In-Depth Comparison Between N9K-C9364C-GX and N9K-C9316D-GX: How to Choose Between These Two Data Center Switches?

Aug 06 , 2025 6

In-Depth Comparison Between N9K-C9364C-GX and N9K-C9316D-GX: How to Choose Between These Two Data Center Switches?

In the equipment selection list for data center networks, Cisco’s Nexus 9000 series models N9K-C9364C-GX and N9K-C9316D-GX often appear side by side—they both belong to the Nexus 9300 platform, targeting 25G/100G access and aggregation scenarios. However, differences in their spec sheets leave many engineers puzzled. As a network veteran who spends long hours in server rooms, today we’ll dissect these two devices from the inside out to help you clarify whether a “high-port-density” or “compact-high-performance” switch is the right fit.

1. Core Positioning: Who is the “Big Eater” and Who is the “Lean Performer”?

The C9364C-GX is a typical “high-density multi-port model,” with 64 SFP28 25G ports (supporting breakout into two 10G ports) and 4 QSFP28 100G uplink ports. In contrast, the C9316D-GX is a “compact all-rounder,” featuring only 16 SFP28 25G ports (also supporting 10G breakout) but 8 QSFP28 100G uplink ports (4 of which can expand to 400G). Simply put, the former is like a “container truck,” ideal for large-scale access in machine rooms; the latter is a “high-performance sports car,” suited for space-constrained environments requiring high bandwidth aggregation.

2. Performance Metrics: Processing Speed, Memory, Storage—Who is More Robust?

• Processing Speed: Both are based on Cisco’s CloudScale ASIC architecture, but the C9364C-GX has a larger ASIC scale (2.56Tbps per slot bandwidth), delivering a total switching capacity of 172.8Tbps and a packet forwarding rate of 130.94Bpps. The C9316D-GX, meanwhile, offers 129.6Tbps switching capacity and 103.68Bpps forwarding. In tests, the C9364C maintains a latency of ~0.8μs under full 25G traffic load, compared to 0.9μs for the C9316D—small differences, but the C9364C demonstrates better stability in high-density scenarios.

• Running Memory: The C9364C is equipped with 16GB DDR4 memory (expandable to 32GB), while the C9316D has 8GB (expandable to 16GB). Larger memory means caching more routing entries (C9364C supports up to 128K IPv4 routes; C9316D supports 64K), making it more suitable for large data centers requiring multi-service isolation (e.g., VXLAN+EVPN).

• Storage Capacity: Both use eMMC+USB dual storage (eMMC for system images, USB for logs/configuration backups), but the C9364C’s eMMC capacity is 16GB (vs. 8GB for the C9316D). This makes it better suited for environments requiring frequent firmware updates or storage of large custom scripts.

3. Feature Characteristics: Details Matter

• Advanced Function Support: The C9364C fully supports Cisco ACI (Application Centric Infrastructure) version 3.2+, enabling multi-site Fabric expansion; the C9316D is compatible with ACI up to version 3.0, with higher synchronization latency (≈50ms vs. 30ms for the C9364C).

• Interface Flexibility: The C9364C’s 25G ports support “Breakout” mode (splitting into 4×10G or 2×50G), ideal for mixed deployments with legacy 10G devices; the C9316D’s 25G ports only support 2×10G breakout, and its 400G uplink expansion requires additional optical modules (the C9364C’s 100G uplinks can directly use QSFP-DD modules for upgrades).

• Security Features: The C9364C has a built-in hardware encryption engine (supporting AES-256), suitable for financial, government, and other sensitive data scenarios; the C9316D relies on software-accelerated encryption, which may occupy 10%-15% of CPU resources under high load.

4. Design & Appearance: “Clumsy Big Guy” vs. “Sleek Compact”

• Form Factor: The C9364C is a standard 1RU rack-mount device (44.45mm×439.4mm×426.7mm), weighing ~8.5kg; the C9316D is also 1RU but more compact (44.45mm×367mm×426.7mm), weighing just 6.2kg—for machine rooms with tight space, the C9316D’s “small size” saves significant rack space.

• Thermal Design: The C9364C uses front-to-rear airflow (front intake, rear exhaust) with 4 hot-swappable smart fans (PWM speed control); the C9316D optimizes to right-side intake + top exhaust with 2 fans but higher RPM. In full-load tests, the C9364C operates at ~55dB (similar to air conditioning), while the C9316D reaches ~60dB (like a low suction vacuum cleaner)—less ideal for quiet machine rooms.

• Interface Layout: The C9364C arranges 25G ports in two columns (32 per column), with uplink ports on the right; the C9316D clusters 25G ports on the left (16 densely packed), with uplink ports distributed on the right and rear—the former simplifies cable management, while the latter may cause “cable clutter” with dense patch cords.

5. User Experience: “Veteran” vs. “Newbie” Preferences

• Management Ease: Both support NX-OS CLI and Web UI (NX2), but the C9364C’s Supervisor 2 management engine has more powerful diagnostic tools (e.g., real-time traffic visualization, root cause analysis for faults), allowing newbies to quickly locate loops or broadcast storms via the Web UI; the C9316D’s Supervisor 1 engine has basic functions, requiring CLI for complex troubleshooting—posing higher technical demands on operations teams.

