Matthew Wilson 1 day ago Featured Tech News, General Tech
MSI has been dabbling in the world of all-in-one PCs for a while now and this week, we’re getting some brand new models. Today, MSI announced the Modern AM241 and Modern AM271 series of all-in-one PCs, featuring Intel 11th Gen processors.
The new Modern 24 and 27 series PCs are designed with efficiency and productivity in mind, while also looking rather elegant. Each system comes with an OPS display for wide viewing angles and better colours. Under the hood, you’ll find an Intel 11th Gen Core series processor, with MSI offering up to an Intel Core i7-1165G7, but Core i3 and Core i5 configurations are also available.
In the table below, you can see the full specification list for the MSI Modern AM241 and AM271 PCs:
Specification
Modern AM241
Modern AM241T
Modern AM241P
Modern AM241TP
Modern AM271
Modern AM271P
CPU
Up to Intel® Core™ i7-1165G7
OS
Windows 10 Home – MSI recommends Windows 10 Pro for business
23.8″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
23.8″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
27″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
27″ IPS Grade Panel LED Backlight (1920*1080 FHD) with MSI Anti-Flicker technology
TOUCH PANEL
Non-Touch for Modern AM241 /
In-cell 10-Point Touch for ModernAM241T
Non-Touch for Modern AM241P /
In-cell 10-Point Touch for ModernAM241TP
Non-Touch
Non-Touch
ADJUSTABLE STAND
-5° ~ 15° (Tilt)
-4° ~ 20° (Tilt) ;
0 ~ 130mm (Height)
-5° ~ 15° (Tilt)
-4° ~ 20° (Tilt) ;
0 ~ 130mm (Height)
OPTICAL DRIVE
N/A
AUDIO
2 x 2.5W Speakers
LAN
1 x RJ45 (10/100/1000)
WIRELESS LAN
Intel 9462 AC / AX201 AX (either one)
BLUETOOTH
5.1
USB 3.2 PORT
4 (2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type C, 2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A)
USB 2.0 PORT
3
HDMI IN
1
HDMI OUT
1
AUDIO
1x Mic-in/Headphone-out Combo
5-WAY NAVIGATOR
1
KEYBOARD / MOUSE
Optional
AC ADAPTER
90W / 120W (Core i3 above)
AIO WALL MOUNT KIT III
Support Standard VESA Mount (75x75mm)
DIMENSION (WXDXH)
541.40 x 175.09 x 406.86 mm (21.31 x 6.89 x 16.02 inch)
541.40 x 194.68 x 534.92 mm (21.31 x 7.66 x 21.06 inch)
611.75 x 169.96 x 436.06 mm (24.08 x 6.69 x 17.17 inch)
611.75 x 169.96 x 553.52 mm (24.08 x 6.69 x 21.79 inch)
NET WEIGHT
4.65 kg (10.25 lbs)
6.16 kg (13.58 lbs)
5.82 kg (12.83 lbs)
7.42 kg (16.36 lbs)
GROSS WEIGHT
7.35 kg (16.20 lbs)
8.45 kg (18.63 lbs)
8.60 kg (18.96 lbs)
10.00 kg (22.05 lbs)
With more people working from home and relying on virtual meetings, MSI has bumped up the specs of the webcam, delivering 1080p quality. The option to remove the webcam is also there for those concerned about privacy.
Using MSI Instant Display Technology, the Modern AM series can also be used as a standalone monitor for a second system, meaning you don’t have to boot up the PC hidden behind the display. These all-in-one systems also support using a second monitor through an additional HDMI output. Standard VESA mounts are supported for those who prefer having a monitor arm – MSI even has a ready to go solution for that with the VESA Arm MT81.
We’re still waiting on pricing and availability information, but we’ll update if/when we hear more. Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: Do any of you use an all-in-one PC for work at all? What do you think of the new MSI Modern series systems?
Become a Patron!
