Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel's BTX Form Factor Launched Today 201

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i'm-losing-track-of-all-these-form-factors dept.
Hack Jandy writes "It's been almost three years in the making, but Intel's BTX form factor finally has some retail products to show for itself. Anandtech has some extremely thorough benchmarks of the new technology and proves that BTX definitely shows an improvement over ATX for the same sized chassis. Anand claims BTX as a design win, "It's obvious why Intel waited for Monday morning to lift their BTX platform - they have a winner on their hands.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel's BTX Form Factor Launched Today More

Intel's BTX Form Factor Launched Today

Comments Filter:

  • Good for Intel... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jaredbpd ( 144090 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:36PM (#10821459)
    So far, it looks interesting. But I'm curious, it it's inteded competition the AMD64 platform boards, or will AMD have it's own version of BTX in the (near) future?

    • Re:Good for Intel... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:39PM (#10821497) Homepage Journal
      it may be a non starter judging by this article http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/6809 [techreport.com]

      "I've spoken with several sources here on the show floor from motherboard and enclosure makers who have all said the same thing: the BTX form factor is a non-starter on AMD systems. The problem seems to be the relative CPU and DIMM placement; the standard requires placement of DIMM sockets too far from the processor. With the Athlon 64's integrated memory controller, following the BTX spec becomes very difficult. Of course, BTX is Intel's spec, but it is also a proposed industry standard. Motherboard and enclosure makers are worrying out loud about the inventory control and design problems that may be caused by the extended coexistence of the ATX and BTX standards."

      • Tinfoil Hat Time (Score:3, Interesting)

        by OverlordQ ( 264228 )
        The problem seems to be the relative CPU and DIMM placement; the standard requires placement of DIMM sockets too far from the processor. With the Athlon 64's integrated memory controller, following the BTX spec becomes very difficult. Of course, BTX is Intel's spec, but it is also a proposed industry standard.

        Anybody else think Intel did this on purpose?

        • Re:Tinfoil Hat Time (Score:5, Interesting)

          by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @02:00PM (#10821715) Journal
          Maybe AMD should create a competing form factor, which has some improvements over BTX (someone already mentioned the connectors), and works for both AMD and Intel (and is explicitly marketed as such)?

          • Re:Tinfoil Hat Time (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @02:18PM (#10821890) Homepage
            and works for both AMD and Intel (and is explicitly marketed as such)

            I don't see why AMD would want to do Intel's homework form, especially after Intel has done this to AMD-64. But making it an open standard and not preventing Intel from developing competing, compatible systems would be OK. I doubt if they develop a new form factor that they'd do this, either, but you never know.

            As long as the PSU requirements are the same, and they'll fit whatever case I buy, I don't think it matters a whole lot where they place components on the motherboard, as long as it works from the standpoint of their own engineering requirements.

            Trying to make compromises so that mobo layouts are identical between AMD-64 and Intel systems is bound to be non-optimal for both, and is thus a pretty pointless endeavor, and thus almost guaranteed to be on the market in the next 12-18 months.
            • It's not about doing Intel's homework, but about a design which explicitly allows to design mainboards for Intel processors (after all, the noted BTX problem isn't that Intel didn't design an AMD mainboard for BTX, but that the spec make it close to impossible to design one). And the point of this is that case manufacturers will more likely want to build cases which work for both, than cases which only work for one of them. Which IMHO would give a form factor which at least allows this a competitive advanta

        • Re:Tinfoil Hat Time (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SpookyFish ( 195418 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @02:12PM (#10821823)
          On purpose or not, it seems pretty short-sighted. What happens when Intel wants the advantages of an integrated memory controller?

          Then again, they can just change the spec again and make more money off new boards and chipsets. Ahh, well.

        • Re:Tinfoil Hat Time (Score:4, Informative)

          by LuxuryYacht ( 229372 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @03:09PM (#10822441) Homepage
          It's not really a problem to have an AMD cpu with integrated memory controller in the BTX form factor. The AMD cpu would be located more centered to the board and memory slots while being rotated 45 degrees from the Intel cpu orientation.
          The AMD design would still meet all the mechanical requirements of the BTX form factor.

