QNAP TS-264 vs TS-233: Intel vs ARM — Which 2-Bay NAS Should You Buy?

QNAP’s two most popular 2-bay NAS units — the TS-264 and TS-233 — represent completely different approaches to home storage. The TS-264 packs Intel power with hardware transcoding and M.2 slots, while the TS-233 offers ARM efficiency at nearly half the price. This comprehensive comparison helps you decide which 2-bay NAS matches your needs and budget.

Quick Verdict

Choose the QNAP TS-264 if: You want Plex transcoding, plan to run Docker containers or VMs, need M.2 SSD caching, or want maximum future-proofing. The Intel N5105 processor handles everything a home power user could need.

Choose the QNAP TS-233 if: You primarily need file storage and backup, have a strict budget, want lower power consumption, or your Plex clients support direct play. It’s an excellent entry-level NAS at a compelling price.

Specifications Comparison

Price difference: The TS-264 costs $210 more (88% premium) than the TS-233. That premium buys you Intel x86 architecture, 4x the RAM, M.2 slots, 2.5GbE networking, HDMI output, and hardware transcoding — a substantial feature gap.

Processor Deep Dive: Intel N5105 vs ARM Cortex-A55

The CPU is the most fundamental difference between these NAS units, affecting everything from app compatibility to transcoding capability. Understanding this difference is crucial for making the right choice.

Intel Celeron N5105 (TS-264)

The N5105 is a 10nm Jasper Lake processor designed for efficiency while maintaining strong single-threaded performance. Key characteristics:

• 4 cores, 4 threads at 2.0GHz base, 2.9GHz boost
• Intel UHD Graphics with Quick Sync for hardware transcoding
• x86-64 architecture — runs virtually all NAS applications
• AES-NI encryption acceleration — fast encrypted transfers
• 10W TDP — efficient for an Intel processor

The N5105 handles multiple simultaneous tasks effortlessly: Plex transcoding while running Docker containers, file transfers, and surveillance recording. Its single-threaded performance ensures responsive web interface and quick app launches.

ARM Cortex-A55 Quad-Core (TS-233)

The Cortex-A55 is an efficiency-focused ARM processor designed for low-power embedded applications:

• 4 cores at 2.0GHz (no turbo boost)
• No integrated GPU for transcoding
• ARM 64-bit architecture — some Docker images not available
• Hardware encryption acceleration — decent encrypted performance
• Very low power draw — under 10W idle

The ARM processor handles basic NAS tasks well: file serving, backup, photo management, and light Docker workloads. It struggles with CPU-intensive tasks like transcoding, heavy Docker applications, and multiple simultaneous users.

CPU Benchmark Comparison

The Intel N5105 is roughly 3x faster than the ARM Cortex-A55 across most workloads. This translates to faster app installations, quicker photo indexing, snappier web interface, and the ability to run demanding applications.

Plex Media Server Performance

Plex capability is often the deciding factor between these two NAS units. The difference is dramatic.

TS-264: Full Transcoding Capability

The Intel N5105’s Quick Sync video engine handles hardware transcoding efficiently:

The TS-264 comfortably handles a household with multiple users streaming different content to different devices. Remote streaming to phones on cellular networks (requiring transcoding) works flawlessly.

TS-233: Direct Play Only

Without hardware transcoding, the TS-233 struggles with any transcoding workload:

TS-233 Plex verdict: Works well for direct play to capable devices (smart TVs, Apple TV, Shield, Fire Stick 4K). Not suitable for transcoding, remote streaming to phones, or HDR tone mapping. If your clients support direct play and you’re on local network, it’s perfectly adequate.

Plex Recommendation Summary

Memory and Expandability

RAM differences significantly impact what each NAS can handle.

