over the next 12 months, according to IDC’s Digital Sovereignty study. IDC’s HPC/AI Index shows non-service-provider spending on AI infrastructure steadily rising from $28.6 billion in 2025 to $96.4 billion in 2030, a 27.5% CAGR. This is in addition to their IT infrastructure spending for non-AI workloads. The likely outcome is a hybrid market that combines on-device processing, sovereign and private clouds, AI factories, and a marketplace of open-weight and proprietary models. This decentralized AI market also makes managing the creation, deployment, and tracking of agents, models, and data a critical challenge for enterprises, reinforcing the need for unified AI workload management and agent governance, whether delivered within AI factory solutions or as standalone platforms.

As the market matures, we expect some consolidation among specialty cloud providers. The durable assets that change hands will be newly built datacenter sites and upgraded grid connections, which will be the foundation for the next round of AI-native businesses. Accelerators age faster, and as they are refreshed and depreciated, prior-generation systems will enter the secondary market at lower prices over time, making AI infrastructure more accessible to enterprises and supporting further demand growth. Specialty cloud providers that succeed will do so by rapidly moving up the stack to model serving, sovereign AI, or full agentic infrastructure with storage, data management, and governance add-ons that improve margin and create workload stickiness. The result will be an AI ecosystem that is more distributed, dynamic, and focused on meeting the actual demands of customers, both enterprise and consumer.

What we are watching

Four signals would change our view:

  • agent and token usage flattening;
  • current-generation GPU procurement and rental prices falling while utilization also drops (in tandem with a surge in gray-market procurement);
  • memory and packaging lead times shortening;
  • and capex guidance being cut.

Beyond 2028, the question is whether supply catches up. We plan to track how supply constraints may affect enterprise and service provider spending.

We are also watching whether circular financing, in which vendors invest in the specialty cloud service providers that buy their products, holds up. A pullback in that funding, or in private equity backing, would be a macro warning sign. If that pullback happens, it will accelerate the consolidation described above, with well-capitalized Hyperscalers and profitable cloud service providers best positioned to acquire datacenter sites and grid connections at a discount.

Demand is not the risk in this market. The real risk is whether enough capacity can be sited, powered, and supplied in time, and who ends up owning it.

Meredith Whalen - Chief Research Officer - IDC

As IDC's Chief Product, Research & Delivery Officer, Meredith Whalen leads the company's global product, research and data, and delivery organizations. Under her leadership, IDC delivers cutting-edge intelligence to the world's leading technology vendors, enterprises, and investors as they navigate the evolving AI economy. Meredith sets the strategic direction for IDC's global analyst community, shaping research methodologies and agendas that generate industry-leading data and actionable insights to drive high-impact business decisions. With more than 20 years at IDC, Meredith has been a catalyst for some of the company's most transformative initiatives. She founded IDC's Industry Insights and Tech Buyer business units and pioneered the industry's first comprehensive business use case taxonomy. She also led the creation of IDC's DecisionScape methodology-a strategic framework that empowers organizations to better plan, implement, and optimize their technology investments. A recognized thought leader and sought-after speaker, Meredith regularly delivers keynotes at major global technology events and advises senior executives on the trends shaping the future of business and technology. Meredith holds a B.A. with honors from Wellesley College and an MBA with honors from Babson College's F.W. Olin Graduate School of Business.

近期,中国算力基础设施建设释放出更加明确的政策信号。国务院常务会议研究算力网建设,提出强化算电设施规划衔接,加快绿电直连、源网荷储等项目落地,促进供需更好匹配。

这些变化为观察数据中心市场提供了一个重要视角:随着AI业务对基础设施提出更复杂的要求,市场需要更加准确地识别,哪些容量能够在合适的时间、合适的地点,以可持续的成本投入使用。

衡量数据中心竞争力,需要把设施条件放回客户的业务和部署场景中。

一、企业AI部署,对物理设施提出了更具体的要求

IDC于2026年发布的中国智算云服务市场企业用户调研显示,120家已建设或使用AI专用基础设施、且使用外部AI算力的企业所提到的基础架构瓶颈中:机房物理环境受限的选择比例为45.8%,集群网络延迟为42.5%,软硬件生态适配不足为40.0%,存储I/O瓶颈为37.5%。相比之下,选择核心算力不足的比例为15.8%。

