ASUS STRIX X570-E Gaming review
EK Classic RGB P240 review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Fractal Design Vector RS review
Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
QNAP Offers 9-bay AMD Quad-Core NAS TS-963X
QNAP unveiled the TS-963X, a 9-bay NAS with an AMD quad-core 2.0 GHz processor, up to 8 GB RAM (can be upgraded to 16 GB), and 10GBASE-T connectivity supporting five connection speeds (10G/5G/2.5G/1G/100M).
With a size of a 5-bay NAS it accommodates five 3.5-inch HDD bays and four 2.5-inch SSDs bays that deliver high-performance, high-capacity storage potential including automatic file/data tiering based on access frequency (Qtier Technology). The TS-963X is ideal for small businesses and organizations to boost data access efficiency, network transmission speed and to meet demands of mission-critical tasks. "The TS-963X is designed to enhance the everyday workflows of small businesses and organizations at a budget-friendly price," noted Jason Hsu, Product Manager of QNAP. "The 10GBASE-T/NBASE-T port and four 2.5-inch bays for SSDs can all significantly improve performance, allowing the total cost of ownership to remain reasonable and affordable for most businesses," he added.
The TS-963X is powered by QTS, the QNAP NAS operating system that supports powerful storage management features such as snapshots, Virtual JBOD (VJBOD), and much more. QTS also offers various apps to provide essential functionality and additional value-added services, including Hybrid Backup Sync for backing up and syncing files with local, remote, and cloud storage; QVR Pro can provide a professional surveillance solution; and Virtualization Station and Linux Station allow users to host virtual machines that run Windows, Linux, or UNIX-like operating systems. Many more apps from QNAP and trusted partners are available to download from the QTS App Center. The TS-963X is also VMware ready, Citrix ready and Windows Server 2016 certified.
Key specifications
- TS-963X-2G: 2 GB DDR3L RAM (1 × 2 GB)
- TS-963X-8G: 8 GB DDR3L RAM (1 × 8 GB)
Tower model; AMD G-Series GX-420MC quad-core 2.0 GHz processor; DDR3L SODIMM RAM (two slots, user upgradable to 16GB); hot-swappable 2.5/3.5-inch SATA 6Gbps bays (five 3.5-inch, four 2.5-inch); 1 × 10GBASE-T port supporting NBASE-T; 1 × Gigabit LAN ports; 2 × USB 3.0 Type-A ports (one front, one back); 2 × USB 2.0 Type-A ports (back); 1 × One Touch Copy button; 1 × speaker; 1 × 3.5mm Line Out audio jack.
The new TS-963X is now available. The 2GB version costs roughly 800 Euros, the 8GB version roughly 1000 Euro.
QNAP Offers Quad-core 4-bay TS-453BT3 Thunderbolt 3 NAS - 10/03/2017 01:20 PM
QNAP unveiled the TS-453BT3, a 4-bay NAS that combines Thunderbolt 3 connectivity with a pre-installed QM2 PCIe card, providing dual M.2 SATA SSD slots and 10GbE connectivity. It has a small OLED disp...
QNAP Offers TS-x73U NAS Series with AMD R Quad-core CPU - 07/12/2017 05:20 PM
QNAP announced the new business-class AMD-powered TS-x73U series NAS; available in 8, 12 and 16-bay models with single and redundant power supply options. ...
QNAP Offers more cost-effective TS-831X and TS-531X NAS - 06/23/2017 07:41 AM
QNAP announced that its cost-effective, 10GbE-ready TS-831X and TS-531X business NAS now support QNAP’s innovative QM2 PCIe expansion cards. By installing a QM2 card, users can easily config...
QNAP Offers Budget Dual-core TS-128 and TS-228 Compact NAS - 03/02/2016 06:07 PM
QNAP announced the release of the energy-efficient and budget-friendly dual-core Compact NAS, including the 1-bay TS-128 and 2-bay TS-228. Designed with a mini-tower form factor that takes less deskt...
QNAP offers 2 GB AMD-Powered TS-563 NAS - 06/24/2015 09:04 AM
This new 5-drive desktop NAS features up to 30 TB (with five 6 TB drives) of storage and is 10 GbE network ready. This new model also features 2 GB of DDR3L RAM.The TS-563-2G is the second QNAP produc...