    • They almost do. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Imazalil ( 553163 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:49PM (#10821627)
      It seems that you can almost get something similar for AMD platforms, and existing Intel ones as well. Some new cases flip the mobo upside down in the case and put it at the top, while moving the power supply to the bottom. Obviously not quite as good as a whole re-design like BTX but it seems to help quite a bit.

      see: Lian Li PC-V1000 (I think Anand may have a review too)
      • if that's all it takes, couldn't you just take an ordinary case and turn it upside down? (After turning all of the cd/dvd drives "right side up", of course)
        • not exactly.. It's more about the placement of fans within the case, and the dead air pockets. Placing the CPU nearer to the bottom of the PC will expose it to front cooling air, and instead of having the "bent s" shape airflow, has a more linear air flow, which should increase the thermal capacity of the air (it should be warmed up less by the time it gets to the CPU). Along with that, the dead air pocket is now at the absolute top of the case, which, coupled with a good top vent, allows for a more open, e

    • Re:Good for Intel... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by freddig ( 831274 )
      When will they design a decent mainboard layout. Start by putting the processor on the backside of the board, which will make cooling much easier and much more silent. J.

  • Good design, but poor implementation. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:38PM (#10821486)
    Balanced Technology eXtended (BTX) Form Factor has a lot going for it over ATX (Advanced Technology eXtended) form factor. However all the refrence boards I've seen have fewer expansion and memory slots then the average ATX board. It seems that BTX is more of a replacement for the now defunt NLX format then it is a replacement for the well entrenched ATX.

    However time may prove me wrong on this (hell, I backed Beta vs VHS).

  • BTX cases? Did they finally fix those case wires? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VE3ECM ( 818278 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:40PM (#10821498)
    I took a look at the article... flipped to the section on the sample AOpen case.

    What I'm curious to know is if these guys FINALLY got rid of those god-awful nests of wires that you have to plug into the mobo for power, HDD LED, etc.

    God, I hate those things. You either have to spend 15 min. reading the Engrish on the mobo manual to try and figure out which is which, or just cross your fingers and hope for the best.

    A molex-type connector (or something along those lines) would make my life a lot easier.

    Anyone know?

  • Wow! (Score:2, Funny)

    by omghi2u ( 808195 )
    I really like the size of this thing.

    I can already see it...the lunchbox laptop!

  • Does this really add anything? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:43PM (#10821536) Homepage Journal
    I've looked at it semi-seriously and most of it seems to be only tweaks on ATX while being intentionally incompatibile. Most of those tweaks can and have been done already, and IMO, BTX is mostly unnecessary.

    I personally was slow to accept ATX simply because I had a legacy case and didn't want to upgrade for the sake of an upgrade. Now I have a small number of ATX based computers and I don't see the point of scrapping the entire system, possibly save for the drives, just to go to BTX. I bet most BTX boards will be pretty exclusive to PCIe or only provide a minimum of legacy PCI slots. With existing ATX boards and cases, I can at least keep more of my PCI cards becase most of them don't have PCIe equivalents and they still work.
    • that's not ENTIRELY true.

      BTX also mandates where the CPU and video card sit so they cool more efficiently.
      • I have an ATX based workstation that predates the conception of BTX that actually does similar things to help keep the video and CPU(s) cool.

        The specification of CPU location could be added to ATX without having to go to a new standard. PCIe could have used the old ISA slot location such that we could choose whether to fill any given slot with PCIe or PCI, and it would have still fit the "new" cooling methods.
        • The point is, that structural changes were made to the ATX platform. To make those kinds of changes standard, they have to make new standards.
          • I still don't believe that those changes necessated completely scrapping the ATX standard, even the heat sink mounts could have been put in. Make it ATX 3.0 or whatever the next revision would have been.

            The new method of positioning and cooling the video card is odd, but nothing that couldn't have been added to ATX just as easily.

    • Re:Does this really add anything? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      and here i Sit with a couple of ISA multiport serial cards and a 8 port 56K V90 modem card that is also ISA.

      as well as the myriad of horribly expensive data collection and supervisory control cards that are also ISA.

      and now they want to get rid of PCI? no thanks.