TS-264: 8GB Default, 16GB Maximum

The TS-264 ships with 8GB DDR4, expandable to 16GB with a single SO-DIMM upgrade. This generous RAM enables:

• Multiple Docker containers running simultaneously
• Virtual machines (though limited by 2 cores per VM)
• Large photo libraries with fast QuMagie AI indexing
• Aggressive file caching for better performance
• Memory-intensive apps like databases or development tools

For typical home use, 8GB is plenty. Upgrade to 16GB if running multiple VMs or many Docker containers.

TS-233: 2GB Fixed

The TS-233’s 2GB is soldered and cannot be upgraded. This limits:

• Container Station — runs but limited to 1-2 light containers
• Photo indexing — slower, may timeout on large libraries
• Simultaneous apps — fewer can run at once
• No virtualization — Virtualization Station not available

2GB is adequate for basic NAS functions: file sharing, backup, light media serving. Don’t expect to run demanding applications or multiple services simultaneously.

Storage and Expansion Options

HDD Capacity

Both units accept the same 3.5″ drives with identical maximum capacities:

M.2 NVMe Slots (TS-264 Only)

The TS-264’s two M.2 2280 NVMe slots provide significant advantages:

• SSD Caching: Dramatically improve random read/write performance
• Qtier Auto-Tiering: Automatically move hot data to fast SSDs
• All-SSD Storage Pool: Create a fast SSD-only volume
• Plex Metadata: Store Plex database on SSD for instant library browsing

The TS-233 has no M.2 slots — performance is limited to HDD speeds for all operations.

Expansion Options

Both can connect to QNAP expansion units via USB, but the TS-264 is better suited for expansion due to its faster USB ports (10Gbps vs 5Gbps) and more powerful processor to handle additional drives.

Network Performance

TS-264: Dual 2.5GbE

Two 2.5 Gigabit Ethernet ports provide several advantages:

• 2.5Gbps throughput: ~280 MB/s to compatible devices
• Link aggregation: Combine ports for redundancy or increased bandwidth
• Port separation: Isolate traffic (e.g., management on one, data on other)
• Backward compatible: Works with standard 1GbE networks

With 2.5GbE, the TS-264 can saturate even fast NVMe SSDs and handle multiple simultaneous file transfers without bottlenecking.

TS-233: Single 1GbE

The single Gigabit port limits maximum throughput to ~110 MB/s. This is adequate for:

• Single-user file transfers
• Media streaming (even 4K only needs ~25 Mbps)
• Backup operations (time isn’t critical)

The 1GbE becomes a bottleneck when multiple users access the NAS simultaneously or when transferring large files frequently.

Real-World Transfer Speeds

Docker and Container Support

Both NAS units support Container Station (QNAP’s Docker interface), but with significant differences.

TS-264: Full Docker Capability

The x86 architecture and 8GB RAM make the TS-264 excellent for Docker:

• Universal image compatibility: Nearly all Docker images are available for x86
• Popular apps: Home Assistant, Pi-hole, Nextcloud, Jellyfin, Grafana, all work
• Development tools: Run development environments, databases, build servers
• Multiple containers: Run 10+ containers with 8GB RAM

TS-233: Limited Docker

ARM architecture and 2GB RAM significantly limit Docker use:

• Limited image availability: Many images aren’t compiled for ARM
• Memory constraints: 2GB limits you to 1-3 light containers
• Works: Pi-hole, some home automation, lightweight services
• Struggles: Home Assistant with many integrations, Nextcloud, databases

Docker Compatibility Comparison

Virtualization

TS-264: Supports Virtualization Station for running Windows, Linux, or other operating systems in virtual machines. With 8GB RAM (or 16GB upgraded), you can run a light VM for testing, development, or running specific applications.

TS-233: Does not support Virtualization Station. The ARM processor and 2GB RAM are insufficient for virtualization.

Power Consumption and Noise

For a device running 24/7, power consumption affects long-term costs.

The TS-233 uses approximately half the power of the TS-264, saving roughly $8-10 per year. Both are quiet enough for living spaces — drive noise is the primary sound source on either unit.

