Before asking NCASE about Micro-ATX...

wahaha360

Gawd
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
943
One of the most frequently asked question is about if we are going to do a Micro-ATX project.

Instead writing the same response for the "X" time and to save my email inbox, let's start a new thread.

2015-10-15 Update: More concepts




2015-10-10 Update: Some design concepts for different layouts


This is based on the 2b layout.


1c layout.


Also 1c.


A reverse 3a layout. Basically the Raijintek Styx.

2015-10-10 Update: mATX Design Considerations / Context from Necere

Intro

I. Component space requirements
  1. Motherboard
  2. PSU
  3. GPU
  4. CPU cooler, rear fan
  5. Cable management

II. Priorities and preferences

III. Contender layouts

  1. Traditional - top/bottom PSU, 25-32L
    • 1a.
    • 1b.
    • 1c.
  2. Space saver - front PSU, 23-32L
    • 2a.
    • 2b.
    • 2c.
    • 2d.
  3. Subcompact - PSU over CPU, 17-20L
    • 3a.


For almost as long as the M1 has existed, we've had people asking for a microATX version of the case. It's easily the most oft-heard request we get. The thing is, modifying the M1 to accept a microATX motherboard isn't just a matter of adding one more slot and increasing the height accordingly, as some have suggested. Indeed, it's much more involved than that.

To begin with, Mini-ITX has (at least up until very recently) been limited to LGA1150/1151-socket CPUs at the high end, which top out at 84-91W TDP (Thermal Dissipation Power). In contrast, mATX supports LGA2011 CPUs with TDPs of up to 150W, which is a substantial increase in power draw, and therefore heat output (because power in = heat out).

Similarly, the additional PCIe slots allow for the possibility of SLI and Crossfire configurations, so where Mini-ITX's lone expansion slot limits it to a single card with a TDP of up to 300W, with mATX we now have an effective doubling of potential GPU heat and power.

What this leads to is the following conclusion: a microATX case needs to provide both high power delivery capability, as well as robust system cooling. For the first requirement, it's my position that SFX power supplies do not, at this point in time, provide sufficient power to drive a very high-end SLI/Crossfire system. The highest wattage SFX currently available is limited to 600W, which, while it can run some less extreme dual-card setups, won't suffice for the highest-end systems. Even the upcoming 700W SFX-L won't cut it when it comes to a system with a 150W CPU and two 300W GPUs. Therefore the only option, in my opinion, is to support ATX power supplies.

What you will quickly discover, as I did, is that when you move to a mATX motherboard and ATX PSU, there is very little room for size reduction beyond what's already available. Cases like the Silverstone SG09 are already as small as the components will allow, and that makes aesthetic compromises to achieve reasonable cooling at that size that I'm personally not willing to make. In other words, don't expect the mATX case I design to be smaller than what already exists.


I. Component space requirements

To start off, this is a rundown of the actual dimensions of the major components. It should be understood that the case will be at least 10 to 20mm larger in any given dimension than the components take up, to account for the chassis and exterior panel thickness, screws/rivets/other fasteners, and to make component installation possible. It's not necessary to read all of this, but it's useful to have as a reference.



1. Motherboard
This is a microATX motherboard with two full-length GPUs (312mm, the maximum called for by the spec):

znIZP7u.png


Note the board itself is 244x244mm, however the rear I/O shield extends a few mm past the edge of the board.


Compared to Mini-ITX, microATX is significantly larger:

ojNIENI.png



The depth of the board is just as relevant as the height, since we're able to use the space formed by the front edge of the board and the end of the GPU for a front-mounted PSU, drives, or fan/rad:



This is put to use in many Mini-ITX cases, including the M1, but due to its increased depth microATX has much less usable space available.

Limiting GPU length wouldn't save much space, since mATX boards often have right angle SATA ports at the front edge, which need a good 30-40mm of clearance:

TQNRQrA.png


That brings the total depth up to about 285mm/11.2", which isn't far off the 312mm of a full-length GPU.​



2. PSU
In regards to the power supply, the things to note are the space required by modular connectors, and by a right-angled power cable (if used). The former needs, IMO, a minimum of 30mm for a still-snug fit, though more is better, and 40-50mm is even more ideal. In the M1, SFX-L used in conjuction with a long GPU only has 20mm for the modular connectors, which by all accounts is a rather tight fit.
The right-angle AC cable adds about 20mm to the length, which is something to take into account for those layouts that require it.

