Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
New Member

6500 Sup 32 Vs 4500s Sup V

Hi All,

I am trying to find out which one of these switches will be better for access layer? The choices I have is a 4507 with Sup V or 6500 with sup32.

I know that sup32 can handle multicast traffic better than a 4500 Sup V. I also feel IOS support is better on sup 32s and 4500s have too many trains.

Any opinions?


Re: 6500 Sup 32 Vs 4500s Sup V

Hi there,

It depends on how much traffic you think you will have going through the switches.

The 6500 has a far superior backplane architecture to the 4500 making it much, much faster. It also has the capability to run distributed CEF where it will put the mac and cef tables on the line cards to save them asking the supervisor every time a decision is needed. The 4500 does not have such a feature and every packet that comes in is sent up to the supervisor for processing. Which brings me back to the comment about traffic.

I use 4500's mainly in the access layer and only then use 6 x gbic cards. This is because the backplane link to the supervisor is only 6 gig and on a shared bus, but that could be more than enough for the throughput that you need. The 6500 has a clever crossbar architecture as well as a shared bus and will depend on the cards that you buy as to what it uses.

If you've got the budget - go for a 6500. It'll provide much better future proofing too.

Hope that helps,


** Please rate all posts **

New Member

Re: 6500 Sup 32 Vs 4500s Sup V

Thank you for the post. Your comments are very helpful.

Re: 6500 Sup 32 Vs 4500s Sup V


Just have a look at this switch guide...

you can have feature-by-feature difference between 4500's and 6500's and see what exactly you are looking for on the edge !!!! I will put my money on 6500 with SUP 32.. If you really see, i really dont think there will be much of cost difference between the two models, since there are wide varieties of 6500, ie 6504, 6506, 6509 etc...

Hope this helps... all the best..


CreatePlease to create content