commander_
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 194
I would switch to mATX for this case, wow dude.
Stunning.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think trying to keep the looks "in the family" is a bit of an artificial limitation that doesn't lend itself to good designs. Really, you want the design to work with the functional elements - the front I/O, air intakes, etc., as well as the size and proportions. For these reasons, I try to make each design the best it can be for each case's unique aspects, rather than trying to shoehorn in some "family resemblance." It ends up being awkward more often than not to do that.
Something about how the bottom vents "hide behind" the side panels really stands out to me, in a very good way. Not saying this needs to be incorporated into the the final product if it is based on the first design, just something I want to call out.
Well, if you look at most of the mATX layouts, the depth isn't just due to the GPU. In 1a-1c, the drives sit in front of the PSU, so the depth is needed for the drives and the cables exiting the PSU. There really aren't any other good places to put them. You and I may be over 3.5" HDDs, but lots of people still need the capacity they provide.True, but it does so without compromising the design. Unless I'm missing something the way the psu sits by the motherboard, there is no way you can't mount such a long vga there... but I don't think it was because you wanted to have such compatibility... but it simply happened because of how the psu and the motherboard are located. Or did you have other things to put where the end of the vga lies?
And the fact is a lot of the tall GPUs are also long. Maybe not the full 312mm, but not far off, either.I didn't mention anything about height because yes, taller than normal gpu's seem to be the norm, and I doubt they will go away.
You're not wrong, but at the same time, what would the value in compromising be in this case? I've given my reasons for why I think things should be a certain way, so if you think things should be otherwise, please explain why. And I mean beyond, "it's not different." There's no value in being different for different's sake, IMO. There needs to be a compelling reason to compromise, otherwise it's just a waste.I wasn't referring to the designs not allowing watercooling... I was referring to the fact that, again, there is no compromise. They allow anything, which means that they are flexible... and, because of that, the dimensions of the case will be pretty much the same as any other case.
What's "big enough?" The M1 doesn't support many taller GPUs, and the CPU cooler height is limited to 130mm. Adding 10-15mm opens up the options a bit, but at that point it's only another 15mm until it supports full tower coolers and a rear 120mm fan, which gets you significantly better cooling for the CPU, as well as providing better system cooling by removing more of the GPU exhaust.Suggestions: I like the LRPC looks... meaning: try to escape the traditional case formatting. AKA, make the case slimmer than standard. This implies using 92mm fan for the rear... but, imo, the case looks much much better, and different from where the rest of the market is going. At the same time you should have enough space for taller gpu's, and big enough heatsinks or AIO.
Yes, quite extensively. But I don't think they make sense for form factors larger than mini-ITX.Have you ever experimented more with the A4 style with risers?
Thank Jony Ive and/or Dieter RamsI would switch to mATX for this case, wow dude.
Stunning.
Yeah, it wasn't something I was seriously considering anyway. Just a design exercise.I have to say no to a straight Mac Pro ripoff. The top handles just don't do it for me.
Well, we'll need to progress a bit beyond pictures and talk for thatNecere, shut up and take my money.
I feel like if we did that design, we'd get constantly flamed for ripping off the old Mac Pro. It's a nice design, but it's a nice famous, iconic design. At least when Bitfenix did it it wasn't quite so blatant.This design looks stunning. The side panels (assuming they use the same snap on method) could easily be swapped for windowed versions too, though I like the solid look personally. If this design made it as the mATX NCASE, I would buy it and use my M1 for a bookshelf HTPC and build a beastly rig with this.
Not really, but it's an idea. Like if you weren't using a tall CPU cooler or GPU, you could fit more storage... I don't know. It seems a little awkward to me.Also Necere, have you considered using a bracket of sorts similar to the M1/Prodigy side brackets?
Look at the 3a layout, it's more or less the layout Aibohphobia is doing with his case with an ATX PSU mounted. If you really wanted to limit things (CPU cooler/GPU height/length), you could get down to 15L or so.That last case looks fantastic. Love the contrast, window, and clean looks.
I know making a case that works with many possible part combinations is hard. I'm curious how much thought has been given to what can be done with some restrictions? For example, 1 or no HDDs, no optical drive, and/or some limitations on oversized GPU's.
The PSU's modular connectors would run into the GPU, so it's either 1) restrict PSU length to 140mm; or 2) increase the distance between the GPU and PSU, either by increasing case height ~20mm, or by dropping the 5th slot.I really dig that layout.
Is there any way to hang the PSU over the Ram slots, maybe mount drives behind it?
Dunno if that would help anything or not.
