Good cost estimate?

[kony]

Well, it just so happens that with BTX, you basically ARE putting components
in a "tube" - a "linear situation". There are still dead spots, but
basically they're where you want them, and virtually all the airflow is
directed in line over the crucial components. The coolest air (the air
first coming in the case) immediately hits the CPU, through a funnel. It
then goes directly over the video components. The design is simply
different than ATX.

Yes, that last line sums it up... simply different. Give the
manufacturers a cheaper way to do it and they'll save yet another
buck, instead of spending same $ to produce cooler running components,
so let's switch everything for the same end-result, components that
are just within thermal margins, sometimes exceeding them.

 

[kony]

Well put. But it will also bolster component prices for a short
ime. -Dave

Well if there's any consolation it's that ATX will likely be cheaper
in 5-10 years if not hard to find by then.

 

[Frank Fussenegger]

~misfit~, I use one of these
http://www.zalman.co.kr/english/product/cnpsvga3.htm
to circulate the air around the graphics card. It should help to even
out the temperatures in the lower part of the case. Your plan for an
intake fan would work, but this is an idea that is an alternative to
cutting another hole in your case.

 

[jeffc]

The "air funnel" is not a bad design, but it requires even more,
additional airflow to keep the rest of the system cooled, the parts
not in that "air funnel". That's MORE noise.

Maybe. I'm not saying BTX is better than ATX or vice versa. I'm simply
saying what BTX was designed to do, and balancing the extremists who say
it's a total crock, design wise. Remember we are enthusiasts here. The
vast majority of systems in the real world are cluttered by cables and dust,
they have a stack of books blocking the rear power supply, and the heat sink
is attached to the CPU with a marshmallow. BTX addresses some significant
design issues related to heat and airflow. If you think it's another way to
new technology to make people buy more stuff, you're probably partly right.
All I'm saying is the basic design issues are valid. Additional fans do not
*necessarily* increase noise. The amount of airflow required for the rest
of the system just is not that high. Consider all the systems today that
don't have any intake air fan at all - just grilles and power supply
outputs.

etc.

That's where we start to differ in opinion, that it's reasonable to
redesign the whole system chassis because Intel can't get their chips
running cooler, and won't use an adequate heatsink but instead are
passing the buck, trying to make other parties pay for their CPU
cooling. If it's cheaper for them to run a CPU faster and faster and
reduce core size that small, seems to me the prices should go down.

Let me ask you this - if you were going to design a case layout from
scratch, would it be more like BTX or ATX?

So far Intel CPUs have ran cool enough that a few degrees one way or
the other aren't a problem, but they want the industry to switch to
designs that help them take the lazy and cheap way out. The truth is
that these fairly minor changes intel wants, mainly the concentration
of air over the CPU, could be easily implemented on ATX by moving the
fan up a few cm or adding second chassis fan mount, but instead they
went to extra measure to make it incompatible. That is what I'm most
opposed to, the incompatibilities that don't offer any benefit
whatsoever, not the way they want the airflow routed for their CPU.

You have to take into consideration the future too. It might cost you to
upgrade (all things become obsolete in technology sooner or later), but the
next guy who buys a new computer is going to have to pay for an extra fan
with your design, no?

 

[jeffc]

Tell ya what . . . enclose your system (ATX, BTX, whatever) in a sealed
garbage bag and run it that way for a few hours. According to you, it
should be cooled just fine, as airflow through the chassis doesn't matter.

What the hell are you talking about? How are you going to get airflow over
hot components in a sealed system? (keep all else equal)

 

[kony]

Maybe. I'm not saying BTX is better than ATX or vice versa. I'm simply
saying what BTX was designed to do, and balancing the extremists who say
it's a total crock, design wise. Remember we are enthusiasts here. The
vast majority of systems in the real world are cluttered by cables and dust,
they have a stack of books blocking the rear power supply, and the heat sink
is attached to the CPU with a marshmallow. BTX addresses some significant
design issues related to heat and airflow. If you think it's another way to
new technology to make people buy more stuff, you're probably partly right.
All I'm saying is the basic design issues are valid. Additional fans do not
*necessarily* increase noise. The amount of airflow required for the rest
of the system just is not that high. Consider all the systems today that
don't have any intake air fan at all - just grilles and power supply
outputs.

I have a stack of those systems with only power supply exhaust... they
were OEM and shop builds, which died.

