DAN C4-SFX - old

[AfterInfinity]

I really like this design. I mean sure it’s gone bigger, a step closer to the Ncase’s size but it is very different.

I have a question though.

• With this new design in mind, if the GPU is mounted vertically will there be enough space on the bottom to fit two full sized fans?

 

[Rankless]

So, uh... who all still wants the case from the first page? Perhaps the one on page 94? Seriously enough, if 50% of people are happy using two-slot GPUs, why increase the size?

I'm starting to get the feeling from @dondan that he really isn't into that design, and wants to try something else. A shame, but out of our control.

 

[blindphleb]

If 50% of people are happy using two-slot GPUs, why increase the size?

I'm actually surprised it was that low. If I was making a product and half my target market said that design wouldn't work for their purposes it would give me pause. If you allow up to a 2.75 slot GPU you don't eliminate all of those who like 2 slot cards. If you only allow 2 slots you do eliminate the others.

 

[Rankless]

I'm actually surprised it was that low. If I was making a product and half my target market said that design wouldn't work for their purposes it would give me pause. If you allow up to a 2.75 slot GPU you don't eliminate all of those who like 2 slot cards. If you only allow 2 slots you do eliminate the others.

Half the target audience eliminated? Hmm, don't buy it.

First, of all the folks who were polled, how many actually own a card that isn't two-slot? Second, the idea that by allowing 2.75 slot cards you double the card's audience is simply not true. By that same comparison he's cutting out over 90% of the his audience by not supporting full size ATX motherboards. The A4-SFX was popular because of its form factor and aesthetics. By choosing that form factor he is entering the territory of the NCase M1 (an admittedly awesome case), and neglecting those who wanted an A4-SFX alternative that could support higher wattage CPUs in the smallest design pragmatically possible.

Just look at the attention this thread has gathered over the last year. People are interested in two-slot designs.

 

[Killinger]

@gotcha43:
I can include them. If I would do it my will be custom one.

@All: Please write what you think about the new idea and don't just press the Like button

I love the new idea with the PCIE power connectors! Almost everyone would get what they want and we'd get that small SFF footprint we loved out of the first prototype with up to 3 slot GPUs, and people like me get that slim 140mm width that we've been looking for.

 

[Tephnos]

So, uh... who all still wants the case from the first page? Perhaps the one on page 94? Seriously enough, if 50% of people are happy using two-slot GPUs, why increase the size?

I'm starting to get the feeling from @dondan that he really isn't into that design, and wants to try something else. A shame, but out of our control.

Honestly, the case from the first page is still my favorite iteration of it.

And yes, >52% of people voted 2 slot, and the rest was split into the other groups. The second highest was 2.5 slot with >26%. If I recall correctly, the x52 pump would just squeeze in with the 2.5 slot, and so I imagine a lot of AIOs would as well. That means >78% of the total respondents would be pleased with that design.

Ah well. It is what it is.

 

[Killinger]

Honestly, the case from the first page is still my favorite iteration of it.

And yes, >52% of people voted 2 slot, and the rest was split into the other groups. The second highest was 2.5 slot with >26%. If I recall correctly, the x52 pump would just squeeze in with the 2.5 slot, and so I imagine a lot of AIOs would as well. That means >78% of the total respondents would be pleased with that design.

Ah well. It is what it is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you dislike about this new design? I personally would rather give up height than depth or width since it takes up less space, but I'm interested in what is turning you off about the new arrangement. I was under the impression that it only added just over .5 liters to the overall volume unless I'm mistaken

 

[Tephnos]

Just out of curiosity, what do you dislike about this new design? I personally would rather give up height than depth or width since it takes up less space, but I'm interested in what is turning you off about the new arrangement. I was under the impression that it only added just over .5 liters to the overall volume unless I'm mistaken

I was fine with the 'revamped' design on page 94 or so, which comes to a slight increase over the original <10L case (which is still my fave design). Wasn't my first preference but at least we were back on track, so to speak.

I am not fine at all with an 11L case because I already own an NCASE and I am not paying hundreds of dollars for something that's just slightly smaller but does all the same stuff. How many times are we going to continually increase the volume? (Also, in terms of desk footprint, height > width).

What I like about the original C4 was no compromises cooling in the smallest possible form factor by making clever use of AIO cooling. Now DAN is trying too hard to accommodate every possible configuration and there's an old saying about what happens when you try to excel in everything.

As for the design that keeps the original width but uses the PCIe power adapters... Well, I'm not sure how much more I'm willing to pay for those to be made for this case, to be honest - I don't like the classic layout because that one already has proven a hindrance to GPU cooling in the NCASE (and so some raise the feet to give the GPU more airflow). The survey seems clear enough so far. Nearly 4/5ths of people want it small (by sticking to smaller GPUs), yet DAN is trying out another idea that nobody originally asked for, even if well received thus far. We're going to be paying for the beadblasting (good), the PCIe riser (good), and now an additional component on top of all of that.

I know what I like and this isn't it, in short.

 

[Necere]

@With an width of 149 this case support in classic PC hardware mode heatsink up to 125mm in height. The C14S needs 115mm with 140/120mm fan under the fin array:

Keep in mind the C14/C14S can typically only be mounted in the M1 such that it overhangs the front of the motherboard, which, when used with an underslung fan in low profile mode, creates a conflict with the power supply. In the M1 you can get around this by using the ATX bracket to mount the PSU towards the front of the case in a rotated orientation. You'll probably want to consider such an alternate mounting position in your design.

 

[blindphleb]

Half the target audience eliminated? Hmm, don't buy it.

You're correct that the poll doesn't exactly communicate what are deal breakers for some. But that argument goes both ways. It's not like expanding it to 2.75 slots means all those that wanted a 2 slot case would be turned off enough to pick a different case.

