Transition Networks 25172 vs Transition Networks EDS3016PR1NS: Specification Comparison
Both the Transition Networks 25172 and EDS3016PR1NS are 8-port, unmanaged, DIN rail-mounted fiber switches aimed at industrial network deployments—the same physical class a buyer would evaluate side by side for edge switching in surveillance, access control, or factory-floor environments. The core comparison turns on port speed (10G vs. Gigabit), power budget specification, and the presence or absence of a stated power consumption rating, all of which directly affect bandwidth headroom, enclosure sizing, and total deployment cost.
In This Guide
- Which switch delivers the bandwidth your network actually needs—10G or Gigabit?
- How do these switches differ in power requirements and physical installation?
- What management approach and media compatibility should integrators expect?
- Which should you choose: the 25172 or the EDS3016PR1NS?
- Side-by-Side Specs
- FAQ
Which switch delivers the bandwidth your network actually needs—10G or Gigabit?
The 25172 provides 8 ports of full-duplex 10G multi-mode fiber, each capable of up to 400 m per the spec, yielding a theoretical aggregate switching capacity of 160 Gbps at full duplex. The EDS3016PR1NS provides 8 ports rated at Gigabit speed—1G per port maximum—for a theoretical aggregate of 16 Gbps. That is a 10× port-speed difference. For deployments aggregating multiple high-resolution camera streams, NVR uplinks, or dense IP access control traffic, the 25172's 10G ports eliminate uplink bottlenecks that a Gigabit switch cannot. For lighter Gigabit-class workloads, the EDS3016PR1NS matches what most current IP cameras and readers actually transmit, and the additional headroom of the 25172 would go unused.
How do these switches differ in power requirements and physical installation?
The 25172 carries an explicit power consumption specification: 960 W at 48 V, 20 A. This is a substantial power draw that installers must account for when sizing the DIN rail enclosure's power supply and circuit protection. Neither PoE output capability nor operating-temperature range is stated in the provided specs for either model, so no comparison on thermal tolerance is possible. Both units mount on a standard 35 mm DIN rail, matching the same enclosure form factor. The EDS3016PR1NS has no power consumption figure in the provided specs, making direct power-budget planning impossible from spec alone. Installers specifying the EDS3016PR1NS should consult the datasheet for that figure before sizing the power supply.
What management approach and media compatibility should integrators expect?
Both switches are explicitly unmanaged, meaning neither supports CLI, SNMP, web GUI, or VLAN configuration. Deployment is plug-and-play MAC-learning only—no credentials, no firmware provisioning, no network management system integration. This is appropriate for edge segments that do not require traffic segmentation or remote monitoring but means neither switch can be centrally managed or updated. Both support multi-mode fiber. The 25172 specifies SFP-based 10G multi-mode ports reaching 400 m; the EDS3016PR1NS specifies Gigabit multi-mode fiber but provides no reach figure in the available specs. Fiber media compatibility (SFP transceiver type, wavelength) beyond multi-mode classification is not specified for either unit, so installers should verify transceiver interoperability against their existing fiber plant.
Which should you choose: the 25172 or the EDS3016PR1NS?
Our take: The 25172 is the stronger choice when the deployment demands 10G switching capacity—aggregating high-bitrate cameras, NVR uplinks, or future-proofing bandwidth-intensive industrial segments—while the EDS3016PR1NS suits cost-sensitive Gigabit-class edge deployments where 1G per port is sufficient. On port speed, the delta is definitive: 10G vs. 1G is a 10× difference in per-port throughput. On power, the 25172 draws a documented 960 W at 48 V/20 A, requiring a correctly rated supply; the EDS3016PR1NS carries no power figure in the provided specs, introducing a planning variable. Both share lifetime warranties, unmanaged operation, 35 mm DIN rail mounting, and multi-mode fiber support, so the form-factor and management footprint are equivalent. Choose the 25172 for 10G backbone or aggregation roles; choose the EDS3016PR1NS only after confirming its power draw independently and confirming that Gigabit bandwidth is sufficient for the connected devices.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Spec-for-spec, from manufacturer data.