If the current chassis form-facter were BTX, I would likewise be
opposed to switching to ATX. I do not see the benefit of an
entirely new form-factor, only the need to correct the existing flaws
in the current form-factor.... primarily larger power supply casing
and video card rotated. I'd also enlarge the rear I/O panel quite a
bit but it's not necessary at this point, might be a spec slated for
gradual adoption, a high-end "feature" if you will.

Let me ask you this - if you were going to design a case layout from
scratch, would it be more like BTX or ATX?

BTX, but the difference is slight, not enough to switch once we had
one or the other.

You have to take into consideration the future too. It might cost you to
upgrade (all things become obsolete in technology sooner or later), but the
next guy who buys a new computer is going to have to pay for an extra fan
with your design, no?

I am considering the future. I don't want the precedent set (or
rather, continued) that we'll all bare the burden for Intel's
decisions. I don't want time spent on the idea that we should be
accomodating additional heat generation inside a system instead of
reducing it.

Extra fans, when included with a case, are VERY inexpensive for the
manufacturer to buy and include in volume. Since I'd add another fan
anyway, it would be cheaper for anything I build, though I suppose I
wouldn't settle for the budget/junk fans most manufacturer's use, nor
the higher RPM level that they don't have to live with every day.

 

[~misfit~]

True, but any component that requires a heatsink, should have one, of
adequate size.

A heatsink is only a radiator, if it's in 'dead air' then it can't dissapate
the heat.

So it's fair to say you have a hot-spot, but the total heat generated
by the system is what determines the airflow rate through the chassis.
That was my point, that with same amount of heat the same airflow is
needed to remove the heat at a constant rate.

When considering individual parts such as a video card, it's true that
these hot-spots need something done, but it doesn't, necessarily
require an increased rate of air intake and exhaust to the chassis.
You COULD do that to fix the problem, but it isn't manditory, and most
of all, not calling for all the changes made by BTX.

I do think AGP cards need their components on the other side of the
PCB, as I stated in a prior post,

I didn't see that but it's something I've long thought would be a good idea.

but what you need is a different
airflow path, not necessarily an increased rate of intake and exhaust

I *could* duct the air from the front fan toward the back of the case but
then my HDD would lack air-flow.

unless the card has insufficient heatsinking, a questionable heatsink?

The heatsink is (AFAICT) more than adequate, it's fairly massive and covers
the RAM chips, on both sides of the card.

They always seem to do something odd with their heatsinks... In a
standard ATX chassis my GF4 is running fine pretty far o'c.

Don't get me wrong, my GFX card runs fine. I'm probably being paranoid as I
have installed the hardware monitoring software that came with it and it
reports chip temp as (usually) being in the low 60s. It's alarm feature is
set as 72°C by default, it just doesn't seem like a large margin to me.

 

[~misfit~]

Crash course :

Start with a full-size ATX board. Swap mainboard back panel
connectors and expansion slots.* Move CPU to front edge of card
(roughly in the middle of the "front" edge), installed inline with
chipset(s) directly "behind" the CPU. Build a wind tunnel over CPU
and chipset(s) with airflow sucked in front and blown out the rear.
Move the memory slots so that they are installed width-wise, in front
of the board's back panel connectors. Drill a few extra holes
through the board to mount heavy components to the case. If you want
to make the board smaller, saw off all the expansion slots. (I'll bet
you think I made that up, don't you?) Now you know as much as the
Intel engineers who dictated it. -Dave

*Looking at top of board with expansion slots to the left, the
expansion slots are on the "top" of the left edge and the connectors
are on the "bottom" of the left edge.

Thanks. Is there a web page detailing the system requirements?

 

[~misfit~]

Well, it just so happens that with BTX, you basically ARE putting
components in a "tube" - a "linear situation". There are still dead
spots, but basically they're where you want them, and virtually all
the airflow is directed in line over the crucial components. The
coolest air (the air first coming in the case) immediately hits the
CPU, through a funnel. It then goes directly over the video
components. The design is simply different than ATX.

And it cools my 10,000rpm HDDs too?

 

[~misfit~]

~misfit~, I use one of these
http://www.zalman.co.kr/english/product/cnpsvga3.htm
to circulate the air around the graphics card. It should help to even
out the temperatures in the lower part of the case. Your plan for an
intake fan would work, but this is an idea that is an alternative to
cutting another hole in your case.

Thanks for that, it's given me an idea or two. I'll probably still cut a
hole in my case though and put a quiet fan in there. I like to move as much
(cool) air through my case as possible, I'm running an XP1800+ at 200FSB and
a 10.5 multiplier, 1.80vcore, she gets pretty warm. ;-)

 

[Dave C.]