ZNlUJNZ.png



3. GPU
The PCIe specification gives a maximum length of 312mm (12.28"), and a (PCB) height of 111mm (4.37"). Note the height doesn't include the PCI bracket, which adds 15mm to the overall height.

ozcAveZ.png



It's also important to take into account the PCIe power connectors, which are typically located at the top edge of the PCB. These are the same type of connectors used for modular PSUs, and have a similar space requirement. This means 20 to 30mm should be added to the PCB height to determine the actual space required.

Reference GPU designs (i.e., cards designed by nvidia/AMD and usually manufactured and sold by third parties), almost always conform to the 111mm height restriction, and rarely come close to the maximum length.

On the other hand, third party manufacturer add-in boards (AIB) frequently exceed the specification, especially the maximum height. It's quite common for part of the heatsink to overhang the top edge of the PCB, and occasionally the PCB itself will be taller than average, with heights in excess of 150mm in some cases (e.g., ASUS Strix, EVGA Classified). Note how much further out this places the PCIe power connectors:

LYpRyZ4.png


Some designs incorporate a recessed cutout for the power connectors to mitigate some of the extra height:

PWQ9DUt.png


However, some space between the edge of the PCB and side panel is still needed to allow for proper airflow. The vast majority of tall GPUs use axial fan type coolers ("open" coolers), which exhaust laterally in all directions (as opposed to centrifugal/blower-type cards, which exhaust primarily through the rear). Since these cards don't take care of their own hot exhaust, it's especially important with these types of cards to have good system airflow.​



4. CPU cooler, rear fan
I'm including these together because they both affect case width, and designing for one essentially gives you the other:

ai58Wiq.png


The basic choice is between designing for 120mm/140mm-class, 160-170mm tall tower CPU coolers, which gets you rear 120mm exhaust fan support; or 92mm-class tower coolers (or top-downs), which only allows for a 92mm rear fan. Naturally, the former allows for better cooling - both for the CPU and for system cooling as whole - as well as much wider cooler choice. This also has an impact on maximum GPU height, with the 92mm-class only allowing for GPUs up to 140mm tall (and PCIe power connectors must be included in that height).

The difference between the two sizes is roughly 30mm of case width. Note that, again, the actual case width would be at least 10mm greater than the space the components take up.



5. Cable management
Cable management behind the motherboard is not free! Basically, however much space you want to have for managing cables will need to be added to the case width. 10mm will get you a minimal amount of room to run smaller cables, but don't expect it to suffice for the 24 pin motherboard power cable. 20-30mm would be adequate-to-roomy, but that's 20-30mm of extra case width.

Also worth mentioning is the additional height required if you want to be able to run cables through the gap between the motherboard and top or bottom of the case. Here again, the height needed depends on whether to allow for only thinner cables, or thicker ones as well. In some layouts, there will be additional height for other components anyway, so no height increase may be required.​


II. Priorities and preferences
This is where I define what I think is important in the design, and where you can offer the most feedback.

I want to get away from the air-vents-on-every-side design that the M1 has. Virtually every small case with good cooling does it using this approach, and for good reason: it saves a lot of space, because you can Tetris fans in to deliver airflow directly to components. However, it doesn't lend itself to pleasing aesthetics or easy dust control.

Also, while it may work well enough for power and heat-limited mini-ITX systems, it doesn't necessarily scale well to SLI/Crossfire mATX systems. Look at the hole-covered exterior of the SG09/SG10 to see what it took for Silverstone to achieve good cooling in a 23L package. That's not the direction I want to take.

