[SFFn] Raijintek's Ophion Evo - Tempered Glass, RGB, but SFF!

[confusis]

At 20 litres, the Raijintek Ophion Evo just hits the limit of SFF volume, but it offers a lot to entice Large Form Factor (LFF) fans to the right side of PC building - our SFF world. From satisfying the current trend of RGB and tempered glass, to the ability to mount fairly high end hardware, the chassis is a taste of SFF for the masses.

We had a quick look at the Ophion and Ophion Evo at Computex 2018, now it's time to look deeper at the Ophion Evo. Ophion was an elder Titan god in Greek mythology, ruling the Earth - lets see if the Raijintek chassis lives up to the name.

Read more here.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

Do you have the non-Evo sibling also in the review queue?

 

[confusis]

I wish! Alas, no. I'll see what I can do

 

[Hifihedgehog]

Here's another question: How many 2.5" drives does the non-Evo support? A YouTube review of the two claims only one for the lower model, which could be a show stopper for me. PS: I am on slow, in-the-boonies Internet here. My cellular connection is hanging on for dear life with nigh dial-up speeds. So my apologies for delayed responses.

 

[confusis]

I'll ask Raijintek

 

[3lfk1ng]

I wish the PCIe slot was mounted lower in the chassis for those taller GPUs -seems there is plenty of room to do so.

 

[greyhound]

is it possible to fit a d5 pump above the sfx psu?

maybe by using a 15mm fan?

 

[confusis]

@greyhound Without having a D5 pump to hand, I can't confirm. However, with measurements found via Google-fu, I'm going to say no, sorry.

 

[Necere]

Looks like both the Type A and Type C ports are running off the 19pin header... John, if it's convenient, do you think you can test the Type C functionality? We had some supplier tell us they couldn't do both a Type C and Type A off the 19pin. Ideally, test that the Type C and Type A both operate concurrently, and also that the Type C operates in either orientation (since it should be reversible).

 

[confusis]

@Necere
Can confirm the following;

Type-C works in both orientations (tested with flash drive)
Both work at same time (same header, USB 3 2.5" HDD to ensure heavy power draw)

Transferred files from one to the other to ensure that yes, both work at the same time.

 

[Necere]

@confusis
Thanks very much. Good to know everything appears to work as one would expect.

 

[confusis]

@Necere, I'm concerned you've been told otherwise I hope there aren't suppliers out there spreading bad info :/

 

[Necere]

Yeah, I'm not sure. It may have just been that specific supplier that couldn't or wouldn't. This is second-hand information via w360 - he's the one that talks to suppliers. It's possible there was some miscommunication there as well.

 

[SashaLag]

Looks like both the Type A and Type C ports are running off the 19pin header... John, if it's convenient, do you think you can test the Type C functionality? We had some supplier tell us they couldn't do both a Type C and Type A off the 19pin. Ideally, test that the Type C and Type A both operate concurrently, and also that the Type C operates in either orientation (since it should be reversible).

I'm studying USB protocol for my thesis (currently doing) because I need to design a USB Hub with Power Delivery 2.0 through USB-C connector... Upgrading a USB 3.0/3.1 port to go through a USB-C connector is not a problem, as long as you provide a controller for this job and a MUX for taking care of double orientation for each port you want to upgrade (USB-A to USB-C)...

Just for example, you can have this "chain" of chips:
- your USB source, in this case that 19 pin, which provide 2 USB stream
- a MUX to select lines for USB-C orientation such as the Texas Instruments TUSB542
- a controller such as the STMicroelectronics STUSB4710 (if you need Power Delivery 2.0 - e.g max 100W through a cable) to address cable orientation (a line goes to MUX select pin) and Power delivery (if needed).

Cheaper solution may be the Microchip UTC2000. Still addresses cable orientation but doesn't provide as much power as the STUSB4710... Cheaper solution may be also possible but I haven't investigated so far as I need Power Delivery 2.0.

Anyway, Power Delivery adds complexity also because you have to provide DC-DC step-down converter to address differents Vdd (20V-15V-12V-9V-5V)... Except for complexity and higher BOM, there isn't any problem to upgrade a USB-A to a USB-C... Also, if you need video output from that USB-C... That obviously adds to the BOM... But for a simple USB-C with only data, upgrading from USB-A is a "kid play"

 

[Necere]

I'm studying USB protocol for my thesis (currently doing) because I need to design a USB Hub with Power Delivery 2.0 through USB-C connector... Upgrading a USB 3.0/3.1 port to go through a USB-C connector is not a problem, as long as you provide a controller for this job and a MUX 2:1 for taking care of double orientation for each port you want to upgrade (USB-A to USB-C)...

Just for example, you can have this "chain" of chips:
- your USB source, in this case that 19 pin, which provide 2 USB stream
- a MUX 1:2 to double lines for USB-C implementation such as the Texas Instruments TUSB542
- a controller such as the STMicroelectronics STUSB4710 (if you need Power Delivery 2.0 - e.g max 100W through a cable) to address cable orientation (a line goes to MUX select pin) and Power delivery (if needed).

Cheaper solution may be the Microchip UTC2000. Still addresses cable orientation but doesn't provide as much power as the STUSB4710... Cheaper solution may be also possible but I haven't investigated so far as I need Power Delivery 2.0.

Anyway, Power Delivery adds complexity also because you have to provide DC-DC step-down converter to address different Vdd (20V-15V-12V-9V-5V)... Except for complexity and higher BOM, there isn't any problem to upgrade a USB-A to a USB-C... Also, if you need video output from that USB-C... That obviously adds to the BOM... But for a simple USB-C with only data, upgrading from USB-A is a "kid play"

Interesting... so it sounds like you do need some additional electronics integrated into the USB cable for it to work - you can't just use a simple cable anymore for Type C. That may be why the supplier couldn't do it.

 

[SashaLag]

yep! It's not strictly a requirement, but by not adding additional electronics you are losing features implementable on that USB-C. In my opinion, USB-C is currently a mess, because with the same "name", you can have very different implementations... Some are 2.0, some are 3.1, some supports Power Delivery, some Thunderbolt 3... It's just a connection, but understanding which feature supports may be a little bit hard... In future, it may be the jack of all trades, as everything may support everything with a single package... but now... You have to check!

This article may be useful/interesting: Converting Existing USB Design to supports USB type-C Connections

 

[Necere]

It is a mess, and it doesn't help that the new motherboard header for front panel Type C hasn't seen widespread adoption. People keep asking for Type C on cases, but without motherboard support the only option is to put it on the 19pin, assuming you want to actually use it today. That's not very future proof, though.

 

[SashaLag]

exactly :/

 

[Duality92]

The In Win 805 did Type A and Type C on a single 19-pin, about 3 years ago. Scroll down the pictures, you'll see the hardware @SashaLag is talking about, I took a picture of it back when I reviewed it.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/161-computer-cases/1578853-my-review-win-805-3-part-review.html

 

[Halfdan]

So this is just a bigger version of the Dan case? From the pictures it looks like this only supports one two slot card (e.g. a GPU) or two single slot cards. It's not possible to have a single slot card and a dual slot GPU card at the same time?

Edit: nevermind. I just realized this only supports ITX, for some reason I just assumed it would be micro-ATX at least.