      Changing things for the sake of changing them is stupid. espically cince every motherobard made still has a northbrige with an isa bus, just no ports on the motherboard.

      Someone make me a USB or firewire device that has 3 isa slots so I can us
      • Actually that's incorrect. Most motherboards connect to their SuperIO chips using LPC (Low Pin Count Bus) which is similar to ISA in some ways, but only requires about 6 traces on the motherboard, IIRC.

        Also, PCIe isn't change for the sake of change. It's an attempt to provide us with a cross-industry (servers, workstations, home PCs) expansion bus that will handle devices that PCI simply cannot (e.g. gigabit ethernet) and unify the graphics and expansion busses once more.

        I certainly don't want honking

  • Benchmarks? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpinyNorman ( 33776 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:46PM (#10821575)
    Seems like the story is confusing the benchmarks on the 3.8G P4 570J that are linked at the beginning of the BTX review with the BTX review itself.

    The BTX is just a PC form factor - it may help your PC run a bit cooler, but it won't make it any faster.

    • Re:Benchmarks? (Score:5, Funny)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:47PM (#10821598) Journal
      The BTX is just a PC form factor - it may help your PC run a bit cooler, but it won't make it any faster.

      Only a new paint job and a snazzy window applique can do that!

    • Re:Benchmarks? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by interiot ( 50685 )
      When components start getting hotter than your average cooling system can handle, to the point where slowing down the CPU whenever possible is a major part of the cooling system, then cooler DOES mean faster. This has long been the case in the laptop world, but this article implies this might start becoming the case with future desktop CPUs as well, since the trend seems to be that all components are getting hotter over time.
    • Google define:benchmark [google.ca]

      "A measurement or standard that serves as a point of reference by which process performance is measured."

      Where does it say that a benchmark applies only to processing speed? There are quantitative things to benchmark with a case (heat dissipation, airflow, etc.) just like there are quantitative things to benchmark with a processor. Plus, there are many qualitative features like ease of assembly and layout that can be benchmarked, though not objectively.

  • In a nutshell (Score:5, Informative)

    by echocharlie ( 715022 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:48PM (#10821599) Homepage
    Grabbed from Koan Computers [koancomputers.com]: BTX - What is it BTX is the new computer case form factor that is replacing the aging ATX form factor. Some highlights of BTX are: BTX stands for Balanced Technology eXtended. BTX is being developed by Intel but will be supported across all platforms. BTX will initially have 3 sizes - BTX, microBTX and picoBTX. BTX is designed from the ground up with noise reduction in mind. PS2 connectors, Serial Ports, and Parallel Ports - all replaced by USB. PCI Express slots instead of AGP, PCI, or ISA. 20pin power supply will remain compatible with ATX, with the addition of 3.3v connectors for Serial ATA.

    • Re:In a nutshell (Score:2, Interesting)

      by masterofsw ( 702685 )
      Interesting. I hate to see MORE of the serial and parallel ports disappearing. As a embeeded systems developer, I NEED serial and parallel ports to interface with hardware. I already have a hard time with the one serial port the ATX machines have now. We constantly have to buy add on cards and USB to serial converters. We need a macroBTX form factor for those of us that need all the extras. You would think those guys at Intel would understand.
    • What's with getting rid of PS/2 ports? They just work, and they do their job well. While most people don't use serial and parallel ports, many people still use PS/2. Many OEM systems still ship with PS/2 keyboards and mice. It seems like they are dumping them just for the sake of dumping them more than anything else.
      • $10 gets you a USB to PS2 adapter. At least USB mice have been around forever. Keyboards are bit more flaky, but if the BIOS handles it correctly you shouldn't have a problem.

  • I hearby dub thee... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:55PM (#10821672)
    ...with your new nickname that the industry will forever recognize...

    ButToX

  • What about SMP? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:58PM (#10821695)
    BTX doesn't look like it allows for multi-processor boards. Is intel pusing towards a world where SMP is via multi-core CPUs only?
    • Actuall the Second CPU is put on some riser, I can't find the link off-hand but I remember see'ing it in one of the Previous BTX Stories.
    • What possible motivation could there be for that? Intel has a vested interest in SMP systems, as they get double or more the money they normally would. Even multicore CPUs won't get them that.

