They are pretty much all the same in terms of what this solution versus competitors offers. Cisco is number one, HP Synergy is number two, and this solution would be number three.

I'm more into PowerEdge R-600, 700, and 800 series instead of blades. 

Technical support is not good. 

Dell PowerEdge M needs to run AMD CPUs on it. 

For future releases, I would like to see the Ethernet connectivity updated. It is a very old technology. Dell has alliances with other companies that make their networking components, like Cisco and Brocade, but the choice is very slim. Dell also has their own networking products which are good however, there needs to be a better selection of networking components.

I would like to have additional HPC and AI capabilities on general Dell PowerEdge servers. To optimize the PowerEdge for HPC and AI, modified designs may be necessary.

There is currently a new generation of Dell Blade Systems, so it requires time to transition to the new generation. However, the current version of the solution we are working with meets our requirements.

Cisco UCS X-series provides a GPU node and compute node in a single chassis. Dell PowerEdge M lacks GPU nodes and doesn't have a direct solution for GPUs.

Perhaps the processor needs some improvement in terms of processing features. If I remember correctly, the Intel Xeon processor shipped with the Dell PowerEdge M is the 6426Y.

This processor is a 16-core processor that can handle around 32 threads. Now, the HP server we are considering has a 6430 processor, which is 32 cores. It can handle 64 threads. So it's twice as much as the Dell PowerEdge M. However, the memory module, the DDR4-4800, is the same.

But according to reviews and online sources, the memory performance is much better on the Dell PowerEdge. That's where the confusion arises.

Another area of improvement could be scalability. 

Their features and product overall are comparable to others on the market, nothing stands out. The company should have either been more clear with the packaging, or a little bit more forthcoming with what you needed, what is in the package, and what came with it.

The solution could be improved by continuously looking for ways to make it better.

In terms of improvement, it should also offer a hyper-converged option.

For a half-height blade, Dell did well with this one, not leaving much room for improvement. The ever-increasing boot time due to ever-increasing POST checks with every new generation makes maintenance tasks somewhat of a headache. That and the occasional chip creep causes one to have to re-seat DIMMs from time to time. Other than that, not much can be said in terms of cons.

If Dell can reduce the chip creep specially on the RAM modules that would e great. This does not occur that often but often enough to try and improve on. Each blade having each own iDRAC instance makes sense for connecting to a single blade on an ad-hoc base but becomes pain when having to access the local console for all blades in a chassis one after the other.

Each connection requires downloading the java aplet from the blade and jumping though a few hoops before it runs. When closing the aplet and one needs to connect to that same blade again the entire process needs to be repeated again. Performing this same task on an IBM blade chassis is a breeze. The CMC provides one with a drop down list listing all slots in the chassis. This allows one switch between local console mode for all blades in the chassis without any repetitive aplet downloads or even having to configure a management IP address for each blade.

Even though this is more of a blade chassis feature than a blade feature Dell would do well in stealing this page from IBM's book.

The firmware updates for the product need improvement.

I would like to see a broader range of chassis networking options. Cisco was an option at one time and then not. I am not sure if they are again.

More interconnections with third party equipment and limited I/O selection.