在面向未来1-3年的技术投资方向中,53.3%的受访企业选择升级数据中心物理环境,在所列选项中居首。

这些结果表明,AI落地需要设备与运行环境共同满足要求。服务器能够采购到位之后,供电、散热、机柜空间、网络与运维条件,仍然会影响部署进度和运行表现。

对数据中心厂商而言,这意味着市场机会具有不同形态:新建容量、存量设施改造、分期扩容,以及配合客户技术升级的持续服务。

二、技术变化考验数据中心厂商的持续交付能力

不同工作负载对数据中心的要求并不一致。高密度设备可能带来供电与冷却调整,异构设备部署涉及不同接口和运行条件,持续在线业务则更加关注稳定性、维护窗口和故障恢复。

值得进一步研究的能力包括:

  • 根据客户配置明确供电、冷却和空间条件,并按约完成交付;
  • 在存量改造和分期扩容中维持业务连续性;
  • 与设备及技术伙伴完成接口验证、联合调试和验收;
  • 将故障处理经验、运维流程和人员能力复制到不同项目;
  • 为后续设备更新保留合理的扩展和改造空间。

这些能力会影响客户部署的确定性,也构成数据中心厂商长期竞争力的重要部分。

三、结合实证案例,探索数据中心设施的新观察视角

围绕这些变化,IDC即将发布的《中国数据中心趋势与策略研究报告》,结合已有的市场数据、企业用户调研和技术研究,进一步通过运营商、设备与服务伙伴及客户案例,补充数据中心运营实践的证据。

研究主要聚焦几方面议题:

  • 跨行业需求变化: 不同工作负载和部署方式,将提出哪些数据中心设施要求?
  • 规模化交付与运营: 数据中心厂商如何复制项目经验,并适应设备和业务变化?
  • 能力定义与验证: 如何用一致的口径,解释设施能力、协作机制及其客户价值?

本研究将厘清:数据中心什么样的设施适合什么样的需求,哪些能力能够支持持续交付,以及这些能力如何在实际运行中得到验证。

因此,衡量数据中心竞争力,不仅需要识别设施是否具备AI就绪能力,还需要进一步回答三个问题:供给能否兑现、容量能否适配需求、资源投入能否形成持续运营价值。

四、立足区域、交付与负载适配,透视AI数据中心供需

一个规划100MW的数据中心园区,一份100MW的租赁意向,以及100MW已经运行的IT负载,代表的是三种不同的市场状态。

如果忽略这些差异,把规划、订单和实际使用直接放在一起比较,就可能误判某个地区的供需关系。对于正在选择建设地点、制定扩容计划或评估项目的企业,这种判断会影响资金投入、客户获取和交付安排。

  • 首先:需要区分数据中心设施与服务

数据中心设施为服务器等IT设备提供空间、电力、制冷、网络接入及运行保障。算力服务则进一步涉及计算设备、资源调度、软件环境和服务交付。

一家数据中心厂商可以同时经营这些业务,但研究时需要将其拆开。设施服务收入、GPU租赁收入和云服务收入,对应不同的业务范围;设施电力容量、IT电力容量与计算性能,也不能直接互相替代。同时分析上游设备和下游业务也会影响设施需求。

这种区分还会影响需求统计。例如,模型企业租用云服务,云服务商采购服务器并租用机房,设施运营商再建设园区,这可能是同一条需求链上的不同环节。若将每一环节的投入都视为独立的新增设施需求,就容易重复计算。

  • 其次,供给有多大,需要结合交付条件回答

为理解公开信息中的不同容量表述,我们提出三个供给观察层次:

  • 第一层次:规划供给。企业或地区计划建设多少容量,哪些条件尚待落实?
  • 第二层次:可交付供给。在指定时间内,多少容量能够完成建设、送电并具备客户交付条件?
  • 第三层次:适配目标需求的供给。可交付容量中,多少能够满足客户对位置、功率密度、制冷、网络、可靠性和成本的要求?

这三个层次有助于解释,为什么较大的规划规模未必能解决客户近期的资源需求,也有助于识别存量设施的改造机会。

例如,同一区域内一座已经投运的机房,能否承接新的AI负载,需要进一步确认机柜功率、制冷系统及电力配套。设施本身存在,并不意味着所有类型的业务都能直接入驻。

同时,规划容量仍有研究价值。审批、电力接入和建设进度的变化,可以帮助企业判断未来供给的兑现条件。关键是保留状态与时间信息,避免将远期规划直接计入当期可用容量。

对数据中心运营商而言,容量能否交付只是竞争力的起点。进一步的竞争力体现在能否持续获得客户需求,并将规划与建设投入转化为有效上架、稳定使用及可持续收入。

因此,评价数据中心市场时,还需要关注签约、实际使用及商业运营等不同状态,避免单纯以建设规模判断企业的发展质量。

  • 再次,区域研究,需要同时看见集群和集群外的重要市场

八大国家算力枢纽节点及其十大国家数据中心集群,为中国数据中心区域研究提供了重要框架。2026年3月23日,中国发展高层论坛演讲《深化数据赋能人工智能发展,加快培育智能经济新形态》中,逐一列举八大枢纽和十大集群,并提出加快国家枢纽算力设施集群建设、加强监测调度和提高资源使用效率。