      That said, ATX doesn't provide for SMP either. You need to go to a different form factor, EATX (for Extended), to do that. I expect we'll see an EBTX eventually. Just not now.

      It makes sense to roll things out in this order. You can only do Intel-style SMP with Xeons, which also want a special (24-pin) power c

      • as they get double or more the money they normally would. Even multicore CPUs won't get them that.

        I expect that multi-core chips will cost exponentially more than multiple single core chips.
    • Someone already mentioned that there is a design for putting a second CPU in the same "wind tunnel" as the 1-cpu design, but is there any reason there cannot be a BTX-SMP that simply puts multiple processors side-by-side -- like the Mac G5 design -- and adds a few inches in length to board to accomodate the second "wind tunnel?"
  • So the major gain of BTX is heat savings. Can we translate this into a meaningful improvement to homebuilt PVRs like MythTV? The improved design should mean you can run a faster CPU or use quieter fans. Especially for a device that you might like to keep 'on' at all times, I'd imagine that a quiter fan would be a nice win for those playing at home.

    Anyone planning on picking one up and trying it out?

  • a winner? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drew ( 2081 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @02:32PM (#10822045) Homepage
    let me get this straight....

    intel has introduced a new form factor standard
    a) that amd can't follow because their memory controller is integrated into the cpu and the btx standard specifies that the memory must be too far away from the cpu, and in an orientation that would make equal length traces almost impossible
    b) whose sole purpose is to provide additional cooling capacity to a processor that ran way hotter than anyone expected, and that intel has now announced will be phased out in favor of the p3 descended pentium-m

    and somehow this is a winner? btx will die off with the prescott's. i give it 2 years max.

    • Re:a winner? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @03:51PM (#10822868)
      whose sole purpose is to provide additional cooling capacity to a processor that ran way hotter than anyone expected, and that intel has now announced will be phased out in favor of the p3 descended pentium-m

      Good point. To add: The new BTX for allows for supposed better cooling because of the arrangement of components on the board. However how much of that extra cooling is due to the new CPU fan orientation.

      Currently most fans are mounted so that air flow is perpendicular to the board. So cases need additional fans to move air parallel to the board (intake and exhaust). There are some CPU fans like the Jet [compgeeks.com]that are mounted the same way the new BTX fans are mounted.

      This isn't new or innovative. Sun has mounted their CPU fans like this for years and even designed their computer so that there is a channel of air for just the CPUs. The Apple G5s and iMac G5 are also designed this way. With BTX there is the parallel flow but no channel so I would not assume that the cooling is as effective.

      • another heatsink/fan that blows accross the cpu into it: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article182-page1.ht m l [silentpcreview.com]

        Also, even some x86 manufacturers have been using air channels for some time now. i have a dell poweredge at home with dual xeon 500's that has a special air channel to exhaust hot air from around the cpus directly out the back of the case, and separate fans to provide cooling air for the rest of the components inside the computer. of course, those are custom cases, and i doubt they even re
        • I forgot about the Dells, but your point is right that most of the cases that do this are custom cases. It really needs to be in the specification to allow case makers the option. Maybe some rails of some sort.
    • BTX was in development long before Prescott debuted at its insane temps. Of course, the P4 line had been running progressively hotter for years, so something did need to be done. The other improvements are significant; at least now case makers acknowledge that you can make a case that opens on the right hand side (not too hard with ATX; even puts the components side of PCI cards up!) so that you don't need to take your box off the desk for maintenance if you're a righty (I keep my box on the right of my des

  • This is necessary... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @03:04PM (#10822376) Journal
    You know, ATX systems could be designed well, and cooled appropirately... But absolutely nobody is doing so. Actually I think HP might be, but I don't know if their own workstations completely qualify as ATX.

    Anyhow, the locations for air intake and output are pretty close to standard, but manufacturers aren't taking advantage of it. CPUs and memory aren't put on a motherboard so they will be in-line with the air intake, and being cooled by the rear exhaust fans, or power supply fan. Instead, it's a hack-fest, with a bunch of fans inside the case, blowing hot air in circles, and hoping the case fans are 10xs more massive then they should need to be, to replenish the whole case with cool air every few seconds.

