We first went hands-on with the C700P and H500P at Computex this year, and since then Cooler Master has been building excitement for their releases in a way that’s rare for enclosures. The C700P is one of the newest in the Cosmos line, which also recently added the Cosmos II 25th Anniversary Edition. Our initial review of the Cosmos C700P was conducted at PAX -- later renamed to "preview," because some struggling publications lamented the use of the words "initial review" -- and covered the case inversion process and other installation features. This is a follow-up to that, finalizing the thermal and acoustics analysis.
Cooler Master has revised their website since we mentioned the C700P in our Thermaltake View 71 TG review, correcting the its weight: it’s actually 49 pounds, not 58. The CM website had initially suggested the case would weigh 26.2kg but, after double-checking, we can say that the 22.2kg weight is accurate. Not that it’s a big difference, at that point.
For Steve’s take on the case, check the video below. The team’s written review of the case will continue after the specs listing.
EK’s Fluid Gaming liquid cooling kits target an entry-level, first-time loop-builder, strictly using aluminum across all Fluid Gaming components for reduced cost. This decision positions EK nearly against itself: The company has boasted copper loop materials as superior to CLCs for so long now that shipping an aluminum-built product has inspired official blog posts in defense of the choice. This is primarily one of cost, as opting for aluminum – much like the CLC makers – allows EK to sell entry-level, CPU-only kits in the sub-$200 market. The EK Fluid Gaming 240mm solution ships at $160 and includes a 240mm radiator, a standalone pump, soft tubing, coolant (but buy your own distilled water), two fans, fittings, and a CPU block. The result is a low-end open-loop starter pack that includes all necessary parts, but ultimately costs more than nearby CPU-only CLCs (like the H100iV2 at $110, the EVGA CLC 280 at $130, and the Kraken X62 at $156).
Of course, the idea is to go beyond CPU-only cooling: This starter kit is accompanied by a full Fluid Gaming version from EK, priced at $240 and equipped with a Pascal GPU block. In total, EK’s available Fluid Gaming kit options include:
Manufacturers apparently read our Dark Base Pro 900 review and took our “truly massive” description as a challenge: the case Thermaltake has sent us is fully plated in 5mm panes of glass, weighing 18.9kg (41.66 lbs) altogether, and we’ve got even heavier ones waiting in line. The Thermaltake View 71 TG is not the Core V71, it’s a whole new product more related to the Corsair 570X that we reviewed: a high-end case designed to push the limits of just how much glass a chassis can hold.
We’re reviewing the Thermaltake View 71 TG with the Corsair 570X alternative in mind, along with the freshly reviewed Be Quiet! Dark Base Pro 900 white edition. As usual, we’re looking at thermals and noise, with some additional testing done on optimal fan configuration with the View 71.
Our 7900X delidding benchmarks weren’t published by coincidence: Today, we’re expanding on our liquid metal vs. Intel TIM testing with the new Intel i9-7960X and i9-7980XE CPUs, the 16C and 18C Skylake-X parts, respectively. These CPUs are Intel’s highest multithreaded performers in this segment, and are priced alongside that status – the 7960X costs $1700, with the 7980XE at $2000.
Rather than focusing entirely on delidding and thermal benchmarks, we’ll also be including power testing and some production benchmarks (Blender, Premiere). This review of the Intel i9-7960X and i9-7980XE will primarily test thermals, power, delidded thermals, liquid metal thermals, rendering benchmarks, and some synthetics.
Recapping the previous test approach for delidding & liquid metal:
We’ve received a lot of requests from readers to review the Fractal Meshify C, and rightfully so. The case combines three things we’ve liked a lot recently: mesh front panels, tempered glass, and the Fractal Define C. We’ve been advocating cases with this style of cooling for a while now, like the SilverStone RL06, and so we had to put the Meshify through its paces in some real thermal tests.
Fractal’s naming system is getting a little cluttered: the Meshify C is 100% a Define C TG with an angular, “stealth-inspired” front panel that looks “like black diamond facets” (according to Fractal). It is a cool look, and it breaks away from the current trend of plain, flat front panels in a way that’s reminiscent of the Corsair SPEC-04. “C” is the model and Meshify is the series; Define cases focus on noise suppression, while Meshify cases (there’s only one so far) focus on cooling.
Our review of the Fractal Meshify C tests the case for thermals, noise suppression, and performance versus the Define C (and other cases). The Fractal Meshify C can be found on Amazon here, with the Define C here, just so we’re all on the same page.
This review will focus almost entirely on noise and thermals. There’s not much point to discussing ease of installation or build features, as all of those were already covered in our Define C review. The tooling is identical, nearly, it just comes down to the paneling. View our Define C review for the other half of the information.