SamuelL421
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 2017-08-22
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 2017-08-22
#5544861 Posted on: 05/08/2018 05:54 PM
Impressive hardware, but I would love to see one of these at a decent price point with a "real" 35-65w laptop/desktop processor. I have an older QNAP that is Intel based (celeron or atom, can't recall without looking it up), it's great for everything except decoding / streaming certain formats or anything greater than HD. I am willing to bet that this old AMD quad isn't much more competent than lowly processor.
Considering the 9 bays, running a media server probably isn't the first priority if you are purchasing this to do some serious backups... even still, I wish there was NAS solution in the 500-1000 range that had all this storage and a beefier cpu
Impressive hardware, but I would love to see one of these at a decent price point with a "real" 35-65w laptop/desktop processor. I have an older QNAP that is Intel based (celeron or atom, can't recall without looking it up), it's great for everything except decoding / streaming certain formats or anything greater than HD. I am willing to bet that this old AMD quad isn't much more competent than lowly processor.
Considering the 9 bays, running a media server probably isn't the first priority if you are purchasing this to do some serious backups... even still, I wish there was NAS solution in the 500-1000 range that had all this storage and a beefier cpu
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5544865 Posted on: 05/08/2018 06:24 PM
Impressive hardware, but I would love to see one of these at a decent price point with a "real" 35-65w laptop/desktop processor. I have an older QNAP that is Intel based (celeron or atom, can't recall without looking it up), it's great for everything except decoding / streaming certain formats or anything greater than HD. I am willing to bet that this old AMD quad isn't much more competent than lowly processor.
Considering the 9 bays, running a media server probably isn't the first priority if you are purchasing this to do some serious backups... even still, I wish there was NAS solution in the 500-1000 range that had all this storage and a beefier cpu
The GPU is would be the biggest change vs what you have now. If you can take advantage of it, then you would notice a difference.
I think this could probably handle 4K. I built my own home server (which also acts as a NAS) which has a very similar CPU to what you find in this QNAP (it's a socket AM1 Athlon). Depending on the protocol and network interface you use, you can play 4K content. With my server, I can play 4K videos over ethernet and a media player like VLC using SMB. Doing that over wifi sometimes results in buffering. I don't remember if I tried testing with a DLNA service; my primary setup that is compatible with DLNA doesn't support 4K.
IMO, buying a pre-made NAS is when you want a quick and easy solution, but you're probably not going to get the best possible experience. Building your own is usually pretty easy and cost-effective, but doing it right takes some time. An ITX board usually has everything you need. If you need more drives, just get a PCIe RAID controller - not like you're going to use the PCIe slot for anything else.
Impressive hardware, but I would love to see one of these at a decent price point with a "real" 35-65w laptop/desktop processor. I have an older QNAP that is Intel based (celeron or atom, can't recall without looking it up), it's great for everything except decoding / streaming certain formats or anything greater than HD. I am willing to bet that this old AMD quad isn't much more competent than lowly processor.
Considering the 9 bays, running a media server probably isn't the first priority if you are purchasing this to do some serious backups... even still, I wish there was NAS solution in the 500-1000 range that had all this storage and a beefier cpu
The GPU is would be the biggest change vs what you have now. If you can take advantage of it, then you would notice a difference.
I think this could probably handle 4K. I built my own home server (which also acts as a NAS) which has a very similar CPU to what you find in this QNAP (it's a socket AM1 Athlon). Depending on the protocol and network interface you use, you can play 4K content. With my server, I can play 4K videos over ethernet and a media player like VLC using SMB. Doing that over wifi sometimes results in buffering. I don't remember if I tried testing with a DLNA service; my primary setup that is compatible with DLNA doesn't support 4K.