在这一框架下,还需要进一步观察节点内、集群外的重要城市和园区,以及具备能源和业务承接条件的非枢纽地区。AI工作负载的差异,也在影响数据中心的区域布局。大规模模型训练、离线计算等任务通常更关注电力资源、能源成本和集群规模,而面向用户的实时推理、交互式AI应用等业务,则对网络时延、数据传输和接近终端用户提出更高要求。因此,数据中心的区域竞争力不能仅依据电力成本或建设规模判断,还需要结合不同AI工作负载的部署特点,评估区域资源与实际需求的匹配程度。

全面分析数据中心市场,需要从政策规划与区域布局、客户需求与部署特征,以及典型项目的建设与交付情况三个层面。区域和城市用于呈现市场分布;对具体项目,将在资料可得的情况下,参考官方规划、项目位置及建设进展,分析其区位特点和供给条件,并区分规划、在建与已投运状态。

对于企业而言,这样的区域分析能够帮助识别:哪些地方已有明确需求,哪些地方具备长期建设条件,以及两者之间还缺少哪些配套。

  • 最后,算电协同的价值,需要体现在数据中心运营中

电力资源会影响数据中心的建设和运营,但比较地区竞争力时,需要进一步看清可获得容量、送电时间、综合电价和供电保障。

单一电价数字往往不足以完成比较。电压等级、负载率、容量费用、绿电交易及补贴条件,都会影响实际成本。对于需要分期上架的项目,客户负荷增长与长期购电安排能否匹配,同样值得关注。

绿色运营也需要结合实际使用情况评价。新发布的国家绿色算力设施评价指标体系,将算力资源利用与能源、碳、水等指标共同纳入评价,为研究设施运行质量提供了更完整的观察方向。绿色竞争力正在从设计指标延伸到可核验的运营表现。

因此,关注技术配置、资源投入和运行结果之间的关系,也将影响供电、制冷及运营方案的适用条件。

综上所述,对于数据中心的分析,应该从市场定义与供需底层逻辑切入,延伸至区域布局、项目交付、AI 负载适配、算电协同等多个专题方向。

站在产业链不同参与者的角度观察:对数据中心厂商而言,核心看点在于区域选址、建设节奏与自身能力定位;对云及算力服务商,重点关注资源匹配与落地部署条件;对设备供应商与投资机构,则需要看懂技术诉求如何转化为落地建设机会,以及项目具备实际运营能力的关键节点。

伴随国内数据中心市场持续演变,我们围绕年度市场展望、区域供需与设施布局、AI 基础设施需求、技术迭代、运营效能以及可持续竞争力持续输出行业洞察,帮助运营商、云与算力服务商、基础设施供应商和投资机构建立自主的市场判断。

后续研究规划:

  • 中国数据中心市场图谱:AI开启新一轮基础设施增长周期,Q4,2026
  • 中国AI数据中心发展趋势, Q4,2026
  • 中国数据中心区域机会:从核心城市到东数西算枢纽, Q1,2027
  • 从机柜租赁到Token经济:中国数据中心运营效率与商业模式转型, Q1,2027
  • 从数据中心到算力网络:中国AI基础设施生态研究,Q2,2027
  • IDC MarketScape:中国数据中心基础设施可持续发展竞争力厂商评估,Q3,2027

进一步沟通

如果您正在评估区域布局、规划设施升级,或希望清楚理解数据中心的供需变化,欢迎联系我们,了解专题研究计划并分享您的业务问题。

Cindy Xin

Cindy Xin - Research Director

Cindy Xin is research director at IDC for the channels and partner ecosystems research practice. Based in Beijing, she is responsible for leading and developing the Greater China channels research practice. Cindy provides thought leadership and insights to technology vendors…

The FCC’s robotics rule hits hardest in the category it was written to protect. IDC’s trade policy model puts US humanoid robot revenue 58% below the pre-restriction baseline by 2030. Household cleaning robots, the category most people assumed was most exposed, land only 18% below. A rule that reads evenly on paper lands unevenly in practice, and the volume it blocks from the US finds other buyers, Europe above all.