The Be Quiet! Dark Base Pro 900 - White Edition is an upgraded but functionally similar version of the Dark Base 900, the highest of the high end Be Quiet! enclosures. The tagline for this model is “outstanding flexibility and silence,” referring to the fact that the motherboard can be inverted, a feature we previewed at Computex a year ago. We first spotted the white edition at this year’s Computex, where Be Quiet! was showing off the limited edition white variety.
The newest version of the case differs only from previous DBP 900 cases in its color, but as we never reviewed the original Dark Base Pro 900, we’ll be going through the complete review and benchmark today. This Dark Base Pro 900 review includes thermal testing for standard and inverted layouts, ventilation/duct testing, noise testing, and assembly.
Antec is a venerable company, founded in 1986, but they’ve been an infrequent guest to GamersNexus. We did a quick summary of the Performance One when it launched in 2012, were intrigued by the more recent Razer Cube, reviewed Antec’s 1250 highly, and reviewed the GX700. But that’s it--until now. Like many other manufacturers, Antec is now experimenting with sub-$100 tempered glass in their new P8 mid tower.
“Indecision” isn’t something we’ve ever titled a review, or felt in general about hardware. The thing is, though, that Vega is launching in the midst of a market which behaves completely unpredictably. We review products as a value proposition, looking at performance to dollars and coming to some sort of unwavering conclusion. Turns out, that’s sort of hard to do when the price is “who knows” and availability is uncertain. Mining does all this, of course; AMD’s launching a card in the middle of boosted demand, and so prices won’t stick for long. The question is whether the inevitable price hike will match or exceed the price of competing cards. NVidia's GTX 1070 should be selling below $400 (a few months ago, it did), the GTX 1080 should be ~$500, and the RX Vega 56 should be $400.
Conclusiveness would be easier with at least one unchanging value.
The launch of Threadripper marks a move closer to AMD’s starting point for the Zen architecture. Contrary to popular belief, AMD did not start its plans with desktop Ryzen and then glue modules together until Epyc was created; no, instead, the company started with an MCM CPU more similar to Epyc, then worked its way down to Ryzen desktop CPUs. Threadripper is the fruition of this MCM design on the HEDT side, and benefits from months of maturation for both the platform and AMD’s support teams. Ryzen was rushed in its weeks leading to launch, which showed in both communication clarity and platform support in the early days. Finally, as things smoothed-over and AMD resolved many of its communication and platform issues, Threadripper became advantaged in its receipt of these improvements.
“Everything we learned with AM4 went into Threadripper,” one of AMD’s representatives told us, and that became clear as we continued to work on the platform. During the test process for Threadripper, work felt considerably more streamlined and remarkably free of the validation issues that had once plagued Ryzen. The fact that we were able to instantly boot to 3200MHz (and 3600MHz) memory gave hope that Threadripper would, in fact, be the benefactor of Ryzen’s learning pains.
Threadripper will ship in three immediate SKUs:
Respectively, these units are targeted at price-points of $1000, $800, and $550, making them direct competitors to Intel’s new Skylake-X family of CPUs. The i9-7900X would be the flagship – for now, anyway – that’s being more heavily challenged by AMD’s Threadripper HEDT CPUs. Today's review looks at the AMD Threadripper 1950X and 1920X CPUs in livestreaming benchmarks, Blender, Premiere, power consumption, temperatures, gaming, and more.
AMD’s Ryzen lineup mirrors traits at both the R3 and R7 ranges, where both series of CPUs are effectively the same inter-lineup, but with different clock speeds. The R7 CPUs largely all clock to about the same area (+/-200MHz) and consist of the same features. The same can be said for the two R3 SKUs – the R3 1200 and R3 1300X – where the CPUs are functionally identical outside of frequency. This means that, like with the R7 1700, the R3 1200 has potential to challenge and replace the 1300X for users willing to overclock. Remember: A basic overclock on this platform is trivial and something we strongly encourage for our audience. The cost savings are noteworthy when driving an R7 1700 up to 1700X or 1800X levels, and the same can likely be said about the R3 1200.
That’s what we’re finding out today, after all. Our R3 1200 review follows the review of the 1300X and aims to dive into gaming performance, overclocking performance, production applications, and power consumption. Nearby CPUs of note include the 1300X, the Pentium G4560, the R5 series CPUs, and the i3 CPUs.
AMD’s R3 1200 is a $110 part, making it $20 cheaper than the R3 1300X and significantly cheaper than both the i5 and R5 CPUs. Frequency is also down: The R3 1200 clocks at 3.1GHz base / 3.4GHz boost on its 4C/4T design, lower than the R3 1300X that we just reviewed.
We moderate comments on a ~24~48 hour cycle. There will be some delay after submitting a comment.