    You can take certain steps on your own, like ducting air from the intake, directly to your CPU, which will cool things down IMMENSELY, but will not help with your RAM, Videocard, etc., which need proper cooling as well.

    If you look at old DEC systems, you'll see they already had the cooling thing down to an art. 3 thermal zones, with very slow, quiet, thermo-controlled 80mm fans. They weren't ATX systems, however, and nobody adapted those ideas to PCs.

    So, while ATX can be pretty effecient, it isn't happening. If it takes a whole new form-factor to force manufacturers to get it done correctly, then I'm certainly willing to switch. BTX isn't ideal, but it's a big step up.

    And you can't say it's only Intel's problem. All processors put off a lot of heat, and with ATX you have to have several very loud fans just to fight against the heat. A better design means cooler, and quieter, whatever processor you use. Sure, maybe Intel will have to ignore the BTX specs on motherboard design where it will hurt them, but that's nothing new. ATX specified that power supply fans should blow air in, not out, but most everyone just ignored that, too.
    • Have you ever looked inside a Dell ATX box?

      Dell makes some very quiet workstation/PC boxes with ATX formfactors. Key is the temperature-sensitive fans, ducting, fanless CPU heatsink and baffling on the bezel to muffle noise out the front of the machine.

      Check out Silent PC's review [silentpcreview.com] or the Google cache [google.ca]. The versions we buy are slightly different than the one pictured there, but its a good article nonetheless.

      My home computer [mikebabcock.ca] is also a very quiet ATX box, using an Antec Sonata [antec.com] case, etc.

      • Dell makes some very quiet workstation/PC boxes with ATX formfactors.

        "quiet" is completely relative. All I can say is that they could be much quieter with a better design.

        Key is the temperature-sensitive fans, ducting, fanless CPU heatsink and baffling on the bezel to muffle noise out the front of the machine.

        All good features, no doubt, but not everything that could be done, nor the most effecient design.

        My home computer is also a very quiet ATX box, using an Antec Sonata case, etc.

        Looking at your

    • Allow me to issue a correction:

      Sure, maybe
      AMD will have to ignore the BTX specs on motherboard design where it will hurt them
    • If you look at old DEC systems, you'll see they already had the cooling thing down to an art. 3 thermal zones, with very slow, quiet, thermo-controlled 80mm fans. They weren't ATX systems, however, and nobody adapted those ideas to PCs.

      Yes, but that's because there were 250 person teams working on just the mechanical design of the "case" alone. And each of the competing! business groups in DEC (low end systems, midrange, highend, plus others) had their own engineers reinvent the wheel for every project, an

  • Intel is still clueless... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @03:06PM (#10822395) Homepage Journal

    From the company that brought us the CPU's that could double as toaster ovens, we now have the BTX. Let's see what improvements (ahem!) we can look forward to:

    • More heat: Rather than make the CPU run cooler, we'll redesign the motherboard to accommodate. Oh, and the design will *coincidentally* thwart faster processors by making the trace lengths unequal.
    • Fewer options: Windows is the dominate OS, so there's no need for more than one or two PCI cards. Who cares if the onboard peripherals don't support Linux - it's not like buyers would add a PCI card or two to improve performance or achieve interoperability...
    This board is a non-starter. The PC overtook the Mac because of the fact that it was more customizable (even if it was technically inferior). If people wanted a big company to restrict which hardware they run, they'd buy an Apple.
    • Windows is the dominate OS, so there's no need for more than one or two PCI cards. Who cares if the onboard peripherals don't support Linux - it's not like buyers would add a PCI card or two to improve performance or achieve interoperability...

      Wow. That's gotta be the biggest stretch of logic I've ever read. (disregarding stuff about WMDs)

      It's somehow Intel and Microsoft's fault that a completely functional PC can be bulilt with only a couple expansion slots, but that PC might not run Linux?