Instead, I'm prioritizing good system airflow and dust control, as well as aesthetics, over absolute size. With that in mind, these are my priorities:

  • I'm leaning towards full tower (160-165mm) CPU cooler support, along with rear 120mm fan support. This has significant cooling benefits, both for the CPU as well as overall system cooling, plus allowing extra room for tall GPUs.
  • Front-to-back airflow (preferred), or bottom-to-top airflow.
  • Easily accessible front (or bottom) dust filters.
  • Positive pressure (more fans blowing in than out) for dust control.
  • No top or bottom vents (if front-to-back airflow).
    • Reasoning: top vents allow dust to settle in while system is off; spilled liquids can enter in; increased sound transmission from internal fans. Bottom vents require additional floor clearance (=increased height/volume); bottom dust filter are more difficult to access.
  • No side vents.
    • Reasoning: aesthetic considerations, option for window.
  • PSU support: ATX, 160mm modular at minimum. There are smaller ATX PSUs, but this is the size where the options start to open up.


Addional considerations:

  • 4 vs. 5 slot: it's an additional 20mm height in most layouts, though the space could also be used for drive or fan mounting, as it is in the M1. The 5th slot itself is only really useful in SLI/CF setups with an appropriate motherboard that supports a GPU in the 4th slot, which does limit its usefulness to some extent. But nevertheless, for air cooled SLI/CF, a 5th slot is ideal.
  • Front I/O location: I'm fairly neutral on this, but some people hate having the front I/O on the top or side. This is a more important choice than it seems though, because the way I design is to try to integrate things into a cohesive whole. The front I/O is a key functional and aesthetic element, and has a significant impact on the way the entire case is designed.
  • Drives, what kind and how many:
    • 3.5" drives: I'm aiming for a baseline of two.
    • 2.5" drives: pretty easy to fit in, so support for at least 2-4 is a given.
    • 5.25" bays: not a requirement, and absent from most of my layouts.
    • Slim ODD may or may not be an option, but not a big priority.
  • Window option: I know a lot of people like to show off their guts, so it's something I'd like to support. It doesn't work on the M1 because of the side panel vents, and this is one reason I'm trying to avoid that here. One consideration though: the clean way to mount a window is on the inside of the panel, which will add a few mm to the overall width of the case if CPU cooler height is to remain unaffected.

Feedback is welcome.


III. Contender layouts
I'm grouping the layouts based on the PSU location, which is the single biggest differentiator. Several possibilities are given for each, but these are by no means exhaustive, and dimensions and locations for the smaller components (e.g. drives) are given only as examples. As a reminder, the actual case can be expected to be a minimum of 10 to 20mm larger than the dimensions of the components.


1. Traditional - top/bottom PSU, 25-32L

The standard layout that every case uses, for good reason. Front-to-back airflow courtesy of the two big fans up front ensures positive pressure and easy access to dust filters. 3.5" drives get optimal cooling. However, this layout is also the least compact.


1a.

yAGl7qF.png


In many ways my favorite layout, in spite of how conventional it is. A single 5.25" bay, plus plenty of room for drives or a front-mounted 240mm (or conceivably 280mm) radiator. One potential downside is the top-mounted PSU, which draws warm air from inside the case.

+Front-to-back airflow
+Positive pressure
+No top/bottom vents
+Easy access dust filter
+Plenty of 3.5" drives
+Plenty of space for a thick front rad
+5.25" option
+No PSU length limit (if drives are removed)
-No dedicated PSU intake
-Not that small
-Similar to existing cases
-No 5th slot


1b.

GQruN1E.png


A shortened version of 1a, dropping the 5.25" bay and reducing the 3.5" HDD count to two.

+Front-to-back airflow
+Positive pressure
+No top/bottom vents
+Easy access dust filter
+Space for a front rad
+No PSU length limit (if drives are removed)
-No dedicated PSU intake
-No 5th slot


1c.

NrO6i2n.png


Essentially the same layout as 1b, but with the PSU and drives moved to the bottom.

+Front-to-back airflow
+Positive pressure
+No top vents
+Easy access dust filter
+Space for a front rad
+No PSU length limit (if drives are removed)
+Dedicated PSU intake
-Taller due to PSU intake clearance
-No 5th slot​



2. Space saver - front PSU, 23-32L

With the PSU moved to the front we can typically shave off a couple of liters. Nevertheless, the volume savings aren't really as great as you might think, and the complications to airflow may not make it worthwhile.
A possible issue with this layout is the power supply's vents being open from above. The PSU is the one place in the PC that carries mains voltage, which makes it a safety concern, and having open top vents may be hazardous in case liquids are spilled on the top.