IMO, buying a pre-made NAS is when you want a quick and easy solution, but you're probably not going to get the best possible experience. Building your own is usually pretty easy and cost-effective, but doing it right takes some time. An ITX board usually has everything you need. If you need more drives, just get a PCIe RAID controller - not like you're going to use the PCIe slot for anything else.
slyphnier
Senior Member
Posts: 635
Joined: 2009-11-30
Senior Member
Posts: 635
Joined: 2009-11-30
#5544886 Posted on: 05/08/2018 07:34 PM
that 2GB and 8GB price different... 200euro crazy!
what make DDR3L SODIMM price that expensive ?
corsair selling 8GB around $70
(https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820233578)
that 2GB and 8GB price different... 200euro crazy!
what make DDR3L SODIMM price that expensive ?
corsair selling 8GB around $70
(https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820233578)
wavetrex
Senior Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 2008-07-16
Senior Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 2008-07-16
#5544890 Posted on: 05/08/2018 07:56 PM
"9 bay"... False.
This is a 5-HDD nas with extra 4 slots which are almost useless since very few people put SSD's in a NAS (unless they have a very, very specific workload which requires low access time).
And using laptop 2.5" drives would be really weird, since they are considerably more expensive for the capacity they offer, slow like a snail and limited to 2TB max if I'm not mistaking.
I'd rather have a proper 8-bay NAS that supports 3.5" drives in all of them and can do Raid 6 on all 8 drives for a lovely 75% capacity and very strong data integrity.
"9 bay"... False.
This is a 5-HDD nas with extra 4 slots which are almost useless since very few people put SSD's in a NAS (unless they have a very, very specific workload which requires low access time).
And using laptop 2.5" drives would be really weird, since they are considerably more expensive for the capacity they offer, slow like a snail and limited to 2TB max if I'm not mistaking.
I'd rather have a proper 8-bay NAS that supports 3.5" drives in all of them and can do Raid 6 on all 8 drives for a lovely 75% capacity and very strong data integrity.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5544894 Posted on: 05/08/2018 08:11 PM
"9 bay"... False.
This is a 5-HDD nas with extra 4 slots which are almost useless since very few people put SSD's in a NAS (unless they have a very, very specific workload which requires low access time).
And using laptop 2.5" drives would be really weird, since they are considerably more expensive for the capacity they offer, slow like a snail and limited to 2TB max if I'm not mistaking.
I'd rather have a proper 8-bay NAS that supports 3.5" drives in all of them and can do Raid 6 on all 8 drives for a lovely 75% capacity and very strong data integrity.
There are 2.5" drives that go up to 5TB, and have surprisingly reasonable prices:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100167524 601189459 601273164
You could get 9 of such drives and put those in RAID; there are conversion trays. There are also some high-performance 2.5" drives (albeit, they're SAS):
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6CC6KC0450
But in a NAS, just about any 5400RPM drive offers sufficient performance if you cache your data and use RAID (and if you've got 8 drives, you probably are using RAID). I'm personally using a couple of 2.5" 5400RPM dives in RAID1 for my server and the only time it's especially slow is when building up thumbnails, but I don't mind waiting 3 seconds for them to load if it means reducing noise and power consumption on slower drives. I personally am never in a hurry when doing writes, and sequential read performance has kept up with my workloads, albeit, just barely.
So yes, there are actually 9 usable bays. Of course, 3.5" drives will give you more/better options, but this is a pretty small platform. There are a lot of NASes out there - if 3.5" drives are what you want/need, go for them.
EDIT:
Actually you just inspired me to find a way to improve the random read times of my server. I'm thinking of just recursively running "cat /folders/containing/many/files > /dev/null" whenever the system boots. That should cache all of the files into RAM without actually taking up RAM space from other applications. I probably don't have enough RAM for this, but I can probably do this with my most used folders.
"9 bay"... False.
This is a 5-HDD nas with extra 4 slots which are almost useless since very few people put SSD's in a NAS (unless they have a very, very specific workload which requires low access time).
And using laptop 2.5" drives would be really weird, since they are considerably more expensive for the capacity they offer, slow like a snail and limited to 2TB max if I'm not mistaking.
I'd rather have a proper 8-bay NAS that supports 3.5" drives in all of them and can do Raid 6 on all 8 drives for a lovely 75% capacity and very strong data integrity.
