if 7500 series is from 1995 and 7200 vxr is from 1999 why does cisco pose 7500 as higher end ?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by alexander H., Feb 7, 2004.

  1. alexander H.

    alexander H. Guest

    I am trying to find a good deal on a Cisco ROuter for BGP - my first
    big time router - now I have worked at router design companies and I
    just don't understand how boxes designed in 1995 - are still even
    around.

    Isn't the 7500 series archaic ?

    I have found a 7206 straight fully tricked can be had for around
    2800.00
    A 7206 XVR for around 4500.00

    but a heavilly loaded 7507 or 7513 is only 2600.00??

    I would think that the new 3700's would blow away the old 7500's just
    by moores law - but damned if I can find a comprehensive comparison -
    on Ciscos web site - they don't permit comparisons of models above
    7200...

    Sincerely
    Alexander Hagen
    Etheric Networks
     
    alexander H., Feb 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. alexander H.

    shope Guest

    "alexander H." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am trying to find a good deal on a Cisco ROuter for BGP - my first
    > big time router - now I have worked at router design companies and I
    > just don't understand how boxes designed in 1995 - are still even
    > around.
    >
    > Isn't the 7500 series archaic ?


    yes - but the architecture and the upgrades over the years mean they are
    still useful.

    often 7500s are still there because some functions are not on a newer box -
    FDDI, IBM channel interface and so on.

    And you only need a faster box if the old one isnt fast enough.....
    >
    > I have found a 7206 straight fully tricked can be had for around
    > 2800.00
    > A 7206 XVR for around 4500.00


    be careful with 7200s - there is a large range of CPU performance depending
    on the processor. Also, most of the cost can end up in the port adaptors
    (I/O modules).
    >
    > but a heavilly loaded 7507 or 7513 is only 2600.00??


    probably an old one.
    >
    > I would think that the new 3700's would blow away the old 7500's just
    > by moores law - but damned if I can find a comprehensive comparison -
    > on Ciscos web site - they don't permit comparisons of models above
    > 7200...


    you need to remember that throughput in routers is not just about CPU
    throughput - architecture and offloading into extra processors, hardware or
    ASIC play a big part.

    37xx are designed to replace 3600s, and are a lot faster than the equivalent
    3600s.

    numbers off the top of my head, for fast switched packets:
    3640 ~ 40k pps, 3725 ~ 100k pps, 3745 ~ 220k, 720x and NPE400 ~ 400k, 720x
    and NPE-G1 ~ 900k pps

    With 7500s you need to specify the processor - the 7507 etc have had at
    least the RSP2 / 4 / 8 / 16, and roughly double throughput for each change.
    Also, the box throughput depends heavily on the types of interfaces and
    whether you install VIPs (and VIPs have had their own upgrade path).


    >
    > Sincerely
    > Alexander Hagen
    > Etheric Networks

    --
    Regards

    Stephen Hope - remove xx from email to reply
     
    shope, Feb 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. alexander H.

    Tax Johnson Guest

    "alexander H." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>
    > I would think that the new 3700's would blow away the old 7500's just
    > by moores law - but damned if I can find a comprehensive comparison -
    > on Ciscos web site - they don't permit comparisons of models above
    > 7200...
    >
    > Sincerely
    > Alexander Hagen
    > Etheric Networks


    Here is a decent starting point:

    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf
     
    Tax Johnson, Feb 7, 2004
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    733
  2. Matt
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,313
    Peter
    Nov 15, 2005
  3. sdtom
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    942
    cfriedel
    Oct 29, 2007
  4. mansurbd
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,378
  5. Badkid
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
    Badkid
    Jan 14, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page