2a.

084aJU6.png


This layout is potentially quite good for dual or triple AIOs, since the top radiators are able to exhaust directly out of the case.

+Good for dual 120 AIOs or single 240mm top rad
+/-Airflow not ideal; neutral or slightly positive pressure likely
-Top vents
-Wasted space at the top if not using a radiator
-Limited drive support
-PSU vents open to top
-160mm PSU max
-Limited PSU cable space
-No 5th slot


2b.

GseGeAU.png


A more watercooling-friendly design, expanded for a second radiator at the bottom. This would be the tallest layout, and one of the largest, on account of the bottom rad and extra intake clearance needed.

+Multiple radiator support
+5th slot if no bottom radiator is used
+Good airflow, can be positive pressure
+Longer PSU possible if drives are removed
+/-Top-to-bottom airflow
-Wasted space at the top if not using a radiator
-Limited PSU cable space
-Top vents
-PSU vents open to top
-Large; extra height required for bottom intake


2c.

vBF4A7s.png


A more compact, reverse-ATX take on the layout, shown with dual 92mm exhaust to reduce width. PSU exhausts through the bottom to address the open-top hazard.

+Front-to-back airflow
+5th slot
+No top vents
+Easy front dust filter access
+/-Airflow may be neutral or slightly positive
-No or very limited watercooling support
-160mm PSU max
-Limited PSU cable space
-PSU vents open to top
-Extra height required for bottom PSU exhaust


2d.

gS9hPVI.png


This is similar to the SG09/SG10, with the PSU rotated to exhaust through the side. This either means side panel vents for the PSU, or a duct to front/side vents. Note that this layout trades height for width; as per the PSU size requirements above, the case would need to be around 210mm wide to support a 160mm long modular PSU.

+Front-to-back airflow
+Space for 5th slot or HDDs
+No top vents
+Easy front dust filter access
+Low height
+/-Neutral or slightly positive pressure
-160mm PSU max
-Limited PSU cable space
-Wide



3. Subcompact - PSU over CPU, 17-20L

The smallest possible layout, and the only one that qualifies as SFF by the stricter definitions of the term, this puts the PSU over the motherboard CPU area. Naturally, this reduces the available CPU cooler space considerably, and is generally more difficult to work in. The lack of any exhaust fan (aside from the PSU) likely make it a less than stellar thermal performer as well.

3a.

8wCx6hW.png


A basic take on the layout. The bottom space could either be used for drives, as shown, or a 5th slot for SLI/Crossfire spacing. An alternative is to move the drives to the top to keep them away from the hot GPU exhaust, at the expense of losing the 5th slot option.

+Front-to-back airflow
+Positive pressure
+No top/bottom vents
+Easy front dust filter access
+Space for 5th slot or HDDs
+Compact
+Limited watercooling support
-Restrictive airflow, no exhaust fan
-Poor PSU location
-Limited CPU height
-No window possible​



Naturally, feedback is welcome, pick your favorite, make suggestions, etc.
 
Last edited:
Necere is suffering from creative block, so never made progress.
That's... not quite right. I've made lots of progress. I've done dozens of iterations of mATX cases, and you know that. The thing I've been struggling with is which direction to proceed in, because there are several quite different possibilities with regard to layout, size, airflow, component support, etc., each with their own pros and cons. Which is why I suggested to you that I should start the thread outlining the different possibilities, the pros and cons, etc. and get some feedback. But we'll do it your way, I guess.
 
That's... not quite right. I've made lots of progress. I've done dozens of iterations of mATX cases, and you know that. The thing I've been struggling with is which direction to proceed in, because there are several quite different possibilities with regard to layout, size, airflow, component support, etc., each with their own pros and cons. Which is why I suggested to you that I should start the thread outlining the different possibilities, the pros and cons, etc. and get some feedback. But we'll do it your way, I guess.

I see what you mean, there's simply so many combinations for mATX that it would indeed be difficult to pin down one choice.

Understandable.
 
Show us some of the ideas you have been playing with?
 
Show us some of the ideas you have been playing with?
That was the plan. I just need some time and wherewithal to throw together a big post with pictures, explanations, pros and cons.
 
