@frrxtx wrote:
I found no significant difference in performance or features between the SG350 series and the CBS350 series.
Neither did the author of this blog: https://www.jochenschulz.me/en/blog/cisco-sg350-vs-cbs350-comparison
What you and the blog author "found" possibly might not represent the full capacity of the newer hardware, which cannot be seen without more and/or higher bandwidth ports and/or the nature of the performance testing.
For example, if you are going to sell two models of switches, basically the same, except one provides 24 ports and the other 48 ports, do you have two manufacturing lines, one making the components for the 24 port model and the other making the components for the 48 port model, or do you make one line of components that is used in both models?
The SG350 top of the line models are capable of 77.38 Mpps and 104.Gbps while
the CBS350 top of the line model is capable of 755.81 Mpps and 1,040 Gbps
i.e. about 10x more capacity!
Between the two series models (SG350 vs. CBS350), with like number and kind of ports, benchmarks and/or any testing you do, might not show the additional performance capacity.
Still, the above is conjecture, in this instance, although there are many examples of such approaches being used (personally I "discovered" these approaches back in '79).
That noted, I too am surprised what appears to be "equivalent" performance offerings, used the same way, that the newer equipment would draw more power. One reason for my surprise, companies like Cisco, have been designing equipment to be more "green", i.e. more energy efficient, which your case seems to show the opposite.
