English Version: In-Depth Comparison Between Cisco C9300X-48HXN-E and C9300X-24HX-E: Scene Adaptation and Selection Logic Based on Port Count

Jul 25 , 2025 13

English Version: In-Depth Comparison Between Cisco C9300X-48HXN-E and C9300X-24HX-E: Scene Adaptation and Selection Logic Based on Port Count

In enterprise networking, "port count" is often the most intuitive decision factor. Cisco’s Catalyst 9300X Series, including the C9300X-48HXN-E (48-port) and C9300X-24HX-E (24-port), are key models in the lineup. While sharing a core architecture, their differences in port density lead to distinct scenario adaptations. This article breaks down their differences—from performance to real-world use cases—to help you move beyond "spec comparison."

1. Performance Specs: Port Count Affects "Actual Throughput," Core Hardware Consistent

Both switches target enterprise access/aggregation roles, using the same Cisco-custom ASIC (ARM-based). However, port density impacts forwarding capacity:

• Processing Speed: Both support line-rate forwarding, but the 48HXN-E, with 24 more 10GbE ports, has slightly higher total throughput (1.2Bpps vs. 0.9Bpps for the 24HX-E under full load). This stems from ASIC resource optimization, not reduced per-port performance.

• RAM & Storage: Both include 4GB DDR4 RAM (expandable to 8GB) and 256MB flash. Memory usage may be 5%-8% higher on the 48HXN-E due to more ports, but stability remains unaffected.

2. Feature Set: Identical Software, Divergent Hardware Expandability

As products of the same IOS XE 17.12.x+ platform, both support IPv6 routing, VXLAN, EVPN, SD-Access, and StackWise-480 stacking (up to 8 units). Management interfaces (Web GUI/CLI) also match.

Key differences lie in hardware flexibility:

• 48HXN-E: 48×10GbE SFP+ ports (no copper ports), ideal for fiber-connected high-density devices (APs, IP phones, cameras). Use SFP modules (e.g., 1000BASE-T) for copper conversion if needed.

• 24HX-E: Also 48×10GbE SFP+ ports, but fewer ports reduce uplink bandwidth pressure during stacking (e.g., 8×24HX-E stacks need less bandwidth than 8×48HXN-E stacks), better for cost-sensitive midsize networks.

3. Design & Aesthetics: Engineering Details Shape Form Factor

Externally, both share metal chassis, ~5kg weight (without power supplies), and rear-mounted heat dissipation. Differences arise from port count:

• Dimensions: 48HXN-E is wider (440mm×44.5mm×350mm) with densely packed front-panel ports; 24HX-E is shorter (440mm×44.5mm×280mm), leaving more space for cable management below the ports.

• Labels: 48HXN-E states “48×10GbE SFP+”; 24HX-E reads “24×10GbE SFP+” for quick on-site identification.

• Power: Both support dual redundant power supplies (AC/DC options), but 48HXN-E (180W max vs. 24HX-E’s 140W) requires better ventilation.

4. User Experience: Scenario Dictates "Fit"

User experience depends on deployment convenience and long-term maintenance:

• High-Density Scenarios (48HXN-E): Ideal for large campus access layers (e.g., open offices, conference rooms), directly connecting 48 APs/IP phones without extra modules. StackWise reduces cluster size (covers 2000+ endpoints with 1 stack), simplifying management.

• Midsize Scenarios (24HX-E): Perfect for SMB headquarters or branches, covering 100-150 users with 24 ports. Smaller form factor saves rack space (fits 2×24HX-E in a 10U rack vs. 1×48HXN-E).

5. Cost-Effectiveness: Balancing Port Count and Budget

48HXN-E costs 1.8-2x more than 24HX-E. Is this justified? It depends on needs:

• High-Density Budget: If deploying >30×10G ports (e.g., university labs, exhibition halls), 48HXN-E’s “per-port cost” (total price/48) is lower than 2×24HX-E (covers 48 ports but costs ~3.6x single 24HXE price).

• Flexible Midsize: For 20-30 ports or future expansion, 24HX-E’s lower upfront cost and stacking capability avoid waste.

6. System Upgrades: Similar Steps, Watch Port Compatibility

Upgrade processes are nearly identical (Web UI or CLI), but firmware compatibility matters due to port count:

• Steps:

1. Log in > Administration > Software Center.

2. Select firmware compatible with your hardware (both use the same firmware).

3. Upload, start upgrade, and wait for reboot (~5-8 minutes).

• Common Issues & Fixes:

• Issue 1: Ports unrecognizable post-upgrade.
  Cause: Outdated firmware missing ASIC drivers.
  Fix: Check firmware version (upgrade to latest stable release) or run “request platform software package expand.”

• Issue 2: Mismatched configurations in stacked 48HXN-E and 24HX-E.
  Cause: StackWise requires identical models/software.
  Fix: Stack only same-model switches (all 48HXN-E or all 24HX-E).

7. Use Cases and Series Strengths

Typical deployments:

• 48HXN-E: Large campus access layers, data center edge nodes (server/storage connections).

• 24HX-E: SMB headquarters, branch aggregation (low-latency uplinks, SD-Access automation).

Core strengths: Unified architecture, scalable port density, and flexible scenario adaptation—balancing performance with deployment ease.

Conclusion: The choice hinges on your network’s port density needs. 48HXN-E excels in high-density scenarios; 24HX-E shines in midsize or space-constrained environments. Both deliver robust performance, but port count tailors them to specific use cases.