That was the plan. I just need some time and wherewithal to throw together a big post with pictures, explanations, pros and cons.

Small bits prob easier to read and comment.

Don't need to throw everything in at once.
 
That's... not quite right. I've made lots of progress. I've done dozens of iterations of mATX cases, and you know that. The thing I've been struggling with is which direction to proceed in, because there are several quite different possibilities with regard to layout, size, airflow, component support, etc., each with their own pros and cons. Which is why I suggested to you that I should start the thread outlining the different possibilities, the pros and cons, etc. and get some feedback. But we'll do it your way, I guess.

Do your redesign of the Sugo SG10! Do it! Do it! Do it! :D

Edit: Heavens just send me a sign ... in form of an ugly Maximus VIII Impact and Necere looking into mATX desings. Okay father, I heard you. mATX it will be for my next build!
 
For me a good bar for matx is the silverstone tj08e, not necessarily for volume but for performance, functionality, and style.

Everything in that case just felt well conceived.
 
I'm guessing this would be something different from the Nova? As that design is kind of an mATX evolution of the basic M1 layout.

Still having sub 20L as absolute requirement?
 
I think sub 20L is general requirement of SFF, since even the BF Prodigy M as a commercial product manages 21L with excessive compatibility
 
I think sub 20L is general requirement of SFF, since even the BF Prodigy M as a commercial product manages 21L with excessive compatibility

Sure. But the question is relevant in regards to whether or nor not they plan on keeping it in the SFF realm.
 
It will be interesting to see what Necere has been thinking about. Of course any discussion of whatever idea/s Necere thinks about people will automatically assume will be built. LOL :D
 
I haven't fully understood the mATX platform. It feels like ATX or really small like ITX are the interesting choices. Or perhaps that mDTX, that is slightly bigger than ITX. But it's something to ponder about...
 
I disagree. For me, mATX seems like the perfect "tradeoff" (i'll still get ITX due to size though, despite not liking limited and expensive MB choice, only 2 ram slots and 1 expansion card). You can have 4 memory slots and 2way-SLI. Also, there are many highend mATX boards available. ATX only seems to really make sense in extreme configurations nowadays (like a X99 system with 8 ram slots and 4way-SLI)
 
That's... not quite right. I've made lots of progress. I've done dozens of iterations of mATX cases, and you know that.

I guess Necere and I see progress differently.

Just to explain my point:

A CAD model is the first step in a long process for the product to materialize.

Having a variety of CAD concepts still leaves it at step *zero. Since the CAD may not be manufacturable and there is no concrete plan to proceed, we remain in the stage of "loosely held ideas", which is basically vaporware.

Since we are still stuck in the vaporware stage, I don't see that as progress.
 
@Necere: there is no need to make a super-duper-uber well written and well-structured text. I know you like things to be as good as they can... but sometimes just a few render images serve the purpose of showing what you have in the backyard.
 
I guess Necere and I see progress differently..
Read what you wrote. You said I am "suffering from creative block, so never made progress." What kind of "progress" is impeded by a "creative block?" Creative progress, maybe? How is it, then, that I've created dozens of concept designs, if I'm supposedly suffering from creative block? Say what you mean if you want to be understood.

If you want to rephrase it to say that I'm stuck in some form of analysis paralysis, fine, I'll cop to that. Considering use cases, airflow and thermal management, dust filtration, and trying to work out the mechanical design while being very particular about aesthetics is a serious challenge. And it's mostly an analytical and executive function challenge, rather than creative.
 
Do your redesign of the Sugo SG10!

For me a good bar for matx is the silverstone tj08e.

I'd love to see a remake of the Silverstone SG03
There are essentially three basic layouts I'm considering, which are largely differentiated by the PSU location. These three cases more or less embody those three layouts.

I'm guessing this would be something different from the Nova? As that design is kind of an mATX evolution of the basic M1 layout.
My position, which I've articulated in the past, is that I believe for mATX, an ATX PSU is preferable. The Nova is designed primarily for SFX-only use (though it can take ATX as well). I wouldn't want to just replicate what Aiboh is doing anyway.

Still having sub 20L as absolute requirement?

