As far as comparing the two SANs are concerned they are both aimed at similar sized environments but there are differences that you should bear in mind, some of which I'll discuss below. For your environment both will do what you want without a problem and will scale up to supporting 3-4 hosts and 10-15 or so average VM's without much trouble. You might get away without any switches for your SAN if your choose the MD3xxx models but I wouldn't recommend it.
There's no compelling reason in what you say you require that would require NAS functionality rather than an iSCSI SAN. An entry level NetApp NAS isn't particularly more suitable than one of these Dell entry level SANs in general but they are very capable shared storage solutions that would meet your needs and depending on specifics (e.g. if you wanted single instance storage support) might be more suited.
Support for VMware Cluster Services
Both of these arrays support all VMware cluster functions that require "shared storage" - (vMotion, HA, Fault Tolerance, DRS\DPM). From a storage perspective what you need is for all VMware hosts to have [redundant] connectivity to the SAN and both of these can provide that without any issue. Depending on the model and what you are trying to do you may not need any switches for your SAN but you probably will.
Note VMware HA\FT\vMotion\DRS etc all require separate cluster networking interfaces in addition to your iSCSI SAN connections. Ideally those should be resilient (two or more interfaces per function connected to separate physical switches) - those requirements are entirely separate to your SAN infrastructure - that should be separated from everything else as much as possible.
The PS4000 provides much better native integration with vSphere's vStorage API's than the MD3000i or MD3200i. This means you will be able to offload things like snapshotting, cloning etc to the array hardware rather than relying on software for these storage functions.
For single array environments you don't need any switches with an MD3000i\MD3200i. You can directly attach these, redundantly with one iSCSI GigE port from each SAN controller, to two separate host servers but you have then maxed out all connections and have zero expansion\scalability as far as adding more servers in future. I've only seen this done once but it works fine if you can live with those limitations and it does remove a layer of complexity and possible failure.
You cannot do this safely with an Equallogic array if you have more than one server - your servers have to be able to see all EQL interfaces (active and passive) for the architecture to work safely.
If you are opting for a proper switch based SAN you don't have to have two switches but I wouldn't touch a SAN that didn't have redundancy at the network fabric level. What happens when you have to move something or carry out a firmware update on the switch? I'd regard a SAN as a liability if I couldn't confidently walk up to one of the switches and power it off.
As a general rule you should not mix iSCSI SAN traffic and normal traffic on the same switch. If you have no choice then make sure you use VLANs to keep it separated at layer 2. If you fail to do this performance will suffer significantly and there are some nasty security problems that might bite you badly.
Avoid cheap switches, well avoid really cheap switches at any rate.
The Equallogic architecture is designed to scale out - EQL SANs increase in capacity and performance as you add arrays. The PS4000's are limited entry level models and only scale up to two arrays when you only have PS4000's but if you buy any PS6000's you can mix and match and then scale up just as if all the arrays were PS6000's. This scale out works very well from a performance perspective on Windows and is pretty good on vSphere 4 and getting better with 4.1.
The Equallogic architecture is very simple to set up, manage and monitor. Adding capacity is very simple ["Just plug in another array"] and because of the way the architecture works performance scales at the same time. The SAN HQ monitoring console is very useful, free and easy to install.
The Active\Passive controller solution works very well in my experience - remember that each controller manages 16 disks at most and can happily cope with the IOPs levels needed to saturate theses disks (2000+). The big performance challenge with the PS4000's are their limited (2) number of iSCSI ports and that keeps throughput below around 200Megabytes/sec for a single array. Add another array though and that number doubles - add in a PS6000 and you would get triple the aggregate bandwidth. I've pushed a mixed 10K SAS 7.2K SATA 4 node PS6000 Group to over 7000IOPs and 1.6Gbytes/sec under test conditions, in the real world your mileage may vary but they certainly do scale out.
Equallogic Arrays handle failed disks very well and one of the benefits of their conservative defaults are that you need to have a lot of failures or multiple failures in rapid succession to cause issues. I've never seen an Equallogic array fail in production by the way - and in testing it usually requires pulling 4 or more disks to force an array to go offline.
The Equallogic architecture is not well understood - there are some inflexibilities in the design that can be problematic if you don't factor them in up front - the limitation of one disk type and raid type per array being one, the requirement for lots of bandwidth between arrays in a multi-array setup is another.
