ZimaCube 2 vs QNAP TS-664: Which Six-Bay NAS Should You Buy?
A like-for-like six-bay comparison that separates QNAP's established QTS appliance model from ZimaCube's stronger compute, denser NVMe tier, and wider expansion map.
Updated September 21, 2026
ZimaCube 2 Standard vs TS-664-8G: Verdict and Best Use Cases
Start with the direct answer, then use the scenario matrix to see which NAS fits each workload.
More compute and expansion around six bays
The ZimaCube 2 Standard product page uses a six-core Intel Core i3-1215U, 8GB memory, and a 256GB NVMe system SSD. Six SATA bays, four M.2 positions in the 7th Bay, dual 2.5GbE, two Thunderbolt 4 ports, and two PCIe positions make it a broad home-server platform.
A dedicated six-bay QTS appliance
TS-664-8G combines a four-core Intel Celeron N5095, 8GB DDR4, six SATA bays, two M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 3 x1 slots, dual 2.5GbE, one PCIe Gen 3 x2 slot, HDMI 2.1, and QTS. It focuses on managed storage, backup, sharing, and vendor applications.
| Use Case | Better Choice | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Six-drive NAS with established storage tooling | QNAP TS-664 | QTS provides a conventional vendor-managed environment for pools, snapshots, backup, users, and apps. |
| Six-bay server with multiple custom services | ZimaCube 2 | The Core i3 and larger expansion map offer more headroom for mixed workloads. |
| Two M.2 devices and one expansion card are enough | QNAP TS-664 | Its fixed topology is appropriate when the QTS feature set is the priority. |
| Four M.2 devices or two PCIe roles | ZimaCube 2 | The 7th Bay and two physical expansion positions support a denser plan. |
| Local HDMI display or media interface | QNAP TS-664 | HDMI 2.1 is built in, subject to supported applications and codecs. |
| Thunderbolt-connected workstation or peripheral | Verify ZimaCube 2 Pro | Standard has physical Thunderbolt 4 ports, but current ZimaOS guidance lists direct connection only on Pro. |
ZimaCube 2 Standard vs TS-664-8G Specifications
The main table compares the closest standard configurations only, so higher-end SKUs do not distort the baseline comparison.
| Specification | ZimaCube 2 | QNAP TS-664 |
|---|---|---|
| Primary SKU | ZimaCube 2 Standard | QNAP TS-664-8G |
| Processor | Intel Core i3-1215U, 6 cores, up to 4.40GHz | Intel Celeron N5095, 4 cores/4 threads, up to 2.90GHz |
| Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics |
| Memory | 8GB 4800MHz | 8GB DDR4 SODIMM |
| Maximum documented memory | Verify current supported upgrade guidance | 16GB across two DDR4 slots |
| SATA bays | 6 × 3.5/2.5-inch SATA | 6 × 3.5/2.5-inch SATA |
| M.2 | 4 × M.2 in 7th Bay plus system M.2 | 2 × M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 3 x1 |
| Networking | 2 × 2.5GbE | 2 × 2.5GbE |
| PCIe | Two physical positions, wired x4 and x2 | 1 × PCIe Gen 3 x2 |
| External I/O | 2 × Thunderbolt 4; USB-A and USB-C | HDMI 2.1; 2 × USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A; 2 × USB 2.0 |
| Power | 247W power supply | 120W adapter; 44.02W listed typical operating power |
| Software | ZimaOS | QTS on Linux and ext4 |
Primary comparison baseline: Both primary systems have six SATA bays, 8GB factory memory, Intel x86 processors, integrated graphics, and dual 2.5GbE. This removes capacity and basic network count as easy tie-breakers, leaving compute, M.2 and PCIe topology, external I/O, power design, and software operations.
Category-by-Category Comparison
What the specification differences mean for storage, networking, software, self-hosting, media, and local AI.
Storage Capacity Is Equal; Fast-Tier Design Is Not
Each system holds six 3.5-inch or 2.5-inch SATA drives, so comparable hard-drive capacity and parity layouts are possible. The decision shifts to SSD topology. TS-664 has two M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 3 x1 slots. ZimaCube 2 provides four M.2 positions in the removable 7th Bay plus a separate 256GB system SSD in the Standard configuration.
More sockets do not guarantee faster applications. SSD models, PCIe lane allocation, thermal control, pool and cache design, filesystem behavior, and the network path all affect results. Two M.2 devices may be enough for a mirrored application or cache tier in QTS; four positions give ZimaCube more options for capacity, separation, or parallel devices when the software plan can use them.
Category verdict: Bulk storage is tied, while ZimaCube wins for M.2 count and fast-tier flexibility.
Core i3 Headroom vs a Purpose-Built Celeron NAS
The Core i3-1215U in ZimaCube has six cores and boosts up to 4.4GHz. TS-664's Celeron N5095 has four cores and four threads with a burst up to 2.9GHz. ZimaCube is therefore the stronger general-purpose host for overlapping containers, indexing, databases, virtual machines, and other CPU-heavy services.
