It seems in this case the plus version gives you Intel CPU so it's definitely good value unless the price goes up a lot. Historically the plus version has mainly given more memory so value might not have been as good.
I would not fully agree with the idea that a 2-disk NAS is a toy. It's the same thing with less disks, possibly less network sockets but how many of those will you actually use? Sure there are cases where a NAS with more disks is more appropriate (and I have a 4 disk at home right now) but the correct product really depends on what your use is.
I used to have a 2-disk NAS before, if I used RAID1 I could keep using the nas while one disk failed, however it was my home system and 24/7 uptime was not so important and I did not use raid at all, rather ensured I had proper backups to external disks, one of which was stored off site.
Now I have a 4 disk NAS with 3 disks in RAID 5 and one hot swap. If one disk failed the spare would automatically be taken into use and about 24 hours later I could survive losing another disk without even having to touch my backups. This is all fine, but at home I'm more worried about actually ensuring I will never lose my family pictures and neither of these will really make a huge difference in that regard.
If my NAS is broken I'll send it to be fixed and hope the drives still work when I get it back, but I can survive fine for days without it. If this was for a company then a broken device could mean several people not working or lost business and it would be a different case.
People have strong opinions but at the end of the day Qnap and Synology will both serve you well. I and my colleagues seem to have had less issues with Synology, but Qnap often offers more features which might be more important at home. Intel CPU's make quite a difference in NAS devices especially if you work with small files or have concurrent usage. Ensure you have sufficient disks for taking backups from the NAS of all important files.