Equallogic solutions use a lot of disk capacity. All SAN solutions do to some degree but with EQL defaults and recommended reserves for snapshots and replication it can be a bit of a shock:
Take your 9.6TB PS4000 - at a guess this has been quoted to you with this capacity but it comes with 16x600GB drives and you wont get to use anything like 9.6TB of that raw capacity. For starters you get about 520GB usable storage from each 600GB disk in an EQL environment, then with Equallogic's default hot sparing policy (2 for RAID10 or RAID50) and selecting RAID-50 (two more disks worth of space used for parity) that translates into 6.2TB of basic user capacity. If you want to use their (very powerful) hardware snapshotting effectively you need to limit the capacity you plan to present to servers to around half of that - so usable capacity drops to 3.1TB. If you choose to go for best performance on this array and select RAID-10 you get a basic usable capacity of 3.6TB, or 1.8TB usable if you plan to use snapshots extensively. That gets even worse in larger environments where you use hardware replication between arrays - your usable capacity can drop as low as 1.2TB from an initial 9.6TB of capacity.
You are limited to a single RAID type and disk size per array and you cannot isolate logical volumes from each other if you only have a single array. Even when you have multiple arrays that can be hard to do well. So presenting storage to a database server where you might want to isolate DB, tempdb and log volume IO from each other isn't possible. With EQL you have to trust the array(s) to manage the IO isolation for you.
You can only buy the arrays with either 8 or 16 disks installed and I think Dell are discontinuing the 8 disk option. If you want to buy 5 disks now and add a couple more later you are out of luck.
In a multi-array environment if you lose one array all volumes in the pool that array belongs to will go offline unless you have made some very specific [performance limiting] design choices.
The real strengths of the EQL design only kick in when you have about 4 arrays or more in a Group.
These are more traditional monolithic Storage Arrays. Conceptually they are nice and simple and work just like most hardware RAID controllers, just scaled up - buy the quantity and size\speed of dsks you want; carve up disks into RAID Groups, then carve logical disks from those. Add more disks as you grow, and extending by adding MD1000\MD1200 disk enclosures is a simple process.
You get to choose how you want to mix and match RAID types within a single array if you like. On an fully stocked 15 drive MD3000i you could have a 5 drive RAID 5 pack of 600GB disks, a separate 3 drive RAID 5 pack of 600GB disks and a 6 drive RAID 10 pack of 15k disks for some dedicated high performance volumes. That's a bit harder to manage than the EQL approach but it allows you to make specific design choices that you can't with EQL. If you are working at the scale where you need under about 30 disks in total then the MD3000i is much more flexible as a result.
The MD32000i has double the controller bandwidth that the MD3000i has - unless the MD3000i is dirt cheap I would not choose it over an MD3200i for that reason alone.
Adding relatively large amounts of cheap (from a SAN perspective) storage is viable provided capacity and not performance is your primary concern. I've put in a couple of fairly large MD3000i installs for archive type storage - with RAID 6 and 2TB drives a single MD3000i and deliver ~72TB of usable storage. With that many SATA disks it's perfectly fine for archive\backup to disk type uses but you wouldn't want to be using that as primary storage for lots of virtual machines.
The MD3000i is pretty long in the tooth now - it's very noisy and power hungry. The MD3200i is a lot better in that regard - and almost certainly cheaper to run over its lifetime because of that.
Management capabilities are a bit basic - automated alerting is not handled by the array but by the Management application that you must keep running somewhere. Performance monitoring isn't as slick as that provided by EQL's SANHQ.
As you scale up past a single array the MD3000i\MD3200i expansion is via SAS connected MD1000\MD1200 disk trays - that doesn't scale well from a performance perspective when you start heading past 30 disks and maybe even earlier.
Scaling up performance is much harder with an MD3000i\MD3200i array - if you find you need to deliver (say) 1000 more IOPs to an existing volume you'll have to buy a lot of extra disks, move a lot of stuff around, build new RAID packs, present new volumes, migrate data and hopefully get to where you want before you run into limitations on the SAS bus. With Equallogic you would just add an array to the pool containing the volume in question and it will pretty much deliver that automatically.