I think sub 20L is general requirement of SFF, since even the BF Prodigy M as a commercial product manages 21L with excessive compatibility
Under 20L is very unlikely. Expect it to be in the 23-30L range, depending on layout. It's really not feasible to go below that with ATX PSU support while retaining broad hardware support and good cooling. It won't be "SFF" per the sticklers, but cases in the 20-30L range still get regularly discussed in SFF forums.

The Prodigy/Prodigy M is actually 26L, without the handles factored in (36L with).

I haven't fully understood the mATX platform. It feels like ATX or really small like ITX are the interesting choices. Or perhaps that mDTX, that is slightly bigger than ITX. But it's something to ponder about...
I agree with you to some extent. Mini-ITX is a much larger space savings over ATX than mATX is. Mini-DTX would be a better in-between form factor in some ways.

@Necere: there is no need to make a super-duper-uber well written and well-structured text.
Well, I'm doing it anyway :p I just want to lay down some groundwork so people can see why things need to be a certain way, and show the layouts I've been considering in an organized way. I'll try to get the post up in the next day or so.
 
I'd like to point out for those preferring mATX over ATX that mITX is a little over 50% smaller than mATX while mATX is only 20% smaller than ATX.

The fact that mATX and ATX motherboards have the same max width and only differ in height means you can have an ATX design with the exact same footprint as the mATX version, and depending on the number of expansion slots, a difference in height around 40-60mm. You can have the last few slots share space with a radiator for maximum flexibility - basically M1's setup but with 4 or 5 more slots.
 
Any consideration to an ATX case in the 25 - 30L range, or have you resolved to do mATX?

A better designed and structurally sound version of the TJ08-E would be nice though.. I've owned two, with my current rig being housed in one. The flimsy side/top panels and rigidity of the 5.25" / PSU rails drive me crazy.
 
I agree with you to some extent. Mini-ITX is a much larger space savings over ATX than mATX is. Mini-DTX would be a better in-between form factor in some ways.

I'd like to point out for those preferring mATX over ATX that mITX is a little over 50% smaller than mATX while mATX is only 20% smaller than ATX.

Yeah, in terms of space efficiency mATX isn't a winner, resulting in many mATX-cases that are either cubes with a huge footprint, or small midi-towers with the same absurd 450+ mm depth as ATX-cases. You often can't really put them under the table because they are to small to be placed there, or they are too large to sit on most tables and look good there. Furthermore the design options seem to be somewhat limited. We have two innovative designs from Silverstone (the Sugo SG10 and the Fortress FT03) and many cases that place the mainboard upside down. Both these factors - the lack of space you gain with most designs and the lacking variety of different design - probably explain, why the mATX is under-appreciated and under-supported at the moment.

mITX on the other hand is actually a bit too small in my opinion. Yes, these days you can put high-end performance into that tiny small form-factor and beautiful little enclosures without many trade-offs in terms of features, noise and cooling. But it would be nice (for me) to have the full amount of RAM-banks or the option for another small expansion card (maybe between the CPU-socket and the GPU-socket), and the boards are very crammed. Just look at the ROG Impact boards from ASUS with all their daughter-boards. The form-factor is not necessarily for people who care about beautfiul internals (and probably a window to look at them).

That's why I am currently more interested in the mATX-format. While form-factor is far away from perfect, it is easier to work with and gives me more performance options for the future. I agree though that we actually need a new form-factor between mATX and mITX, something that the connects both worlds. What do have most enthusiast gaming-rigs in common? A long GPU and a 240mm AIO-cooler. Cases that can fit both are usually quite deep, with leaves a huge space between the mainboard and the front of the case that you could use for, well, more mainboard. So for me the perfect "in between form-factor" would have the same height as mITX and a width closer to mATX with enough room for four RAM slots, the chipset, onboard audio and all the other stuff that manufacturers can fit there.
 
