with the introduction of the qnap 453Be, it looks like we have a very interesting head to head match up with the synology 918+ such that no longer is the expression “qnap is more expensive but you get better hardware” is no longer true. on paper heres what I see
usd $550 price point for both
qnap has 5x usb 3.0 vs 2 for syno
qnap has 2x Hdmi
qnap has 2x mic inputs
qnap has 1x audio line level out
qnap: you can add an optional remote
qnaps new surveillance app is licensed tm for 8 cams. syno only 2.
the most significant difference appears to be the expansion philosophy. syno provides for direct addition of two m.2 NVMe SSD but qnap provides for one PCIe slot where you can add one of : a 10gb ethernet , wap, USB. 1, or two m.2 SSDs.
If onboard audio and Hdmi is important to you this appears to have always been a qnap win. same for the PCIe slot. beyond these , you have essentially identical hardware, or am I missing something? it would be more expensive to add ssd to the qnap but more expensive to add camera licenses to synology.
grab some popcorn this could be an interesting contest to watch!
say you have 6 Cameras. that’s a $180 check to synology. 8 cameras? free on qnap, $284 more on synology. these are important numbers for those wanting to use the nas for ip cams.
I’m told (qnap sales phone line) that the new surveillance software ships with 8 camera licenses. yea audio and Hdmi is really a don’t care for me as regards plex. not to drift too far away from that subject, but I could see using Hdmi to monitor cams
yes sorry. back on track now
… in previous threads you have outlined the reasons in favor of q for plex as opposed to s. may I conclude that (a) those favorable support related elements are likely to apply to Joes like me and not just to plex labs and (b) you do expect all the technical elements of your preference and experience to apply to the 453Be as a stronger overall solution for plex, compared to the 918+? For me, there are three primary use cases (backup, surveillance, plex) but plex will be under greater scrutiny by other influential members of my household lol. so as you can tell I’m ready to wait for the 453Be if the entire ownership experience can be shown superior. I’m new here and new to plex but technically sufficient as a former unix sys admin.
yea that is the obvious answer but the question behind the question really has to do with this:
@MwC_Trexx said:
I would look up NAS PK World on YouTube where they show pretty convincingly where in many cases comparable Qnap models outperform Synology models.
While CPU is definitely a factor, there are many other things that affect overall system performance (file system, kernel versions, etc ).
Take the case that you are using Raid10 or Raid6, and all HDD slots are occupied. A benefit of the TS453Be is the ability to use the m.2 drives as storage and not cache. This should allow you to force the plex directory onto the SSD and get quicker response time when browsing through. The Synology DS918+ doesn’t allow the m.2 SSD to be used as a volume.
I own both QNAP and Synology. Here is my comparison of the higher end.
Bottom line. QNAP kicks the Synology around the block in every department.
Comparing two different models at the high end: DS3617xs - TVS1282-i7-32GB
A. Syno: $2600 (Amazon clearance price) - QNAP: $2500 - $3000 (depending on merchant)
B. Syno: 64 GB memory max (4 memory slots), 16 installed - QNAP: 64GB memory max (8 memory slots) , 32 GB installed
C. Syno: Processor: Xeon D-1527 2.2 Ghz no hardware transcoding - QNAP: i7-6700 SkyLake 3.4 Ghz hardware transcoding 2160 HEVC SDR (“T” models get HEVC HDR with i7-7700). TVS-1282 CPU upgradable to i7-7700 if you void the warranty… pin-for-pin drop in processor.
D. Syno: 12 drive bays - QNAP 12 drive bays
E. Syno: 2 USB: - QNAP: 4 USB
F: Syno: 1 PCIe (network only) - QNAP: 2 PCIe (GPU, USB, network)
Now for the fun:
OS: DSM installs on HD only. QTS installs on Flash device. HD arrays are independent
M.2 usage: Synology allows CACHE only. QNAP: create full volume.
i have 2x Samsung 1TB 860 EVO (RAID) as my primary volume (where apps and PMS live) . I/O = 900+ MB/sec
Pulling 1.2 GB/sec through the QTS RAID filesystem holding the media is normal operation. Pulling 1.2 GB/s through the DSM RAID only happens with Enterprise drives.