QNAP's processor choice is aligned with an appliance that spends much of its life serving files, running scheduled backups, managing snapshots, and supporting a bounded app set. Intel UHD graphics can help supported media workflows, but transcode performance depends on codecs, resolution, software licensing, drivers, and concurrent streams. Buyers running only ordinary NAS tasks may not notice ZimaCube's extra CPU headroom.
Category verdict: ZimaCube wins compute; TS-664 remains appropriately sized for a focused QTS storage workload.
Expansion and Networking: Same Ports, Different Paths
Both models have dual 2.5GbE. QNAP lists 5GbE and 10GbE as options through compatible PCIe cards; ZimaCube can likewise use a supported network card or move to a configuration with 10GbE. A faster port helps only when switches, clients, cabling, protocols, and storage can sustain the same path.
TS-664 provides one PCIe Gen 3 x2 slot, while ZimaCube provides two physical positions wired at x4 and x2. ZimaCube can therefore preserve separate roles for networking and another device, though power, card dimensions, cooling, and drivers must be checked. QNAP owners who use the single slot for faster Ethernet should account for that opportunity cost.
Category verdict: Factory Ethernet is equal; ZimaCube offers more internal expansion bandwidth and concurrency.
QTS Operations, HDMI, Thunderbolt, and Power
QTS is the main reason to choose TS-664. It integrates storage and snapshots, permissions, backup and sync, containers, networking, multimedia, security, notifications, and vendor utilities in a mature appliance environment. Existing QNAP users may also benefit from familiar workflows and documented compatibility or migration guidance. HDMI 2.1 enables a supported local-display use case.
ZimaCube emphasizes ZimaOS, self-hosting, and a more adaptable server identity. Standard has physical Thunderbolt 4 ports, but current ZimaOS guidance limits direct connection to Pro. Its 247W supply reflects a larger expansion envelope, not constant draw. QNAP's 44.02W typical figure is vendor test data, not a controlled comparison.
Category verdict: TS-664 wins for QTS, HDMI, and a tightly specified NAS envelope; ZimaCube wins for adaptable internal hardware roles.
Pros, Cons, and Which One Should You Buy?
Bring the important trade-offs and final buyer recommendations together in one decision section.
Let Software and Expansion Break the Six-Bay Tie
Because drive count and factory Ethernet match, choose the system whose operating model and final hardware map fit without forcing immediate compromises.
| Buyer | Recommended Model | Decision Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Business or household committed to QTS | QNAP TS-664 | Choose familiar storage, backup, snapshot, and app workflows when two M.2 slots and one PCIe card are enough. |
| Homelab with a growing service stack | ZimaCube 2 Standard | Use the stronger CPU, separate system SSD, four-position 7th Bay, and two PCIe roles. |
| Local-display media appliance | QNAP TS-664 | Select it when HDMI and the intended QTS media applications have been validated. |
| Thunderbolt-based creative workflow | Verify ZimaCube 2 Pro | Current ZimaOS guidance limits direct connection to Pro; confirm the client, cable, protocol, and storage pool. |
Bottom line: TS-664 is the better six-bay appliance for buyers who want QTS and a compact, bounded hardware design. ZimaCube 2 is the better six-bay server for buyers who will use its CPU headroom, four M.2 positions, or two PCIe roles.
SKU Family: What Changes Above the Standard Models?
The head-to-head comparison stays focused on ZimaCube 2 Standard and TS-664-8G. Higher-end variants are explained separately here.
Current 8GB and Regional TS-664 Variants
The primary comparison uses TS-664-8G, while QNAP also documents a 4GB version. Model suffix, memory, regional availability, and seller listings should be confirmed before purchase.
| Configuration | What Changes | Who It Fits |
|---|---|---|
| ZimaCube 2 Standard | Core i3, 8GB, six bays, four 7th Bay M.2 positions | Compute-rich personal cloud and expandable server |
| TS-664-8G | Celeron N5095, 8GB, six bays, two M.2 slots | Primary current QTS configuration in this guide |
| TS-664-4G | Same CPU and chassis with 4GB factory memory | Alternative listing; verify region and upgrade plan |
Watch and Read More About ZimaCube 2
Three creator videos and three related Zima articles add real-world context beyond the comparison tables.
Watch Creator Videos
Frequently Asked Questions
Long-tail buying questions, SKU questions, and query fan-out from the comparison.
ZimaCube 2 vs QNAP TS-664 FAQ
Do both systems have six SATA bays?
Yes. Both accept six compatible 3.5-inch or 2.5-inch SATA drives.
Do both have dual 2.5GbE?
Yes. Neither primary SKU has a factory Ethernet port-speed advantage in this comparison.
Which has more M.2 positions?
ZimaCube 2 provides four M.2 positions in its 7th Bay plus the system drive. TS-664 has two M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 3 x1 slots.
Can TS-664 add 10GbE?
QNAP lists optional 10GbE through a supported PCIe card. The upgrade occupies its only PCIe slot.
Which uses less power?
QNAP publishes model-specific typical figures, but there is no controlled cross-platform result here. Drives, workloads, cards, settings, and measurement method can change consumption substantially.
Which is better for containers and virtual machines?
ZimaCube has the stronger CPU and expansion baseline. TS-664 can still be preferable for workloads that fit QTS and its documented memory ceiling.
