QNAP TS-464-8G NAS Review: Worth the Premium?

Here’s the thing about NAS devices: you can drop serious money on a box that’ll sit in your office for five years, so getting it right matters. I’ve spent three weeks testing the QNAP TS-464-8G to see whether it’s actually worth the premium price tag, or if you’re just paying for features you’ll never use. Spoiler: it’s complicated.

The 8GB of RAM is soldered, but there’s a SO-DIMM slot for expansion. I didn’t need to upgrade during testing, but if you’re planning to run virtual machines or particularly memory-hungry applications, that headroom is there.

But (and this is important) if you’re still running gigabit switches, you won’t see those speeds. You’ll be limited to around 110-115MB/s, which is still respectable but doesn’t justify the premium over cheaper models.

The M.2 cache slots are tucked underneath the drive bays. Installation requires removing the drives and unscrewing a metal plate, which is a bit fiddly but only needs doing once. I tested with two 500GB Samsung 980 drives configured as read/write cache, and the performance improvement for frequently accessed files was significant – we’re talking 40-50% faster access times for my test photo library. If you’re looking to maximise cache performance, NAS-specific SSDs like the WD RED SN700 are worth considering as they’re optimised for the constant read/write cycles that cache duties demand.

Performance is where this NAS really shines. I set up a RAID 5 array with four WD Red Plus 4TB drives (not included, obviously) and ran transfers over a week of mixed use. Large sequential files consistently hit 270-280MB/s reads, which is about as fast as you’ll get without moving to 10GbE or NVMe storage.

Write speeds were slightly slower at 260-265MB/s, which is expected with RAID 5’s parity calculations happening in real-time. But honestly, that’s still fast enough that I never found myself waiting around for transfers to complete.

Plex performance deserves specific mention because it’s a common use case. The Intel Celeron’s integrated graphics support hardware transcoding, and it handled two simultaneous 4K to 1080p streams without breaking a sweat. CPU usage sat around 40-50% during transcoding, leaving plenty of headroom for other tasks.

The drive trays are tool-less and lock in with satisfying clicks. They’re made from metal rather than plastic, which is what you want for something that’ll be inserted and removed multiple times over the device’s lifetime. Each tray can accommodate 3.5″ or 2.5″ drives with simple screw mounting.

Cooling is handled by a single 90mm fan at the rear, and here’s where things get a bit noisy. Under normal operation, it’s audible but not intrusive – about 28dB according to my meter. But when the CPU is working hard (initial RAID builds, intensive transcoding), that fan ramps up to around 42dB, which is definitely noticeable in a quiet office.

The fan speed is adjustable in the QNAP software, but turning it down too much risks thermal throttling. I found the “Standard” profile offered the best balance between noise and temperatures.

Initial setup involves downloading the Qfinder Pro utility, which locates the NAS on your network and walks you through basic configuration. The wizard handles user accounts, network settings, and RAID array creation reasonably well. But once you’re past that initial setup, you’re dropped into the full QTS interface, which presents you with dozens of apps and settings.

For someone coming from Synology’s more streamlined DSM, it’s a bit overwhelming. The interface feels like it was designed by engineers for engineers, with every possible option exposed rather than hidden behind “Advanced” menus.

That said, once you’ve spent a few hours learning where things are, it becomes second nature. And the flip side of that complexity is flexibility – you can configure virtually any aspect of the system’s behaviour.

The mobile apps (Qfile for file access, Qphoto for photos, Qvideo for media) are functional but feel slightly dated compared to Synology’s equivalents. They work reliably, they’re just not particularly elegant.

If you’re primarily concerned with ease of use and software polish, the Synology is probably the better choice. But if you want those 2.5GbE ports without buying expansion cards, and you’re comfortable with a steeper learning curve, the QNAP offers better value.

The Asustor AS5404T is cheaper and uses the same Intel Celeron processor with identical 2.5GbE networking. It’s a solid alternative if you’re budget-conscious, but QNAP’s software ecosystem is more mature, and the build quality feels slightly more robust.

Another option worth considering is the UGREEN NASync DXP6800 Pro, which offers a different approach with its Intel Core i5 processor and six drive bays, appealing to users who need more raw storage capacity and processing power for demanding workloads. For those seeking a more compact four-bay solution with competitive pricing, the UGREEN NASync DH4300 Plus presents another alternative worth evaluating against the QNAP. The UGREEN NASync DXP4800 also deserves consideration as a four-bay alternative with a different feature set that may suit certain use cases better.

Value is subjective with NAS devices because it depends entirely on what you need. If you’re just storing family photos and documents, this is massive overkill. A two-bay Synology DS223 will do everything you need for half the price.

But if you’re running a small business, managing large media libraries, or need the performance for multiple concurrent users, the TS-464 starts to make sense. Those dual 2.5GbE ports alone would cost you £150+ as an add-in card for a competing model, and you’d still need a free PCIe slot.

The 8GB of RAM is adequate for most use cases, and the ability to expand to 16GB means you’re not immediately hitting a ceiling if your needs grow. Compare that to some competing models that solder RAM with no expansion options.

What hurts the value proposition is QNAP’s software. It’s powerful, but if you’re not going to use those advanced features, you’re paying for complexity you don’t need. Synology’s DSM is genuinely easier to use, and for many home users, that’s worth the premium.