We covered the first read of this rule in What Does the US Robotics Ban on Foreign Imports Really Mean?.

Why did 2026 become the year robots left the demo stage?

Shipments, money, and buyer intent are all moving at once. Vendors shipped roughly 25,000 humanoid robots in the first half of 2026, already more than the roughly 18,500 shipped in all of 2025. IDC expects more than 750,000 humanoid shipments by 2030, a forecast we raised by about 50%. Buyers agree: in IDC’s 2026 AI platforms survey, Physical AI ranks as the second-highest AI investment priority for the next two years, behind only GenAI assistants. The catch: most enterprises piloting embodied AI are still at proof of concept, so one rule can bend this young market’s growth curve.

Three robot categories run on three different clocks

Humanoids are early and fast. About 84% of 2025 shipments went to display and validation: research, education, performances, and government data collection. By the first half of 2026, that share dropped to about 70%, and real-world work nearly doubled its share to about 30%.

Mobile robots are where industrial money goes today. Industrial and professional buyers generated about 84% of quadruped revenue in 2025, and about 30% of organizations prioritize autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) in planned robotics investments, against about 16% for humanoids.

Commercial service robots are the most mature. Delivery and commercial cleaning units grow from about 155,000 in 2025 to about 454,000 in 2030, and cleaning robots overtake delivery robots in annual shipments in 2028.

China builds, and the world buys

Chinese vendors accounted for about 95% of global humanoid unit shipments in the first half of 2026, and Chinese brands lead household cleaning robots in most regions. On the buying side, our model of household cleaning, professional and commercial, and humanoid robots shows China at about 21% of consumption and the US at about 18%. The other 61% sits in the rest of the world, and Europe alone buys more than double the US share. Trade policy acts on the buying map, and the building map decides who can respond.

What does the FCC rule block?

On July 28, 2026, the FCC added foreign-made advanced robotic devices to its Covered List, so new foreign-made models can no longer get the equipment authorization needed to be imported, marketed, or sold in the US. The scope covers mobile robots that sense their surroundings, move on the ground, connect wirelessly, and weigh more than 4.4 pounds, which sweeps in humanoids and quadrupeds as well as robot vacuums and lawn mowers.

Three provisions limit its reach:

  • Already-certified models keep shipping new units, and software and firmware updates to them are waived through at least January 1, 2029.
  • Fixed industrial arms, vehicles, underwater robots, and medical and mobility devices are excluded, and so are federal government purchases.
  • A Conditional Approval pathway lets vendors keep selling new models if they move production to the US. Applications are due by January 1, 2028.

Most coverage calls this a ban, but in practice it is a chokepoint, not a wall. Nothing comes off shelves, but every new foreign model must clear an authorization it can no longer get.

Why do humanoids take the deepest hit?

Household cleaning robots have a deep bench of already-certified models and can refresh them with incremental updates through 2027. US buyers also chase new features less aggressively than buyers in Europe or China. Our model puts US household cleaning 4% below baseline in 2027 and 18% below in 2030, and the gap widens as those extended product cycles run out.

Humanoids turn over models faster than any other category, so there is almost no certified-model cushion. The gap reaches 41% in 2027 and 58% in 2030, which means close to three of every five dollars of projected 2030 US humanoid revenue disappear. Your exposure depends more on your product cycle and installed base than on the flag over your factory.

The rule protects the badge on the finished robot and does nothing for what’s inside it. US builders such as Figure and Apptronik depend on China for motors, actuators, batteries, and rare-earth materials, and they won’t reach scaled production before the end of 2028, so no domestic volume is ready to fill the gap. IDC’s supply chain research expects nearshoring to stay concentrated on final assembly, so a risk framework that stops there never sees the components (IDC #US50873823).

Where does the volume go?

Our model shows more than $6 billion in foregone US robotics revenue between 2026 and 2030, with over $2 billion of it in 2030 alone. US annual growth across these categories cools from about 13% to about 9% through 2030.

Chinese vendors redirect to markets that remain open, with the UK, France, Germany, and Eastern Europe taking the largest share. Europe, already the largest buyer, gets larger still without passing a rule of its own.

Vendors are hedging, because consumer robotics margins are too thin to move whole production lines. They stretch certified models, move sensitive components into trusted supply, and pair hardware with US software partners, as Tennant does with Brain Corp’s BrainOS.

What should you do in your layer of the value chain?