How would you do that though, realistically? The boxiness is kind of inherent in the design... by putting the PSU behind the motherboard rather than over, under, above, or in front, the case becomes 86mm wider and 86mm shorter, which is what leads to the boxiness.Have you ever thought about doing a dual chamber design like the Corsair 240 with the PSU on its side but less 'boxy'
Right, it's considerably longer in that direction: 20mm for the angle plug, 20-30mm for the modular connectors, makes a 160mm long PSU over 200mm long.Rotating it 90* to the left with the connectors hanging over the board probably isn't a great option either because the AC port and cables interfering with CPU coolers. Yeah?
The PSU's modular connectors would run into the GPU, so it's either 1) restrict PSU length to 140mm; or 2) increase the distance between the GPU and PSU, either by increasing case height ~20mm, or by dropping the 5th slot.
Like the British say, that'd be rather naff. Besides, the feet are 10mm, but the plug is taller than that.If you had feet on the bottom of the case you could use the same style plug that is in the M1 but have it run on the outside. That way the psu you could be flush with the bottom.
I have a dumb question.
Why is there such a stubborn insistence on supporting multiple 3.5" hard drives?
I mean, for an SFF-ish case, I could see ONE 3.5" HDD.
But for everything else wouldn't surface-mounted SSD (or 2.5" drives) make more sense?
That's something I don't understand either. Most people store their games and programs (that require the speed) on SSDs anyway, and for everything else a 5400RPM 2.5''-HDD is enough. I'm sure that there are people who need the 7200RPM for some reason (video artists for example, who move huge amounts of data all the time), and there certainly are people who don't want to replace a good HDD with a smaller form factor just because the case requests it, but it is not difficult to give them one or two mounts for their clunky drives. A drive cage that can hold four 2.5''-HDDs can also hold two 3.5''-HDDs, which is enough for most people (and if necessary you can always offer additional mounts in the bottom)
Guys, let's finally phase out 3.5''-HDDs and build really interesting cases! 2.5''-HDDs aren't that expensive anymore, especially not when you can afford 500 Dollar GPUs and 300 Dollar CPUs.
For Necere's most recent design I have a better idea I think with a drive cage that can hold two 3.25''-HDDs in horizontal orientation or up to four 2.5''-HDDs/SSDs in vertical orientation plus (in both configurations) one or two 2.5''-drives attached to the outside of the cage. That cage would fit between the front panel and the PSUs and not obstruct the airflow for the other components. And for those who really need that many 3.25''-drives there could be mounts in the bottom. So there could be up to five 2.5''-drives and two or three drives in the bottom. That should really cover all eventualities and the case wouldn't have to be absurdly large (just to fit more drives).I think a bracket like onegaynerd suggested over the GPU's and CPU area would be a good compromise. Either tall GPU and CPU cooler, and visible internals, or 2x3,5".
While that design could indeed be called a "rip-off", that name wouldn't hold up against that design I referenced earlier. I'm not a fan of the former, but I'm extatic for the latter. To me the design with the black solid front feels more like a hefty wink than a design grab. And it would also feel more Ncase instead of a random Chinese knockoff brand. Also because the setup is completely different (airflow), yet some of the typical Mac Pro details are there. I have a Mac Pro case within arm's reach so I compared very dilligently
This is the most recent design I've worked on:
The concept was inspired partly by cellphone design. It's using the 1a layout, with full 165mm tower cooler support and rear 120mm fan. Dimensions are 360x200x420mm/30.2L, so squarely in TJ08-E territory.
If the respective lineups actually employ smaller PCBs throughout the range (at least in terms of length) due to HBM2
I touched on this in my layout post. Some people have a real problem with side I/O, some people don't.After thinking about it I came to the conclusion, that I like this concept the most. I love the edges, that gives it a monolithic appearance, and the little details like how the outer skeleton enframes the side panels or recessed sidepanel vents. However, the I/O panel shouldn't be on the side of the case, although it looks great.
Another obvious problem with that design is the outer frame, that looks as if it was made from one large piece of aluminium. That would probably be very expensive.
This is a good example what I mean when I say you shouldn't try to shoehorn the M1's design elements into a different design. It doesn't look right, and the slim ODD can't possibly work in that location.Maybe we can reduce the cost a bit and bring back some of the design elements of the M1.
Move the ODD to bottom section of the case. That would allo you to integrate the ODD into the front panel I/O and bring back that characteristic design element of the M2.
Layout 1b is the reduced depth version of this layout.That is another fantastic design that I like very much and that I could see becoming a product. I appreciate the compatibility for large coolers and GPUs and I think that putting the PSU into the top (like in the good old days) is actually a good idea to reduce the amount of vents and fans.
However, there are a few things I would change:
1 - It's waaaaay to deep. That makes it unnecessarily hard to fit it on a table, not to mention that the proportions look odd to me. I think that a case should always be higher than it is deep, unless it is an (ITX) shoebox.
