View Full Version : TS-809 Pro vs TS-859

14-03-10, 12:40

I saw that TS-809 was the preferred in the MPC's presentation of NAS:es over TS-859. Can you please give reasons for that? I saw that TS-809 has more memory and different processor in comparion to TS-859. But TS-809 then again lacks the e-sata ports.

Which would be the better choice for a NAS?

Thanks for any info,


14-03-10, 12:55
For optimum performance the TS809 will be better, exactly because of it specs memory and the processor being an Intel Dual Core 2.8GHz. For regular environments the TS-859 will be more than sufficient and reached a similar performance than the bigger 809 Pro (around 100MB in read and write performance) and can do as much as the TS-809... so if the price difference is substantial, the TS-859 is the better choice... however the price difference is only €100 in most shops so why settle for less?

That's the reason we selected the TS-809 as the better option...

14-03-10, 13:14
Thanks Hi-Jack!

I also read your review on TS-809 and there the conclusion was that the lack of jumbo-frames is a big minus in addition to the missing esata-port.

I read the following: "The TS-809 is the next best thing following the TS509 and TS-639 which we both see as great NAS server solution for media users and should not be crossed of your list in favor for the TS-809 unless you need the disk space of 8 drives and the power that comes with it. The TS-809 brings more power and more disk space but offers the same or less abilities considering the jumbo frames are not supported and eSATA has been removed."

That's where I got the idea that perhaps 859 would after all be the better choice.

But its best to hear it from the horse's mouth, so please considering my main use, which is to playback media files encrypted on the device (various formats) - would the 809 still be a better choice even though those jumbo frames are not supported and esata-port is missing?

Thanks again,


14-03-10, 13:19
I have a TS 639 Pro and i get read-write results of 110/85 mb/s on a Gbit network without jumbo frames enabled ,so my guess it's pretty future-proof for the next few years!


14-03-10, 13:31
Jumbo frames are only useful if all your network devices can handle these and none of the media players can so the benefit of Jumbo Frames would only be for PC usage until players support these... Otherwise, the big packages would be not understood by the player or loose packages as the player can't accept them...

eSATA is not that important either (there are plugs having USB to eSATA) but is an extra convenience to have. You got to make up your mind on how important these are... For use both devices will be more than sufficient for you so the question is do you want Jumbo Frames (you can't use with media players), do you want eSATA (do you have any?) or do you want the best performance and highest specs available...?

And maybe a third one... Do you want a desktop model or a tower?

Again, for the price difference only, i'd pick the 809 personally... (if difference is only €100 and no more)... One should not leave the idea of the TS-639 and so on for sure, but then you end up with 6 disks so if that is enough, it may very well be more affordable for the same performance running on lesser specs...

14-03-10, 14:37
Thanks for the input. It seems that jumbo-frames is not an issue with my. I am trying to cope with my media players instead of my HTPC here. E-sata would be nice for sure, but not as said, ultimately necessary. It's a good point about the tower-model vs. the desktop-model. I would prefer desktop.

Thanks for the new tips as well - I have yet to investigate 639 and 659 (of which I have understood 659 outperforming 639, but I might be wrong there). It is good to know that 639 should performance-wise be close to 809 - isn't it so?

859 is was not available with my favorite retailer, but 639 and 659 might be.

Thanks for any additional help.

14-03-10, 14:44
I bet the TS-639 comes cheaper as TS-659 and it all depends... The difference is easy to see if you use the comparison... My guess is it will be limited to less flash memory and slightly slower performance...

http://www.qnap.com/images/products/comparison/Comparison_2BayNAS.html :-)
http://www.qnap.com/images/products/comparison/Comparison_4BayNAS.html :-)
http://www.qnap.com/images/products/comparison/Comparison_6BayNAS.html :-)
http://www.qnap.com/images/products/comparison/Comparison_8BayNAS.html :-)