  • Robot makers: Treat certification as a roadmap decision, and map your bill of materials by country down to magnets and reducers. Sell outcomes through robot-as-a-service (RaaS). Heading to Europe? Budget for local service and AI Act conformity.
  • Platform and silicon players: Trusted, allied-sourced silicon is now a selling point.
  • Component makers: You sit at the chokepoint. Suppliers that qualify with US humanoid builders in the next 12 to 18 months will be hard to displace.
  • Enterprise buyers: Certified fleets keep shipping and being supported, so don’t freeze. Ask every vendor for a component and service continuity plan, and benchmark humanoid cases against AMRs and fixed arms on total cost of ownership.
  • Investors: Price policy risk by category: a 58% US gap for humanoids and an 18% gap for household cleaning are very different risk profiles.

A question for your next board meeting: if the rule extends to components or fixed industrial arms tomorrow, what breaks in our plan?

What to watch over the next 12 to 18 months

We are tracking five signposts. Early Conditional Approval decisions will show how strict the pathway is. Rule creep, meaning pressure to extend the restriction to components or fixed arms, would hit component makers and industrial automation. The certified-model cushion thins in 2027. The January 1, 2028 filing deadline should bring a rush of applications and US assembly news. Europe’s high-risk AI obligations phase in between December 2027 and August 2028, and its response will shape where volume lands next. Finally, US humanoid builders are expected to reach scaled production by the end of 2028, when the domestic gap could start to close. The rule changes the route more than the destination.

Watch the on-demand webinar

See the full category data and value chain recommendations in IDC’s Global Robotics Outlook webinar. Watch the on-demand webinar: How the US Ban is Reshaping the Robotics Market →

Use the form inside the webinar to request the slides and ask your questions. To talk through what this means for your category or your supply chain, request a complimentary meeting with IDC analysts.

Navkendar Singh - Associate Vice President - IDC

Navkendar Singh is a Associate Vice President with IDC India, based in Gurgaon. His research domains encompass deep-dive research and insights in and around mobile devices, smart homes, PCs, tablets, wearables, and the printing market in India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. He is also involved in building IDC's successful channel research programs for these domains at city and state levels. Navkendar also leads research related to analyzing the role of devices, emerging business engagement models, the impact of emerging technologies on devices, and emerging personas related to Future of Work.

Ryan Reith - Group Vice President, WW Device Trackers - IDC

Ryan Reith is the Group Vice President for IDC's Worldwide Device Tracker suite, which includes mobile phones, tablets, wearables, and most recently AR/VR. His teams research focuses on the quantitative aspects of the mobile device industry, including market sizing, forecasting, vendor market share analysis, and technology trends. His current responsibilities include engaging with mobile device OEMs, supply chain, distributors, and the financial industry to discuss market trends and forward looking analysis.

What’s changing in AI infrastructure across Asia/Pacific through 2030?

In Asia/Pacific, the AI race is no longer about who has the best model. It’s about who controls the stack underneath it. Three layers are being decided at once. Compute is shifting to always-on inference running on a mix of chips. Power and placement are becoming hard limits, with Asia/Pacific excluding Japan datacenter IT power capacity reaching 70.6GW by 2030. And trust is now part of the design, not an afterthought.

Why It Matters

Agentic AI isn’t a side project anymore. It’s running inside real workflows, around the clock. Can it run nonstop? Can you afford it? Is it sitting in the right country?

If you’re a CIO, CTO, or infrastructure leader, this shapes some big calls: where your inference runs and which platforms and partners you commit to.

Here’s the part that’s easy to miss. The choices you make in 2026 and 2027 will follow you well into the 2030s, because chips get replaced every few years and power contracts, sites and sovereignty setups stick around for a decade or more.

Market Dynamics

Compute: inference is taking over. Training got the headlines, but inference is where the spending is heading. In Asia/Pacific, 94.5% of organizations were using inference infrastructure in 2025, up from 40.2% just two years earlier. IDC expects AI hardware spending in Asia/Pacific excluding Japan to quadruple, from US$66.3 billion in 2025 to US$265.4 billion by 2030. And don’t expect one standard architecture across the region. India runs the widest mix of NVIDIA, AMD, and hyperscaler chips. Korea leans on NVIDIA and AMD. Greater China is the only market where AMD is ahead of NVIDIA, and where DeepSeek and Huawei Ascend have gone mainstream.