There are 2.5" drives that go up to 5TB, and have surprisingly reasonable prices:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100167524 601189459 601273164
You could get 9 of such drives and put those in RAID; there are conversion trays. There are also some high-performance 2.5" drives (albeit, they're SAS):
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6CC6KC0450
But in a NAS, just about any 5400RPM drive offers sufficient performance if you cache your data and use RAID (and if you've got 8 drives, you probably are using RAID). I'm personally using a couple of 2.5" 5400RPM dives in RAID1 for my server and the only time it's especially slow is when building up thumbnails, but I don't mind waiting 3 seconds for them to load if it means reducing noise and power consumption on slower drives. I personally am never in a hurry when doing writes, and sequential read performance has kept up with my workloads, albeit, just barely.
So yes, there are actually 9 usable bays. Of course, 3.5" drives will give you more/better options, but this is a pretty small platform. There are a lot of NASes out there - if 3.5" drives are what you want/need, go for them.
EDIT:
Actually you just inspired me to find a way to improve the random read times of my server. I'm thinking of just recursively running "cat /folders/containing/many/files > /dev/null" whenever the system boots. That should cache all of the files into RAM without actually taking up RAM space from other applications. I probably don't have enough RAM for this, but I can probably do this with my most used folders.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5544910 Posted on: 05/08/2018 09:16 PM
that 2GB and 8GB price different... 200euro crazy!
what make DDR3L SODIMM price that expensive ?
corsair selling 8GB around $70
(https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820233578)
Good news, the memory is user upgradeable in this NAS!
that 2GB and 8GB price different... 200euro crazy!
what make DDR3L SODIMM price that expensive ?
corsair selling 8GB around $70
(https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820233578)
Good news, the memory is user upgradeable in this NAS!
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5544914 Posted on: 05/08/2018 09:19 PM
Kind of makes you wonder how much cheaper this would be if it didn't include any memory and you just bought it all yourself...
Good news, the memory is user upgradeable in this NAS!
Kind of makes you wonder how much cheaper this would be if it didn't include any memory and you just bought it all yourself...
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5544915 Posted on: 05/08/2018 09:22 PM
If you can find AM1 cpu's and motherboards, they would make a great little NAS with OpenNas for example. They lack sata ports, but if you have at least 1 PCIE slot you can always get a sata controller with little to no performance drawbacks being a third party controller. At our STEM school here in Toledo, there was a project for 7th and 8th graders to make a NAS rack using laptops and a laptop cart, each laptop being a single drive and network location/folder. That's how flexible OpenNas is!
Kind of makes you wonder how much cheaper this would be if it didn't include any memory and you just bought it all yourself...
If you can find AM1 cpu's and motherboards, they would make a great little NAS with OpenNas for example. They lack sata ports, but if you have at least 1 PCIE slot you can always get a sata controller with little to no performance drawbacks being a third party controller. At our STEM school here in Toledo, there was a project for 7th and 8th graders to make a NAS rack using laptops and a laptop cart, each laptop being a single drive and network location/folder. That's how flexible OpenNas is!
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5544919 Posted on: 05/08/2018 09:27 PM
That is pretty much verbatim what I have done myself, though I did use one of the integrated SATA ports for the boot drive. I meanwhile have the entire system (including PSU) passively cooled. The drives are too small and slow to be heard. Under full CPU load, the entire computer uses roughly 35W. Never gets beyond 55C.
Sounds like a nice project - helps encourage kids to be more resourceful with retired PCs.
If you can find AM1 cpu's and motherboards, they would make a great little NAS with OpenNas for example. They lack sata ports, but if you have at least 1 PCIE slot you can always get a sata controller with little to no performance drawbacks being a third party controller.
That is pretty much verbatim what I have done myself, though I did use one of the integrated SATA ports for the boot drive. I meanwhile have the entire system (including PSU) passively cooled. The drives are too small and slow to be heard. Under full CPU load, the entire computer uses roughly 35W. Never gets beyond 55C.
At our STEM school here in Toledo, there was a project for 7th and 8th graders to make a NAS rack using laptops and a laptop cart, each laptop being a single drive and network location/folder. That's how flexible OpenNas is!
Sounds like a nice project - helps encourage kids to be more resourceful with retired PCs.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2012-11-10
Interesting that they chose a CPU from 2014, though for a NAS I'm sure it's plenty fast enough.