HDMI Output

TS-264: Includes HDMI 2.0 output supporting 4K at 60Hz. This enables:

• Direct connection to TV for HD Station media playback
• Using NAS as an HTPC with Kodi
• Photo slideshows directly from NAS
• Display dashboard or surveillance feeds

TS-233: No HDMI output. Media must be streamed to separate devices.

Software and App Compatibility

Both run QTS (QNAP’s operating system), but app availability differs slightly:

Total Cost of Ownership

Let’s compare complete system costs including drives:

Budget Build (8TB Usable)

Mid-Range Build (12TB Usable)

TS-264 with SSD Cache

Use Case Recommendations

Choose QNAP TS-264 For:

• Plex with transcoding: Remote streaming, multiple users, HDR tone mapping
• Docker enthusiasts: Running multiple containers reliably
• Home automation: Home Assistant with many integrations
• Fast file transfers: 2.5GbE networking, SSD caching
• Future-proofing: More headroom for growing needs
• Power users: Those who tinker, experiment, run multiple services
• HTPC use: Connect directly to TV via HDMI
• Surveillance: More cameras, better encoding

Choose QNAP TS-233 For:

• File storage and backup: The core NAS function works great
• Plex direct play: Local streaming to capable devices
• Budget-conscious: Maximum value for basic needs
• Low power priority: Minimize electricity costs
• Simple setups: File sharing, Time Machine, photo backup
• First-time NAS users: Learn NAS basics without major investment
• Remote/vacation home: Set and forget backup destination

Upgrade Path Considerations

Consider where you might be in 2-3 years:

Starting with TS-233: If you outgrow it (need transcoding, more Docker capacity), you’ll need to buy a new NAS entirely. The TS-233 can become a backup target or secondary NAS.

Starting with TS-264: You can expand with more RAM (8GB → 16GB), add SSD cache, add expansion units. It handles growing needs without replacement.

The math: TS-233 ($239) now + TS-464 later ($499) = $738 total. TS-264 now ($449) = one purchase that handles most home users’ long-term needs.

Surveillance Station Comparison

Both NAS units support QNAP Surveillance Station for home security camera recording:

For basic home surveillance (2-4 cameras), both work adequately. For more cameras or AI-powered features, the TS-264’s Intel processor handles the workload significantly better.

Photo Management Performance

QuMagie (QNAP’s photo management app) performance varies significantly:

If you have a large photo library or want quick AI-powered face recognition, the TS-264’s faster CPU makes a noticeable difference.

Backup Capabilities

Both units support HBS 3 (Hybrid Backup Sync) for comprehensive backup:

• Local backup: To external USB drives
• Remote backup: To another QNAP NAS
• Cloud backup: AWS S3, Azure, Google Cloud, Backblaze B2
• Rsync: Standard rsync to any compatible server

The TS-264’s faster CPU and 2.5GbE networking enable significantly faster backup operations, especially for initial large backups.

Frequently Asked Questions

Final Verdict

QNAP TS-264: The better NAS for most users. The Intel processor, generous RAM, 2.5GbE networking, M.2 slots, and hardware transcoding make it capable of handling virtually any home NAS workload. The $210 premium over the TS-233 buys meaningful, practical capabilities you’ll use.

QNAP TS-233: An excellent budget NAS if you understand its limitations. For pure file storage, backup, and direct-play media streaming, it delivers great value. Don’t expect transcoding, heavy Docker use, or future expandability.

Our recommendation: If you can afford it, buy the TS-264. The feature gap is substantial, and you’ll avoid the frustration of hitting limitations. If budget is tight and you only need basic NAS functions with local Plex direct play, the TS-233 is a solid choice that won’t disappoint within its capabilities.

Where to Buy

Related Comparisons

• QNAP TS-264 Review — Full review
• QNAP TS-233 Review — Full review
• TS-464 vs TS-433 — 4-bay Intel vs ARM comparison
• TS-264 vs Synology DS224+ — Cross-brand comparison
• Best QNAP NAS 2026 — Complete buying guide
• QNAP Compatible Hard Drives — Drive recommendations

Last Updated: February 2026