There really isn't that much space, particularly in the shorter version. Two, maybe three 3.5" HDDs max.2 - It looks as if there was plenty of place in the top section. You could probably fit four clunky 3.5''-HDDs in that section
Based on how often people have asked about such cards in the M1, plenty. People buy big, expensive, high end hardware to put in an expensive case. I can't ignore that.5 - With a depth of ~360mm you could still fit an R9 Fury and a thin 280mm radiator inside the case. I assume that you want compatibility for full length GPUs and massive radiators, but honestly, how many people use a GPU that is significantly longer than 300mm, and how many of these people would install such a monster GPU into such a small case?
My target at this point is the GTX 980 ti Strix, which is 305mm long and 153mm tall.Draw the line somewhere! Make sure that an R9 Fury Strix can fit into the case and you have 90+ percent of the enthusiast market covered.
I don't think it works well on this design.7 - Maybe you could bring back the front panel cutout of the M1. Rotate it by 180°, put it right under the top panel and place the slimline ODD behind it in a slightly recessed position.
That was actually what I was planning with this design. It's another reason you can't completely pack the top with drives - there needs to be enough room for cables.9 - With the all the drives moved to the top section, you could also split the cable routing from the rest of the system for cleaner cable management. Furthermore you could also gain an easier access to the drive section by just removing the top cover (instead of having to remove both side panels to gain access to both the drives and the cable management).
If you want to make mockups, it's much more useful if you use accurate part sizes. Here's my sketchup file if anyone wants to use it: Case layout planning Sketchup fileMade a quick sketch. The dimensions are 360x360.
I have a dumb question.
Why is there such a stubborn insistence on supporting multiple 3.5" hard drives?
I mean, for an SFF-ish case, I could see ONE 3.5" HDD.
But for everything else wouldn't surface-mounted SSD (or 2.5" drives) make more sense?
Well, like I said in my layout post I'm targeting two 3.5 HDDs as the baseline. Most of the layouts I presented only have room for two drives. The four drive design is based on the 1a layout and can easily be shortened to the two-drive 1b layout.That's something I don't understand either. Most people store their games and programs (that require the speed) on SSDs anyway, and for everything else a 5400RPM 2.5''-HDD is enough. I'm sure that there are people who need the 7200RPM for some reason (video artists for example, who move huge amounts of data all the time), and there certainly are people who don't want to replace a good HDD with a smaller form factor just because the case requests it, but it is not difficult to give them one or two mounts for their clunky drives. A drive cage that can hold four 2.5''-HDDs can also hold two 3.5''-HDDs, which is enough for most people (and if necessary you can always offer additional mounts in the bottom)
Guys, let's finally phase out 3.5''-HDDs and build really interesting cases! 2.5''-HDDs aren't that expensive anymore, especially not when you can afford 500 Dollar GPUs and 300 Dollar CPUs.
200mm wide does not imply that a 200mm fan/rad will fit. The chassis needs space to either side for fasteners etc., so it would necessitate a width increase to 215-220mm.If going this route, I would strongly recommend ensuring a 200mm rad+fan can fit in the front without the HDDs mounted. The dimensions are already there
These are concepts, not mechanically fleshed-out designs, but that was my intention.Is the top panel removable in this design? It would allow for ease of use of a bay reservoir for filling/draining/bleeding, and cable management of the PSU.
Giving some thought to Sverebom's comments about GPU lengths, there is the real possibility that the R9 Nano was a preview of what may become the norm for Arctic Islands and Pascal. If the respective lineups actually employ smaller PCBs throughout the range (at least in terms of length) due to HBM2, it would be worth considering the implications - either in reduction of size of certain case designs, or in how that space can be effectively used so it doesn't end up wasted. The problem is we are still too far out, so it is mere speculation at this point.
Even if the PCBs get shorter with HBM, it doesn't necessarily follow that overall card size will get any smaller. TDPs may still be high, requiring the same oversized coolers.I don't necessarily see that happen, at least not because of HBM2. The current GPU formats are well established. I don't think that AMD and Nvidia would limit their power and thermal layouts (and thus the performance of their GPUs) to a 19cm PCB when most customers accept much larger graphics cards. And even if they both release much shorter reference cards in the future, most manufacturers would still design "enthusiast cards" with large coolers. Most people would rather buy the larger (and quieter and cooler) cards than the smaller reference cards since already have the cases for these cards anway. Therefore I don't see graphics card becoming smaller in the near feature, unless the market will demand it (which I think won't happen).
It wouldn't be "slightly bigger" though, that's the thing. Take a look at this layout again:Personally, I would very gladly buy an MATX version of the M1. What I'd like to see is just an extension of the current design. Slight bigger chasis in order to fit the board, compaxt ATX PSU support, and support for 180mm height cpu air coolers and 140mm water coolers.