      Hell, my P
      • Hey just because you only use 1 expansion slot doesn't mean everyone else is just like you. Some of my machines are packed with SATA-addon cards. Unless the motherboard comes with 16 SATA connectors, I don't see how this would be possible without expansion slots.... then there's my security-camera computer where my slots are filled with composite-capture cards. Are they gonna come out with a BTX standard with 16 SATA connectors and 5-on-board bttv chips to support 20 composite-video connectors? yeah I
        • Did you also notice that in the midi tower configuration, the design gives 2 * 5 1/4 half heights (external), 1 * 3 1/2 (external), 2 * 3 1/2 internal. The air channel takes alot of space that is used in many peoples computers for hard disks. Also there is no fan in front of the hard disks, the temperature of those things these days I would not run a computer without a fan infront of the disks. I have to also admit I can not conviced about putting expansion cards at the top, cables from graphics cards etc c

  • Doh! (Score:2)

    by Espen ( 96293 )
    I went to a local 'Demo Day' last week where one of the local suppliers of all things PC had a BTX case they were showing off. I simply assumed these things had been out for a while, and noted that (this particular case) was wasting the raiser-board, since it didn't include a PCI slot which would have allowed the addition of a full height PCI card horizontally (the vertical slots were all half-height).

  • Real innovation would be to put the processor on the backside of the mainboard so that the case can be used as a huge heatsink. The graphics card should plug in horizontally, so that it can also use the case for cooling. I'm tired of those noisy power sucking machines. J/
    • Wouldn't that make it more succeptable to static discharge?

      Also, it's been a while since i built my last machine but I seem to remember that the motherboard *can't* touch the case. I assume that this has to do with grounding. It just sounds like a bad idea to have the computer touching the case. Then again, I'm not electrical engineer.
  • Pictures of the demo case in the article [anandtech.com]

    Is it just me, or does this case look like a throwback to the desktop models of the early nineties? (Especially if you can imagine a riser card to support full-height expansion slots.)

    Also, combine this trend in thermal mobo/case design with the pentium-M's coming out and you have a nice cold desktop computer just like we all had 12 years ago. Nice.

    All it would need is a 'turbo' switch on the front panel to make it fully retro-tastic. ;)

  • BTX another step towards workstation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kompiluj ( 677438 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @03:30PM (#10822662)
    The inside of the BTX case looks very similar to the workstation designs, especially those of SGI. I remember that the Indy workstation didn't have a single fan and was virtually noiseless due to correctly designed air ducts.
    PCI Express which is somewhat like SGI's crossbar (PCI Express uses switch instead of bus), AMD's on-CPU memory controllers with NUMA, SATA almost like SCSI, etc. made PC's more and more like workstations. I think that correct thermal design is the last and final thing and BTX is a big step in this direction.

  • Airflow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cimetmc ( 602506 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @04:02PM (#10822982)
    Am I the only one who thinks it's a bad idea to blow warm air into the user's face?
    For a tower model, this would of course not be an issue, but for a desktop model like the one presented in the article. the airflow out of the case might be such that it goes straight into the user's face.

    • Re:Airflow (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Attilla_The_Pun ( 525777 )
      Actually, this would be great for IT people.

      See, people LOVE to shove their mini-towers back into a corner of their desk where the hot air cannot escape. Generally, I've found they rarely put something blocking it in front.

      I know at work, because of the design of our cubes and user habits, we'd be better off having them feed from the back and blow out towards the front instead of the other way around.

      • Re:Airflow (Score:3, Informative)

        by virtual_mps ( 62997 )
        I know at work, because of the design of our cubes and user habits, we'd be better off having them feed from the back and blow out towards the front instead of the other way around.

        Of course, that would mean that the intake is coming from the nasty dust pile behind the system...could lead to a major buildup inside the case.

  • BTX is obviously NOT a great design. (Score:3, Funny)

    by rqqrtnb ( 753156 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @05:17PM (#10823718)
    Intel changes sockets, Mobo and other specs periodically to force people to update to their latest crap. Don't expect a rush to BTX. It's another Intel spec unlikely to ever gain foothold...

    For those who don't already know you can do wonders for ATX case cooling with "managed airflow". By actually directing incoming cool air to the heat sources and isolating the CPU fan from warm air in the case, no one really needs a BTX case and your PC will run much cooler with managed airflow.

    While Intel definitely needs a tornado inside a box to cool their defective 90 nm CPUs, the BTX standard is just another Intel marketing scam for all practical purposes.

    Just say NO!

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close