| Specification | Transition Networks 25172 | Transition Networks EDS3016PR1NS |
|---|---|---|
| Product Type | Switch | Switch |
| Port Count | 8 | 8 |
| Port Speed | 10G | Gigabit (1G) |
| Fiber Type | Multi-mode | Multi-mode |
| Max Fiber Reach | 400 m | — |
| Managed | Unmanaged | Unmanaged |
| Mount Type | DIN Rail (35 mm) | DIN Rail |
| Power Consumption | 960 W at 48 V, 20 A | — |
| Warranty | Lifetime | Lifetime |
| Connectivity | Fiber | Ethernet / Fiber |
| Form Factor | Compact DIN rail | DIN rail |
| Management Interface | None (plug-and-play) | None (plug-and-play) |
| Datasheet Available | Yes (/content/product-datasheets/25172.pdf) | — |
| SKU | 25172 | EDS3016PR1NS |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which should you choose: the 25172 or the EDS3016PR1NS?
The 25172 is the stronger choice when the deployment demands 10G switching capacity—aggregating high-bitrate cameras, NVR uplinks, or future-proofing bandwidth-intensive industrial segments—while the EDS3016PR1NS suits cost-sensitive Gigabit-class edge deployments where 1G per port is sufficient. On port speed, the delta is definitive: 10G vs. 1G is a 10× difference in per-port throughput. On power, the 25172 draws a documented 960 W at 48 V/20 A, requiring a correctly rated supply; the EDS3016PR1NS carries no power figure in the provided specs, introducing a planning variable. Both share lifetime warranties, unmanaged operation, 35 mm DIN rail mounting, and multi-mode fiber support, so the form-factor and management footprint are equivalent. Choose the 25172 for 10G backbone or aggregation roles; choose the EDS3016PR1NS only after confirming its power draw independently and confirming that Gigabit bandwidth is sufficient for the connected devices.
Is the 25172 or EDS3016PR1NS better for connecting multiple 4K or multi-megapixel cameras on the same segment?
The 25172 is better suited for high-density, high-resolution camera segments. Its 10G ports provide 10× the per-port bandwidth of the EDS3016PR1NS's Gigabit ports, reducing the risk of congestion when multiple high-bitrate streams share the same switch. The EDS3016PR1NS's Gigabit ports can handle individual 4K streams but may become a bottleneck if aggregate traffic across all 8 ports approaches the 1G limit.
Can either switch be managed remotely or configured with VLANs?
No. Both the 25172 and EDS3016PR1NS are unmanaged switches. Neither supports remote management, CLI, SNMP, web interface, or VLAN configuration per the provided specifications. Both operate as plug-and-play MAC-learning devices. If VLAN segmentation or remote monitoring is required, a managed switch from either vendor's lineup would need to be specified instead.
Do both switches fit the same DIN rail enclosures, and are there power supply differences to plan for?
Yes—both mount on a standard 35 mm DIN rail, so they physically fit the same enclosures. However, power supply planning differs: the 25172 specifies a 960 W draw at 48 V, 20 A, which requires a correctly rated DIN rail power supply in the enclosure. The EDS3016PR1NS has no power consumption figure in the available specs, so its enclosure power supply requirement cannot be determined from spec alone and should be verified against its datasheet before installation.
More Network Switch Comparisons
- TP-Link SG2210XMP-M2 vs Ubiquiti USW-FLEX-2.5G-8
- TP-Link SG2210XMP-M2 vs Comnet CNGE8MS
- TP-Link SG2210XMP-M2 vs Lantronix S2220-1014-NA
- TP-Link SG2210XMP-M2 vs TP-Link S4500-8GP
- TP-Link SG2210XMP-M2 vs TP-Link SG2008P
- TP-Link S4500-8GP vs Ubiquiti USW-FLEX-2.5G-8
Network Switch Buying Guides
Get a Second Opinion on Your Camera Choice
Share your site layout, coverage goals, and budget. Our team will validate the camera selection, flag anything we would change, and recommend products that match the use case.