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 $$$$$"