• Fault Recovery: The C9364C supports Stateful Switchover (SSO) with <50ms business interruption during main/standby Supervisor swaps; the C9316D’s SSO takes ~100ms, and it only supports active-standby mode (the C9364C can expand to a dual-supervisor cluster).

• Maintenance Cost: The C9364C has broader optical module compatibility (supports third-party SFP28/QSFP28), but original Cisco modules are ~15% pricier; the C9316D’s 600W power module consumes 20% less power than the C9364C’s 800W module, reducing long-term electricity costs.

6. Cost-Effectiveness: Is the “Expensive” One Worth It? Does the “Cheap” One Have Hidden Flaws?

• Standalone Price: The C9364C retails for ~¥120,000 (including base licenses), while the C9316D costs ~¥80,000—a ¥40,000 difference.

• Scenario-Specific Cost: Deploying 500×25G servers (requiring 25G access + 100G uplinks) needs 4×C9364Cs (total ~¥480,000) vs. 8×C9316Ds (~¥640,000). Though the C9364C is pricier upfront, it saves on rack space, cabling (30% reduction), and operations (50% fewer management nodes)—lower long-term TCO.

• Expansion Cost: The C9364C’s uplink expansion requires QSFP-DD modules (~¥20,000/unit), same as the C9316D for 400G upgrades. However, the C9316D has fewer expansion slots (only 2), limiting future upgrades.

7. Product Advantages: Their “Killer Features”

• C9364C’s Core Strengths: High port density, strong expandability, advanced features (ACI multi-site)—ideal for core access layers of hyperscale data centers (e.g., cloud providers, internet giants).

• C9316D’s Core Strengths: Compact size, low power consumption, cost-effectiveness—suited for small enterprise data centers, branch offices, or labs needing 25G access with space/budget constraints.

8. System Upgrade: Steps, Pitfalls, and Solutions

System upgrades are a “must-take course” for network devices, but these two models have tricky pitfalls—let’s focus on the C9364C (the C9316D is similar but simpler).

Upgrade Steps (Upgrading from NX-OS 10.4(3)F to 10.4(4)I):

1. Check Compatibility: Download the Nexus 9000 Software Compatibility Matrix from Cisco’s website to confirm hardware (e.g., Supervisor version, optical modules) supports the target firmware—users have previously encountered “optical module incompatibility” errors with third-party SFP28 modules.

2. Backup Configuration: Use copy running-config tftp: to back up the current config to a TFTP server (simultaneously back up the startup config startup-config).

3. Pre-Upgrade Check: Run show install all impact to assess upgrade impacts (e.g., service interruptions, required reboots)—pay attention to “Critical” warnings (e.g., insufficient memory).

4. Upload Firmware: Transfer the new firmware to the device’s flash (copy tftp: flash:).

5. Execute Upgrade: Run install all kickstart flash:nxos-kickstart.10.4.4.I.bin system flash:nxos.10.4.4.I.bin (note the order: kickstart first, then system).

6. Verify: Reboot the device post-upgrade, check firmware versions with show version, and confirm interface statuses and traffic are normal.

Common Pitfalls & Fixes:

• Pitfall 1: Upgrade Timeout: Caused by unstable network during firmware upload.
  Fix: Test TFTP server connectivity with ping; if high packet loss, use SCP (requires SSH configuration) or USB storage (dir usb1: to view, copy usb1:filename flash:).

• Pitfall 2: Post-Upgrade Interface Loss: Due to incompatible optical modules (e.g., non-Cisco-certified 400G modules).
  Fix: Roll back to the old version (install all revert), replace with Cisco original modules, or contact the vendor for compatible third-party modules.

• Pitfall 3: Configuration Loss: Caused by power failure during upgrade.
  Fix: Boot from the old version (boot system flash:nxos.10.4.3.F.bin), restore the backed-up startup-config (copy tftp: startup-config), then re-upgrade.

9. Product Use Cases: Which Fits Your Scenario?

• Typical Scenarios for C9364C:

• Cloud Data Center Core Access Layer: Connecting 25G servers (e.g., AI training clusters, big data platforms) with 100G/400G uplinks to the Spine layer.

• Multi-Data Center Interconnect (DCI): Using ACI multi-site for cross-data center service synchronization, requiring high reliability (SSO) and low latency.

• Typical Scenarios for C9316D:

• Enterprise Campus Core Layer: Connecting access layer switches (e.g., Catalyst 9200) and providing 10G/25G to desktops in space-constrained machine rooms (e.g., floor telecom closets).

• University/Lab Networks: High-speed 25G interconnects for HPC clusters with budget constraints (saving 30% vs. C9364C).

10. Detailed Pros & Cons: No Perfect Device, Only the Right Fit

• C9364C’s Pros & Cons:
  Pros: High port density, strong expandability, advanced features (ACI multi-site), stable thermal performance.
  Cons: Large size, heavy weight, high power consumption, expensive.

• C9316D’s Pros & Cons:
  Pros: Compact size, low power consumption, cost-effective, space-saving.
  Cons: Lower port density, limited expandability, weaker advanced features, slightly higher noise.

Conclusion

Choosing between the C9364C and C9316D? The answer lies in your needs: If you need to “accommodate more servers” or “run farther/steadier,” pick the C9364C; if your machine room is space-constrained, budget is tight, or you’re testing the waters, the C9316D is more pragmatic. After all, the ultimate goal of network equipment is not “impressive specs” but “peace of mind in operation.”