So I use all Mac in my house but connecting to AFP is SLOW.  Would using SMB and NFS be any better?

It really depends which version of OS X you're using as to whether SMB might be a better choice than AFP. Remember that not all Intel Macs can be upgraded beyond Lion. With Mountain Lion or earlier you're probably better off with AFP. With Yosemite or later you might be better off with SMB. With Mavericks... well, it's probably best to avoid Mavericks! If you want to use unRAID as a Time Machine destination you need to use AFP anyway. NFS is a bit more fiddly to set up (meaning you can't just browse and click in the Finder but have to use the Connect to server menu and type nfs://tower.local/mnt/user/share_name) but it works pretty well with all OS X versions I've tried. Sorry I can't give a definitive answer because, as ever, YMMV.

 

I am also all Macs, and I have found that NFS works the best for me.  I have started testing SMB with the new beta of 6.2, but use NFS from most mounts...

The first thing to look at is the version of unraid you are using, Mac functionality has improved for me with every incremental step up I've taken. Although I haven't been using the 6.2betas, I've been holding off on beta software this time.

 

YMMV, but I have been using SMB for file sharing since Yosemite, and it's been flawless. I use AFP for my TimeMachine share only, and that works well now (I think AFP was updated in 6.1).

 

 

All my Macs run Yosemite, I have used AFP forever now and it just seems to be getting worse.  Guess I will switch to SMB and see if that helps.

Just try each protocol for a few days and see how things go for you. You might find that one protocol works best when writing large amounts of data and another works best when reading large amounts.