Thanks. Is there a web page detailing the system requirements?
http://www.formfactors.org/

(BTX is currently the top headline here)

 

[Dave C.]

And it cools my 10,000rpm HDDs too?

That's just it . . . the new form factor is slightly better at cooling the
CPU, but doesn't do diddly squat for the rest of the system, as far as
cooling goes. -Dave

 

[jeffc]

The amount of airflow required for the rest

I have a stack of those systems with only power supply exhaust... they
were OEM and shop builds, which died.

Well there ya go. ATX systems.

BTX, but the difference is slight, not enough to switch once we had
one or the other.

OK so we agree. But keep in mind your point of view - you're basically an
enthusiast, who can open his ATX case and verify there is decent airflow,
and tweak something if not.

I am considering the future. I don't want the precedent set (or
rather, continued) that we'll all bare the burden for Intel's
decisions. I don't want time spent on the idea that we should be
accomodating additional heat generation inside a system instead of
reducing it.

I'd just like to point out that virtually *all* technology growth in this
country is based on capitalism. We have technological improvements because
it pays salaries, which are paid by consumers. Also, in the overall scheme
of things, home computers are in their infancy. I think a rough analogy
would be comparing a PC today to the state of automobiles in the year 1928.
They were probably based on Ford, but hey - Ford entered the market and took
their chances, so they deserve some reward. Now Ford owns only a fraction
of the market. I'm sure the "improvements" made from the 1927 models to the
1928 models are considered laughable now, but the baby steps had to be made,
and someone had to pay for them. I think in the future at some point people
will not understand how we could have dealt with all the hassles of internal
combustible engines with gasoline problems, having to change oil, etc.

 

[jeffc]

A heatsink is only a radiator, if it's in 'dead air' then it can't dissapate
the heat.

Home heat radiators are in "dead air" and they work. A heatsink in dead air
just doesn't work as well. But of course they are all the rage now in quiet
systems - Zalman video coolers come to mind.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

I'd just like to point out that virtually *all* technology growth in this
country is based on capitalism. We have technological improvements because
it pays salaries, which are paid by consumers. Also, in the overall scheme
of things, home computers are in their infancy. I think a rough analogy
would be comparing a PC today to the state of automobiles in the year 1928.
They were probably based on Ford, but hey - Ford entered the market and took
their chances, so they deserve some reward. Now Ford owns only a fraction
of the market. I'm sure the "improvements" made from the 1927 models to the
1928 models are considered laughable now, but the baby steps had to be made,

.... snip ...

I believe they included starter motor in place of crank, 3 speed
gear box in place of planetary gears, shift lever in place of
multiple pedals, 4 wheel brakes, doors with glass windows, new
engine, etc. A Model A was much different from a Model T.

Not much of this was new technology. However old Henry put them
all together and made the result to sell for a price. Future
changes were more gentle.

 

[V W Wall]

A heatsink is only a radiator, if it's in 'dead air' then it can't dissapate
the heat.

I've designed many electronic systems for use in spacecraft. They not only
have to work in "dead air" but also in "no air"!

I will admit it's easier if you can use convection in addition to radiation
and conduction. Maybe BTX will work better on Mars. ;-)

Virg Wall

 

[~misfit~]

Home heat radiators are in "dead air" and they work.

Exactly. They heat up the enclosure (room) that they are in.

 

[~misfit~]

http://www.formfactors.org/

(BTX is currently the top headline here)

Thank you.

 

[Matt]

... but the total heat generated
by the system is what determines the airflow rate through the chassis.
That was my point, that with same amount of heat the same airflow is
needed to remove the heat at a constant rate.

That is false.

The airflow needed depends on where the fans are placed.

If you were to remove the exhaust fan above your oven and reinstall it
in your bedroom window, and run it at the same speed and acheive the
same airflow, would the temperature in your house change? Would you be
removing heat at the same rate?

Have you looked inside a Dell Dimension 4500 or later? Have you
listened to one? It's hard to tell by listening that it's turned on.
Mine has a slow fan pulling air out through a hood above a passive CPU
heatsink on a 2.4G P4.

If you pull the heat out right at the source, and don't let hot air mix
with cool air, you can have a cool case with just one slow case fan and
no CPU fan.

 

[Matt]

Tell ya what . . . enclose your system (ATX, BTX, whatever) in a sealed
garbage bag and run it that way for a few hours. According to you, it
should be cooled just fine, as airflow through the chassis doesn't matter.

If the garbage bag does not cling to the air intakes or exhausts, the
rate of airflow through the chassis will not be affected.