After lurking for many years, I registered just for this post: if you make a mATX case that is as versatile and well designed as the M1 (I just bought my 2nd one recently), I guarantee I'll buy that too :)
 
Yeah, in terms of space efficiency mATX isn't a winner, resulting in many mATX-cases that are either cubes with a huge footprint, or small midi-towers with the same absurd 450+ mm depth as ATX-cases. You often can't really put them under the table because they are to small to be placed there, or they are too large to sit on most tables and look good there. Furthermore the design options seem to be somewhat limited. We have two innovative designs from Silverstone (the Sugo SG10 and the Fortress FT03) and many cases that place the mainboard upside down. Both these factors - the lack of space you gain with most designs and the lacking variety of different design - probably explain, why the mATX is under-appreciated and under-supported at the moment.

mITX on the other hand is actually a bit too small in my opinion. Yes, these days you can put high-end performance into that tiny small form-factor and beautiful little enclosures without many trade-offs in terms of features, noise and cooling. But it would be nice (for me) to have the full amount of RAM-banks or the option for another small expansion card (maybe between the CPU-socket and the GPU-socket), and the boards are very crammed. Just look at the ROG Impact boards from ASUS with all their daughter-boards. The form-factor is not necessarily for people who care about beautfiul internals (and probably a window to look at them).

That's why I am currently more interested in the mATX-format. While form-factor is far away from perfect, it is easier to work with and gives me more performance options for the future. I agree though that we actually need a new form-factor between mATX and mITX, something that the connects both worlds. What do have most enthusiast gaming-rigs in common? A long GPU and a 240mm AIO-cooler. Cases that can fit both are usually quite deep, with leaves a huge space between the mainboard and the front of the case that you could use for, well, more mainboard. So for me the perfect "in between form-factor" would have the same height as mITX and a width closer to mATX with enough room for four RAM slots, the chipset, onboard audio and all the other stuff that manufacturers can fit there.

The FT03 and SG10 are basically the same layout but in different orientation. I ended up not liking the SG10 design due to its width, which is caused by the PSU orientation. The PSU front intake looks pretty awkward due to the case's width.

I agree that mITX can be too small. I would love it if motherboard manufacturers put more efforts into 3 slot "mATX" boards between 170mm and 195mm wide. Your "perfect inbetween form-factor" reminds me of Shuttle XPC boards.

About the ROG Impact boards, what exactly do they offer over competing high-end boards that is only possible due to the daughter boards?

Regarding RAM slots one thing I'd like to point out is that you can actually get 8 slots on many X99 ATX boards.
 
The FT03 and SG10 are basically the same layout but in different orientation. I ended up not liking the SG10 design due to its width, which is caused by the PSU orientation. The PSU front intake looks pretty awkward due to the case's width.
I don't think that the width of the case is the actual problem. The Sugo SG10 is a Sugo case (well, obiously) and as such it has to fit into certain volume limitations that Silverstone has enforced for the Sugo series. To stay within these limits, the front panel has to be very flat. Lift that limitation and you can design a deeper front panel that conceals the air intake.

Necere did that with his redesign of the Sugo 10, and I think he did a fantastic job with that. If that design would become the Ncase mATX case, I would buy ten of them. However, I wouldn't mind some extra height to mount the PSU with the exhaust facing up. That would require a serious height adjustment though to accommodate 180mm PSU that can power multi-GPU setups, and you'd lose the easy access to the power connectors, so probably don't do that.

Instead I would add some extra height in the lower section of case to make room for a 240mm radiator with a rail mount like in the Ncase M1. That would also add some extra space below the mainboard that people can use for fans, HDDs or a(nother) radiator and allow a 120mm fan in the front (depending on the position of the front panel I/O). The result would be fairly compact case with a small footprint, slightly increased height and lots of build options in the lower section that we already know from the M1. In short: All the extra stuff that fits into the mATX format without problems was moved to dautherboards or plug-in modules.

Assuming that the sidepanels will be clean (not that ridiculous construction Silverstone has come up with) and use the Lian Li push-pins, I would mount two fans in the bottom, on fan in the front, a 120mm AiO-cooler at the rear mount and a 140mm fan in the top. And I would probably install a smoked window.



I agree that mITX can be too small. I would love it if motherboard manufacturers put more efforts into 3 slot "mATX" boards between 170mm and 195mm wide. Your "perfect inbetween form-factor" reminds me of Shuttle XPC boards.
After some consideration I agree that a "3 slot mATX" format with the width of an mITX board (maybe slightly wider) would be the better "inbetween" form-factor. And yes, I thought of the custom Shuttle XPC boards.