The most we can speculate is that the poll communicates desires or preferences rather than hard lines that cannot be crossed.

My original position was too strict, thanks for helping me see that.

 

[giraffesinmybalcony]

I am not fine at all with an 11L case because I already own an NCASE and I am not paying hundreds of dollars for something that's just slightly smaller but does all the same stuff. How many times are we going to continually increase the volume?

but you are willing to drop hundreds of dollars to subtract 1 litre with less hardware compatibility and possibly thermals as well?
also have you thought about the market where some users does not already have an NCASE and instead are looking at buying one? one which has more flexibility and a better compatibility with their desired hardware? since it is likely that users that are looking at the NCASE wants to have a system that is powerful, why not accomodate that market as well with something better? surely you can argue that it is bigger than a certain ideal litres, but segmenting your market this way just because it is 1 litre over the original volume seems to be a terrible decision, especially when the '2-slot' market is still included in this newer layout.
additionally, if the C4 were to proceed with its original design, what would the A4 have over the C4? apart from a smaller volume, there is not much else. this would affect the sales of the A4 tremendously. unless of course, @dondan has no plans of continuing the life cycle of the A4.

 

[blindphleb]

Keep in mind the C14/C14S can typically only be mounted in the M1 such that it overhangs the front of the motherboard, which, when used with an underslung fan in low profile mode, creates a conflict with the power supply. In the M1 you can get around this by using the ATX bracket to mount the PSU towards the front of the case in a rotated orientation. You'll probably want to consider such an alternate mounting position in your design.

You can also use a 120mm fan underneath the cooler and use the SFX position for the PSU. Hardforum user M1AF did a bunch of testing with this.

 

[Necere]

You can also use a 120mm fan underneath the cooler and use the SFX position for the PSU. Hardforum user M1AF did a bunch of testing with this.

That's true. Still, it's good if the cooler can fit in its stock form, without having to buy another fan.

 

[Tephnos]

but you are willing to drop hundreds of dollars to subtract 1 litre with less hardware compatibility and possibly thermals as well?
also have you thought about the market where some users does not already have an NCASE and instead are looking at buying one? one which has more flexibility and a better compatibility with their desired hardware? since it is likely that users that are looking at the NCASE wants to have a system that is powerful, why not accomodate that market as well with something better? surely you can argue that it is bigger than a certain ideal litres, but segmenting your market this way just because it is 1 litre over the original volume seems to be a terrible decision, especially when the '2-slot' market is still included in this newer layout.
additionally, if the C4 were to proceed with its original design, what would the A4 have over the C4? apart from a smaller volume, there is not much else. this would affect the sales of the A4 tremendously. unless of course, @dondan has no plans of continuing the life cycle of the A4.

Yes, because I already was fine with the constrictions placed upon the design from the initial outset. Thermals were never a problem in this case - AIO for the CPU was always in there, and the GPU having a vented side intake for those not wanting a window is the best possible place it could be (GPU intaking from the bottom like in the NCASE leads to higher thermals because of restricted airflow). Finally 'has better compatibility' is hyperbole; the M1 does everything - 3 slots, C14s, AIOs.

My posts are made with respect to the original design, and always will be - because that was the best one (IMO).

As for the A4, that's simple: it's absolutely tiny at 7.2L. It would in no way encroach on the C4 because those who want the A4 primarily pick it for its size as the foremost choice.

 

[blindphleb]

Thermals were never a problem in this case - AIO for the CPU was always in there, and the GPU having a vented side intake for those not wanting a window is the best possible place it could be (GPU intaking from the bottom like in the NCASE leads to higher thermals because of restricted airflow).

The case hasn't gained much in size. 2 slots can still do well. 3 slots do better than Ncase because you can flip the case so the GPU wouldn't starve for air. This new C4 design is better in just about every way. What concerns do you have about it? I also have an Ncase like you and I love the C14/bottom exhaust with accelero set up, but I'd like to not have to mod my card every generation just to have a quiet/cool card.

 

[dondan]

.

Honestly, the case from the first page is still my favorite iteration of it.

...

Ah well. It is what it is.

Nothing is set in stone. Let me play with the new layout to that point we have a compareable CAD model to the C4 model from page 94. If i reach that point without constructual problems I will make a survey and let you decide.

 

[gotcha43]

Yes, because I already was fine with the constrictions placed upon the design from the initial outset. Thermals were never a problem in this case - AIO for the CPU was always in there, and the GPU having a vented side intake for those not wanting a window is the best possible place it could be (GPU intaking from the bottom like in the NCASE leads to higher thermals because of restricted airflow). Finally 'has better compatibility' is hyperbole; the M1 does everything - 3 slots, C14s, AIOs.

My posts are made with respect to the original design, and always will be - because that was the best one (IMO).

Please explain one thing:
Why is the Original Layout the best one? Why is the new Layout worse?
For me it gives much more flexibility. You still can install your setup like in the Original Post. I don‘t get it.
Because of 0,5L size increase?

 

[Tephnos]

Please explain one thing:
Why is the Original Layout the best one? Why is the new Layout worse?
For me it gives much more flexibility. You still can install your setup like in the Original Post. I don‘t get it.
Because of 0,5L size increase?

Yes.

I accepted a size increase from the original <10L, but another increase is pushing it past my limit. It's no longer the case I was so enamored with originally.

 

[gotcha43]

Why another increase?
At 10.3L it would be still small. Original Layout was just half a liter smaller in Volume.

 

[Tephnos]

Why another increase?
At 10.3L it would be still small. Original Layout was just half a liter smaller in Volume.

The proposed layout without the connectors is 11L.