Power and placement: location beats price. More and more, governments decide where capacity goes. Singapore has set aside a 700MW site in Jurong, and South Korea is planning 3GW of AI clusters outside Seoul. Then there’s cooling. In Singapore’s heat, cooling can take up to 40% of a facility’s energy, and typical colocation PUE (1.5–1.7) is still above the government’s 1.3 target. Microsoft’s Indonesia region shows where this is heading: it’s built for in-country inference and regulated workloads, while heavy training stays in a few global hubs.

Trust: sovereignty is now built in. IDC’s Asia/Pacific Emerging AI Technologies Survey 2025 found that security, data residency, responsible AI and open standards now matter more than model performance when organizations pick a sovereign AI partner. Most aren’t all-or-nothing on residency: 27% apply strict rules to all data, 52% only to sensitive data and 20% stay flexible. In the same survey, more than 60% of enterprises say changing privacy, security and AI rules are already disrupting their IT operations.

The catch: there’s no one-size-fits-all. Rules, power grids and buyer priorities change from one border to the next, so placement and sovereignty have to be planned market by market.

Data Callout

  • 70.6GW: datacenter IT power in Asia/Pacific excluding Japan by 2030
  • US$66.3 billion to US$265.4 billion: AI hardware spending in Asia/Pacific excluding Japan from 2025 to 2030
  • 79%: organizations that require data residency, at least for sensitive data
  • More than 60%: enterprises report IT disruption from changing regulations

Analyst Insight

The mistake I see most often is treating compute, power and trust as three separate decisions, made one after the other. They’re connected. The chips you pick set your power density. That density decides which facilities can host you. And where that facility sits decides which trust controls you can offer.

Organizations that plan all three together will scale faster. And in Asia/Pacific, placement is the decision that’s hardest to undo.

Outlook

My view is that placement will drive the next wave of growth. Big training runs will stay in a few hubs, while inference moves in-country, close to users and to data that can’t leave.

What could speed things up? Government power allocations turning into usable capacity on time, open liquid cooling standards that make retrofits cheaper, and sovereign cloud regions that make it easier to get from pilot to production.

What could slow things down? Grid delays, not enough renewable energy, chip shortages, rising power bills and a different rulebook in every country.

Three things I’ll be watching next quarter:

  • How much new capacity is built for high-density AI racks
  • Whether models like DeepSeek catch on beyond India and Greater China
  • Whether sovereign AI deals move from pilots to multiyear contracts

FAQs

If power is so tight, why is AI infrastructure investment still growing? Agentic AI turns inference into an always-on workload, so the demand isn’t going away. Tight power pushes that demand to places with power available, like Johor, Batam, India and Thailand, and into denser, liquid-cooled facilities.

Who benefits most? Service providers. Digital and cloud service providers are the fastest-growing datacenter segments through 2030. Colocation players with secured power, liquid cooling and sovereignty-ready capacity are best placed to win inference demand.

What could go wrong? Grid delays, chip shortages, rising energy costs and diverging data rules. Any one of them could push back new capacity or force country-by-country designs.

Learn more about IDC’s predictions for the next 5 years at IDC FutureScape 2027 in Singapore on 13 November 2026, where I’ll walk through IDC’s full view to 2030 in my session, “AI Infrastructure Race: The Compute, Power, and Trust Stack Reshaping Asia/Pacific.” Visit the IDC FutureScape 2027 event website for more information and register for the event today.

IDC FutureScape presents the top technology predictions for the coming 1–5 years in a particular focus area — written from a worldwide, regional (Asia/Pacific), or country-level view (China, Japan). Each report translates IDC’s market intelligence into actionable guidance, helping technology and business leaders shape their priorities, roadmaps, and investment decisions to achieve desired business outcomes. Explore how AI is rewriting the stack in the 25 IDC FutureScape 2027 reports that map every layer.

Dr. William Lee - Senior Research Director, Datacenter and Core Infrastructure Research - IDC Asia/Pacific

Dr. William Lee is Senior Research Director within IDC's enterprise infrastructure global research domain, part of the computing systems, platforms, and technologies subdomain. William focuses on IDC’s research on compute and datacenter infrastructure. He also helps sharpen IDC’s intelligence on the service provider infrastructure supply chain. William delivers market insights and strategic analysis on datacenter facilities, the infrastructure housed in them, and the evolving supply chain dynamics shaping hyperscalers, service providers, and enterprise datacenters. On the service provider front, he examines service provider infrastructure investments, AI buildouts, sovereign AI initiatives, and global ODM/OEM supply chain dynamics, supporting executive decision-making across compute vendors, service providers, and investors navigating AI-driven infrastructure transformation.