Recommend me a case (or cases) to start my search

V

vengence

Level capped
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
18,469
I'm considering trying to build a HTPC/ full powered gaming console with the primary monitor being my 1080p TV. I'd like it to be portable, so I'm looking at building it into a very small form factor. I'm thinking something like a 2500k and a 660 GC with room for a single SSD, a HDD, and a blue player. Don't need anything but a ethernet jack, and a few USB slots (will use HDMI cable for sound through video card).

Any ideas on what motherboard/case/psus I should start looking at?
 
agreed the Elite 120 is the smallest you can get that will fit all those full-size components. You could possibly cram all that into an SG05 with a slim-bluray but meh, not worth the extra cost and hassle imo.
 
SG05 = 10.9 liters volume
Elite 120 = 19.9 liters volume

Slimline blueray combo drives can be had for under $50, if you shop around. So an SG05 build doesn't have to be more expensive than an Elite 120 build; the former comes with a good quality PSU.

Will you be overclocking your CPU, then take a Z77 board (Asus, Asrock or EVGA are best overclockers I believe). If you don't need to overclock then H61 or H77 board is fine.
 
Last edited:
I don't need to overclock it. I'd be happy with something around 3Ghz clock speed just fine. I've got an overclocked machine a few feet away if I needed something more.

The SG05 looks really nice and might be exactly what I'm looking for. Nice clean, very finished product look that I'm really looking for.

The ft-03 mini looks like a nice case, but it's much bigger than what I have envisioned. The SG05 looks just right.

Thanks a bunch guys!
 
vengence said:
The ft-03 mini looks like a nice case, but it's much bigger than what I have envisioned. The SG05 looks just right.
Click to expand...

FT03-mini is an SG05 pointing down, just with space under for big fan and an extra bit on top which hides the cables. But indeed for a portable system the SG05 is more robust.
 
So, I'm throwing stuff together and I'm thinking something like this:

Case & PSU: SG05BB-450-USB3.0 (125)

Mobo: Asrock H77M-ITX (45, after microcenter discount)

CPU: i3-3225 or i5-3570K (119 or 190)

GPU: GTX 660 (~200$)

Ram 2x4GB Kit, (50$)

Optical: Slimline black blu ray (not picked)

HDD: 1TB (not picked)

SDD: Wavering between a 335 240 and a Samsung 840 240. Probably going to go with the TLC over the MLC because of the 40$ price difference.

OS: Considering Windows 8, need to check if I have a free liscense of 7.

Keyboard/mouse: This could probably be it's own thread. I'll need to do some reading.
Xbox controller adapter


CPU decision: I'm pretty much shoe horned into these because of the microcenter pricing. Obviously with the H77 I won't have much use for the K portion of the 3570. 70$ for a PCIE-3.0 instead of 2.0, turbo boost, and conversion of 2 virtual cores to physical, and double the cache. My ego says 3570k, my brain says "why"? Just not sure there's anything there that would saturate the 3225.

I don't know that there's that much to talk about on the SDD, it's just the classic TLC/MLC price decision.

As far as the keyboard/mouse/input I need to go do a lot of research and probably a good bit of in store playing to figure that one out.

Thoughts so far?
 
Last edited:
i3 v i5 absolutely depends on which games you will play. Not many games use 4 cores in an efficient way. Money saved on CPU can go to a better GPU, or other components.
 
WiSK said:
i3 v i5 absolutely depends on which games you will play. Not many games use 4 cores in an efficient way. Money saved on CPU can go to a better GPU, or other components.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just can't justify it to my self. No matter how much I keep trying, lol.
 
WiSK said:
i3 v i5 absolutely depends on which games you will play. Not many games use 4 cores in an efficient way. Money saved on CPU can go to a better GPU, or other components.
Click to expand...

That's a waaaaaaaaaaay outdated idea. BF3, Crysis, even Borderlands do use many threads, that was true back then on the C2D days.
 
I concur with fr500: Go for the quad-core. There are indeed games today that will take advantage of all those cores.
 
fr500 said:
That's a waaaaaaaaaaay outdated idea. BF3, Crysis, even Borderlands do use many threads, that was true back then on the C2D days.
Click to expand...

That games are getting better at using more threads doesn't automatically mean that $70 is best spent on a stronger CPU.

I followed a long running thread on OCN about BF3. Conclusion was that BF3 only has benefit from more cores with large maps on multiplayer, and otherwise it wasn't significant. Tom's recently did a test trying to answer a similar question, and although they didn't test any of the three games you mention, they found that most games are still more GPU-restricted, than CPU-restricted. The only game they tested which stood out was Skyrim as benefitting from stronger CPU.

And sometimes it's not about CPU nor GPU performace. My son plays a lot of Warcraft and he can play on high quality even with his old Q9400 and GTX260, but when I bought him an SSD that's when he said "wow it's fast now."

Perhaps Vengence can let us know exactly which games are important to him :)
 
Personally, I think its better to get the quad core, if it doesnt break the bank, that way you dont have to upgrade for a long while. Just a thought.
And there are games that like more cores, like Mechwarrior Online, which definitely likes a quad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top