Simpler Navigation for Servers and Operating Systems
Completed: a much simpler Servers and Operating Systems section of the Community. We combined many of the older boards, so you won't have to click through so many levels to get at the information you need. Check the consolidated boards here as many sub-forums are now single boards.
HP 9000 and HP e3000 Servers
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

e3000 to 987/150

Marvin Furuya
Occasional Contributor

e3000 to 987/150

I have been told that the 987/150 is equal to or possible slower than the e3000 in performance. My company wants to upgrade to the A400 and must stay with a MPE/IX O/S due to software issues. How is Relative performance derived and what does it actually mean. With 5.9 for 987/150 and 2.2 for e3000 how much slower/faster are they? Why wouldn't newer processor technology and faster drives put the e3000 ahead of 987/150. Would it be possible to just to upgrade the 987 with newer SCSI drives.


Fred Metcalf
Trusted Contributor

Re: e3000 to 987/150

Hi Marvin,
Relative performance is just what is says, so the HP 3000 Series 987/150/RX/SX with value 5.9 is faster than the HP e3000 Series A400-100-110 with value 2.2. Remember, the 987/150 was a big beast in its day. The A400 is the recent entry level!

To upgrade a 897/150 for better performance you are supposed to look at the HP e3000 Series N4000-100-220 with Relative Performance of 9, but you may get away with a new A500.

Are you looking at new systems or remarketed? The first Series A500-200-140 was a dual cpu system with Relative Performance of 5.4, but I supect will outperform the 987/150 because of the much faster disks. Also consider the new entry-level Series A500-100-150 with Relative Performance of 4.8
More at
Hope this helps
Fred Metcalf
Missing MPE :-)
Chuck Ciesinski
Honored Contributor

Re: e3000 to 987/150


The 987/150 is an older e3000 system, and yes it does run MPE/iX, however, it cannot architecturally support a lot of the new hardware. We ran ours through 6.5, but lost a lot of hardware at 6.5.

As far as performance, YMMV with adding memory, up to 1.5GB with third party memory and switching to all SCSI discs. For a third party evaluation of 'relative' performance, I would recommend looking at the following independent website.


Chuck Ciesinsk
"Show me the $$$$$"