Industrial monitoring models must detect operationally relevant deviations while satisfying target-specific data, calibration, and resource constraints. Time-series foundation models (TSFMs) promise reusable representations and zero-shot forecasts, yet evidence for their deployment value remains mixed when task definitions are heterogeneous and lightweight baselines are competitive. This work presents a protocol-aware empirical assessment across three settings: a C-MAPSS degradation-risk proxy, normal-only training for anomalous-sound detection on MIMII, and BDG2 forecasting-residual diagnostics with synthetic target perturbations. We assess classical one-class methods, compact neural autoencoders, residual forecasters, MOMENT-small, Chronos-T5, and TimesFM 2.5 in terms of anomaly-ranking performance, risk-horizon sensitivity, residual forecasting and perturbation sensitivity, and local implementation cost. Across 100 C-MAPSS engines evaluated out of fold, TCN-AE reaches fold-weighted AUROC/AUPRC 0.9570/0.8960, compared with 0.7310/0.3080 for MOMENT reconstruction; paired engine-cluster bootstrap confidence intervals exclude zero for both differences. Across five matched MIMII pump evaluations, OCSVM also exceeds MOMENT reconstruction in AUROC and AUPRC. On a fixed 12-meter BDG2 panel, TimesFM 2.5 has the lowest aligned forecast error and the highest synthetic AUROC point estimate, although synthetic AUPRC is similar across TSFM and fitted residual models. Same-device measurements show that MOMENT incurs higher latency, peak allocated VRAM, and serialized state-dictionary size than TCN-AE. Under the evaluated frozen and zero-shot settings, TSFMs are task-dependent deployment options rather than default replacements for fitted lightweight models.
Driven by conservative over-provisioning to guarantee service reliability, resource utilization in cloud data centers remains at low levels. To mitigate this, the forecast-then-optimize paradigm has emerged to optimize consolidation by anticipating future demands. While emerging time series foundation models promise to enhance this paradigm through zero-shot generalization, existing benchmarks focus solely on prediction error metrics. The actual decision utility of these advanced models remains unverified, rendering their practical value for downstream tasks uncertain. To bridge this gap, we propose CloudCons, a comprehensive end-to-end benchmark designed to evaluate forecasting models within the specific context of cloud resource consolidation. We build high-quality datasets that cover diverse workloads from Huawei Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Google Borg, capturing distinct service characteristics ranging from synchronized diurnal rhythms to stochastic, pulse-like bursts and high-frequency noise. We conduct an extensive evaluation of statistical, deep learning, and foundation models. Our experiments reveal a pivotal finding: while foundation models demonstrate superior zero-shot forecasting accuracy, this advantage does not inherently translate into better decision utility. Of practical significance, we systematically analyze how the selection of predictive quantiles acts as a critical lever. We provide actionable guidelines for calibrating these selections to balance the trade-off between resource efficiency and service reliability, offering vital insights for real-world deployment decisions.