About the ROG Impact boards, what exactly do they offer over competing high-end boards that is only possible due to the daughter boards?
Extra power supply with more phases for stable overclocking and a shielded audio solution with quality components and additional features like a headphone amp (important for me, and I don't wont to place an external DAC on my table). And since the ROG Impact boards are cramped with chipset features, ASUS had to move additional components (m.2 SSD, Wifi on the previous boards) to their custom "mPCIe Combo" module.
 
Regarding RAM slots one thing I'd like to point out is that you can actually get 8 slots on many X99 ATX boards.

Comparing the layout of ATX and mATX X99 boards I see there's larger power regulation section located north of CPU socket on most of the ATX boards vs to the side of DIMM slots on mATX, the latter prohibiting 4 additional DIMM slots. Looking at how ASRock managed to cram everything on their X99E-ITX (with smaller power regulation), I think an 8 DIMM microATX X99 board is perfectly doable, too bad none of the major motherboard makers have any interest in this direction.
 
Wow, I'm amazed the SG09 thread is over 3 years old.

I still don't like how wide it is even after looking at Necere's redesign again. I'm all for turning the PSU to face up and slimming the case down, and I would love if the new case could retain the M1's 160mm width. I think I can tolerate a width of 180-190mm for better cooling/VGA compatibility, but certainly not 220mm of the SG10.

The problem with 170mm-wide boards is that there hasn't been one with 4 RAM slots, except for a few server boards that have other major drawbacks (rear I/O).

The Asus Z170I Pro Gaming has a headphone amp, M.2, and WiFi, all without daughter boards. I don't know much about the VRMs and under what circumstances they actually make a difference. I only vaguely remember from when I researched Z77 ITX boards that the Asrock and Asus Deluxe didn't differ significantly when it came to overclocking, especially not within the confines of a typical ITX build. Hopefully the Z170 ROG Impact will bring something new and worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Comparing the layout of ATX and mATX X99 boards I see there's larger power regulation section located north of CPU socket on most of the ATX boards vs to the side of DIMM slots on mATX, the latter prohibiting 4 additional DIMM slots. Looking at how ASRock managed to cram everything on their X99E-ITX (with smaller power regulation), I think an 8 DIMM microATX X99 board is perfectly doable, too bad none of the major motherboard makers have any interest in this direction.

I don't doubt that it can be done, but the same is also true for a high-end 3-slot "mATX" board.
 
Wow, I'm amazed the SG09 thread is over 3 years old. I still don't like how wide it is even after looking at Necere's redesign again. I'm all for turning the PSU to face up and slimming the case down. I would love if the new case could retain the M1's 160mm width. I think I can tolerate with 180-190mm for better cooling/VGA compatibility, but certainly not 220mm of the SG10.
I would prefer to keep the PSU in the horizontal orientation because of the elegant and easier cable routing. Maybe Necere could limit the PSU length to 160mm to keep the case slim. Did a quick check and there plenty 800+ and even some 1000 watts PSUs with that length, so providing power for a multi-GPU build shouldn't be a problem.
 
efa1848f47516a7dbcf47b515aaa708e.jpg


This is what I want as a possibility in such small cramped mATX as I do hav ean mATX mobo - Gigabyte Z97MX, look at the concept!
I don't like the case by the way, does not float my boat, ITS THE CONCEPT!
 
My position, which I've articulated in the past, is that I believe for mATX, an ATX PSU is preferable.

Given the wider range of quieter and cheaper alternatives you do have a point. I think SFX was the right choice for the Nova though.

I wouldn't want to just replicate what Aiboh is doing anyway.

Good:D That would be boring.

I agree with you to some extent. Mini-ITX is a much larger space savings over ATX than mATX is. Mini-DTX would be a better in-between form factor in some ways.

For a pure gaming oriented computer there really isn't any need for more than what mITX can offer. I actually think that mATX makes more sense than ATX in most other scenarios, space savings aside. I am 100% sure that 80-90% of all ATX computers have 4 or less ram sticks and 1 or 2 PCIe slots populated.
 
Back
Top