Rant: Which of These 10GB Adapters Is Not the Same ?
February 9, 2010 by Greg Ferro · 8 Comments
Intel 10G NIC
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1352161
Intel 10Gb Server Adapter.(Click for a full size image)
Cisco 10G NIC
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1424619
Cisco 10Gb Server Adatper.(Click for a full size image)
Oh, except for the extra special Cisco price tag. Remember, Cisco has 65% Gross Profit margin and you don’t get that without making the prices high.
Does anyone know if there is any physical difference in these adapters, because I sure as heck can’t see any. Does anyone from Cisco want to let me know if their version has special properties that make it worth the extra money ? Or has it be bathed in Unicorn Tears?
Footnote
It should be noted that in previous Cisco PIX firewalls that Intel Server NIC could be directly installed and worked fine. it’s possible that this would also work. Anyone able to test ?
Credit
Hat tip to Matt who brought this to my attention. Much appreciated. Originally from Slashdot at http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/07/210226/Chinese-Man-Gets-30-Months-For-Fake-Cisco-Sales
I have some “fake” Cisco WIC cards for the 2600 series here in a couple of routers. I’ll tell you that they work just as well as regular Cisco WIC cards, and the systems you install them into can’t tell the difference. These have been running reliably for years now.
Cisco is begging for a counterfeit market for their parts, because they mark up prices to insane levels.
True, it’s the research, development, documentation, and support that makes their products great, but charging what they charge is just stupid.
Here’s an example;
Intel 2-port 10Gig network card, $2500.00
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1352161 [cdw.com]
Same EXACT card but branded as Cisco costs over $14000.00
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1424619 [cdw.com]
Yes, these are the same cards, my company has several of the large ASA firewalls that these go into, and the Intel cards. Sit them side by side and they are identical. At most, different firmware, but I doubt it. I’ve never actually tried since we can’t be dorking around with production equipment.
Newer Cisco routers and switches are now using licensing for features and ports, so installing non-Cisco-extortion-priced parts won’t really be an issue anyway. Reference the 3750-E/3560-E switches and those new 1900÷2900÷3900 series routers.I have some “fake” Cisco WIC cards for the 2600 series here in a couple of routers. I’ll tell you that they work just as well as regular Cisco WIC cards, and the systems you install them into can’t tell the difference. These have been running reliably for years now.
Cisco is begging for a counterfeit market for their parts, because they mark up prices to insane levels.
True, it’s the research, development, documentation, and support that makes their products great, but charging what they charge is just stupid.
Here’s an example;
Intel 2-port 10Gig network card, $2500.00
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1352161 [cdw.com]
Same EXACT card but branded as Cisco costs over $14000.00
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1424619 [cdw.com]
Yes, these are the same cards, my company has several of the large ASA firewalls that these go into, and the Intel cards. Sit them side by side and they are identical. At most, different firmware, but I doubt it. I’ve never actually tried since we can’t be dorking around with production equipment.
Newer Cisco routers and switches are now using licensing for features and ports, so installing non-Cisco-extortion-priced parts won’t really be an issue anyway. Reference the 3750-E/3560-E switches and those new 1900÷2900÷3900 series routers.
Please rate this post:
Why Rate Posts?
(3 votes, average: 9.00 out of 10)
Loading ...Probably Related Posts on the Same Topic
On Layer 2 Access Designs and MPLS
I looking closely at Data Centre Designs at the moment, and been considering whether a looped triangle or a looped square is the best for edge switches. I find it difficult to detect a difference that makes a clear purchasing decision. So I sat down to think about this. I did some pictures and thinking.
…
Blessay:Cisco UCS Really Is Just Blade Servers With Fancy NICs & A Response to HP Network Ambition
I found some information today, realised that UCS is really servers with fancy NICs. It also reinforced my belief that Cisco is responding to HP & IBM, not attacking them.
Read the full articleInternets of Interest: 21st Sep
Collection of useful, relevant or inane places on the the Internets for 21st Sep:
Read the full articleWhat Might It Mean if Cisco Dumps HP as Certified Partner ?
Thinking through the impact of the breakup between Cisco and HP as announced on Silicon Angle.
Read the full article
Just a related note: A customer of mine discussed an invoice full of Cisco-equipment:
– “What is that part, XXXX? Can it be a redundant fan?“
– “For $200? No way. From Cisco you wont get anything that spins for that price. I bet it´s a dummy-plate.”
Wonder if it includes support!
Technically not. Once it is installed in a Cisco chassis, the maintenance of that chassis covers the part (but only if you have Cisco maintenance). Resellers may provide their own sparing capability and tend to charge a percentage of everything sold.
Hmm, reminds me of the rack mounts we got for an 1800 recently. £60 for two bent bits of metal and 6 screws — not even any rack nuts! Surely that kind of thing should come with the router anyway. Compared to some other vendors Cisco are really getting put to shame lately. If you buy a Riverbed you get everything you could possibly need in a little accessory box — cables for each interface (straight and crossed and decent length), rack mounts, about 10 packets of different screws for every potential situation (which all have one or two spares), rack nuts and a screwdriver!
Could be considered environmentally friendly not to include all the stuff. But yes, Cisco minimum price for goods is a unfair reflection of their transaction cost.
>It should be noted that in previous Cisco PIX firewalls that Intel Server NIC could be directly installed and worked fine.
Actually, even DLink NICs worked fine in PIX
I can confirm that “fake” VWICs work but not always fine — they have problems with clocking in two-port models.
On the other hand, it was a nightmare to troubleshoot fake C2950, it’s a real sh.t.
And also we can remember here some models of older “Cisco” servers like MCSs, etc…
I think that the fake stuff is going to be a quality problem. Not to mention resellers who get find it mixed up with the green channel and mix grey market and fake into an unholy mix.
Hey, those hologram stickers aren’t cheap.