QNAP TS-x51 NAS Series: Intel Quick Sync Gets its Killer App
by Ganesh T S on June 22, 2014 6:45 PM ESTConcluding Remarks
This piece originally started out as a small pipeline article. However, digging deeper into the TS-x51 announcement brought to fore interesting information about Silvermont-based platforms in general (and Bay Trail, in particular). In particular, the appearance of Quick Sync as an update to the Bay Trail-D/-M platforms has opened up a a multitude of use-cases. QNAP has grabbed this opportunity to deliver compelling features in the TS-x51 series. Before proceeding further, I wish to comment upon two different aspects.
Value Proposition of the DIY NAS
In the comments section of every 'off-the-shelf' NAS review, we usually see multiple readers indicating how it would be cheaper to build a DIY NAS with a better CPU and/or more number of bays for the same cost. While I would have agreed with them wholeheartedly 2 or 3 years back, the market dynamics have changed quite a bit now, particularly in the consumer / SOHO NAS market. These units are no longer PCs with a Linux distribution, but more of an appliance.
The increase in popularity of mobile devices for both content consumption and creation (capturing photos and videos using a smartphone camera, say) has resulted in a situation where the NAS OS has to be backed up by a complete suite of mobile apps. These apps have to provide a seamless experience while streaming media from the NAS, as well as backing up data, irrespective of the user's location. This also requires operation of a relay server and/or operation of a DDNS service (with appropriate port forwarding). As far as I can see, a one-stop solution to these problems for DIY NAS units is pretty much non-existent. Obviously, these factors are more important in NAS units targeting home consumers and the SOHO market. Even home consumers who are computer-savvy (the typical AnandTech readership) don't want to spend a lot of time building a NAS, configuring it with the appropriate OS, and be on the hook for regular maintenance. In this situation, the value proposition of a DIY NAS for the consumer / SOHO market segment is fading rapidly.
Consumer NAS Market Marches Ahead
In the concluding remarks of the DS214play review, I had praised Synology for being the first NAS vendor to try to bring hardware-accelerated transcoding for media serving into the market. QNAP has taken on the baton now, and brought the more widely tested and supported Quick Sync into the picture. In a similar manner, QNAP deserves praise for being the first to support hosting of virtual machines on the NAS. These types of interesting applications and innovative use-cases are helping the consumer NAS market march ahead.
The QNAP TS-x51 units also sport HDMI ports and XBMC support. In terms of hardware, it is possible to connect either 5- or 8-bay expansion enclosures using one of the USB 3.0 ports. An IR remote is also available as an optional purchase (the TS-x51 units all have an IR sensor for control of media playback). There are a host of other features. Readers interested in getting a more detailed overview are advised to check out the TS-x51 Series Brochure linked on QNAP's website.
I often get asked for NAS recommendations, and irrespective of the use-case, I have always recommended Synology units over the past few years. The reliability and mobile app ecosystem of Synology's DSM has simply remained unparalleled till now. If QNAP manages to deliver on the paper specifications of the TS-x51 (particularly with respect to the video transcoding and virtualization features) and back it up with a good suite of feature-rich mobile apps, Synology might end up with some real competition to worry about in the home consumer / power user / SOHO market.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
ganeshts - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link
In a comment on another recent article, one of the readers stressed that deinterlacing is broken in the Linux drivers for the iGPU. I will check on the status with a review sampleDanNeely - Sunday, June 22, 2014 - link
Two questions, the first is a repeat from the initial announcement a week ago. What virtualization platform/virtual drive container format(s) is supported?The second is, why assume the additional USB3 is done by consuming a PCIe lane instead of by sticking a USB3 hub onboard as is common with current generation motherboards.
modulusshift - Sunday, June 22, 2014 - link
It would consume a PCIe lane either way. He's talking about total lanes from the CPU, not just the number a motherboard would expose like on normal desktops.ganeshts - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link
I am not sure I understand the question entirely, Dan.Are you saying that current generation mobos have the ability to make a single USB 3.0 port from the PCH appear as multiple USB 3.0 ports on the board, i.e, is there a 'USB 3.0 port multiplier' that you are talking about?
As modulusshift indicates, most of the NEC / Fresco Logic / ASMedia based USB 3.0 ports that I see in the motherboards all communicate with the PCH using a PCIe lane.
DanNeely - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link
Yes. A lot of the current generation of boards offering 8 or more USB3 ports that have been reviewed on this site recently are being called out for using a cheaper USB3 hub chip (like what would be inside a 2/4 port USB3 hub on your desk) instead of a PCIe-USB3 chip like in the previous generation.4 of 5 mobo reviews on the front and second page call the board out for using at least on hub to add USB3 ports, just search the first page of the review for the word hub (the 5th only had 6 ports and presumably didn't need one):
http://anandtech.com/show/8045/asrock-z97-extreme6...
http://anandtech.com/show/7965/asus-z97-deluxe-nfc...
http://anandtech.com/show/7966/msi-z97-mpower-max-...
http://anandtech.com/show/7964/gigabyte-z97x-ud5h-...
ganeshts - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link
Got it! Let me see what QNAP comes back with, and I will update the article accordingly.DanNeely - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link
Not a problem. This is something fairly new; and unfortunately appears to be occurring at all pricepoints. I'm mostly ok with doing it on budget boards; but for higher end ones I'd much rather have the option of a 2:4 or 4:8PCIe lane PLX and PCIe-USB3 controllers powering all the ports, rather than have to worry about where I connect high bandwidth devices in the future to avoid bottle-necking. I'm really hoping skylake's chipset will have enough native usb3 ports to make this generation's designs a one off aberration.ganeshts - Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - link
Dan,Virtualization answers from QNAP: OVA, OVF, QVM, XML, VMX.
Confirmed that an USB 3.0 hub chip is being used
SATA - PCIe bridge list update in the article.
extide - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link
No, if you used a USB 3.0 HUB then it would not use a PCIe lane, and that would leave you with two PCIe x1 lanes, so you could add two controllers (ex for the 8-bay you would need a 4-port and a 2-port).name99 - Sunday, June 22, 2014 - link
I find the premise of the article ("Intel Quick Sync Gets its Killer App") to be quite bizarre.In the Apple world, QuickSync has had its killer app for some time supporting remote desktops and video sent from a Mac to an AppleTV. For remote desktops in particular, while this was previously done with software encoding, the lowered latency of QuickSync makes a noticeable difference to the usability if you're connected via a high bandwidth connection. I expect there are substantially more people using OSX ARD than will ever buy this particular NAS.
There are probably similar use cases happening on Windows, but I don't know much about that side of the fence.
My point is not to criticize the NAS or talk up OSX; it's simply to point out that the article subtitle is more than a little ridiculous, suggesting, as it does, that poor little QuickSync was just out there languishing in the world with everyone ignoring it until this NAS came along and showed the world how to utilize it.