Check Also
Razer’s Orochi V2 is a compact wireless mouse with up to 900 hours of battery life
Razer is back with another gaming mouse this week. This time around, the Razer Orochi …
Tuesday’s Newegg shuffles always seem to have the most options, and today’s shuffle brings with it a sale on one of AMD’s best CPUs plus a wide selection of Nvidia’s best graphics cards. Only the former is up for grabs solo, but you’re still able to sign up for a chance to buy the Ryzen 9 5900X, RTX 3060, RTX 3070, RTX 3080 or RTX 3090 today. Plus, the Radeon RX 6800 XT is on offer today too, if you want to go for a pure AMD build.
While previous shuffles have had solo purchase options, consoles or bundles with monitors, today’s shuffle brings us back to motherboard, RAM and power supply pack-ins. They’re not overpriced, but you’re not saving anything on these components, either. Newegg is just tacking them on to hard-to-find graphics cards so that you have to buy one to get the GPU you’re probably actually here for.
That said, there is an option to buy a Ryzen 9 5900X on its own for $549 in today’s shuffle, which is probably the most enticing offer today. There’s also an RTX 3080 and 1440p @ 165Hz monitor bundle that’s up for grabs and is probably less likely to give you a redundant part than a motherboard bundle — who doesn’t want a second (or third) monitor?
Of course, you can also splurge on other graphics cards across Nvidia’s RTX 30-series lineup, and there’s even some pretty fancy third-party custom options with water cooling and RGB lighting available. Just be prepared to get a motherboard or other component with your GPU. The Radeon RX 6800 XT bundles also have some pretty swank looking gear from ASRock, plus it’s pretty high up in our GPU benchmarks hierarchy. Although, you’ll be trading away DLSS and some ray tracing capability if you go AMD.
While it’s true that the prices in Newegg Shuffles are higher than the MSRPs for these items, our eBay GPU pricing index shows that they’re still generally far lower than what you’re likely to get from scalpers. In most cases, even with the bundled components you’ll end up with a lower price than on eBay for just the GPU.
For those unfamiliar with the process, Newegg Shuffle uses a lottery format. Just select the component(s) you’d like to potentially buy. Then Newegg will hold a drawing later today, after which the ‘winners’ will be notified by email with the chance to purchase an item (only one) within a several-hour period. Based on our experience, you won’t get selected most of the time. But hey, it’s free to try.
Today’s complete options and prices consist of the following:
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X for $549
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X with Antec 550W Power Supply for $594
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X with Cooler Master Water Cooler for $679
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3060 Elite with Gigabyte B550 Aorus Elite Motherboard for $674
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3060 Elite with Gigabyte B550M Aorus Pro Micro ATX Motherboard for $644
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3060 Elite with Gigabyte B550 Gaming Motherboard for $719
MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Ventus OC with OLOy 2 x 8GB RAM for $844
MSI GeForce RTX 3070 Ventus OC with OLOy WarHawk RGB 2 x 8GB RAM for $839
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3070 with Gigabyte B550 Aorus Pro Motherboard for $994
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3070 with Gigabyte 750W Power Supply for $899
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3070 with Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite Motherboard for $994
Asus TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3080 with ASUS TUF Gaming 27 inch 1440p @ 165Hz Monitor for $1,409
Asus TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3080 with Asus Strix B550-F Gaming Motherboard for $1,269
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3080 Vision OC with Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master Motherboard for $1,454
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3080 Vision OC with Gigabyte Z490 Aorus Master Motherboard for $1,464
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 3080 Vision OC with Gigabyte 850W Power Supply for $1,229
ASRock Radeon RX 6800 XT with ASRock B550M Steel Legend Micro ATX Motherboard for $1,439
ASRock Radeon RX 6800 XT with ASRock Z490 Aqua Extended ATX Motherboard for $1,789
Gigabyte Geforce RTX 3090 Vision OC with Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master Motherboard for $2,504
Gigabyte Geforce RTX 3090 Vision OC with Gigabyte 850W Power Supply for $2,279
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3090 Xtreme Waterforce with Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master Motherboard for $2,704
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3090 Xtreme Waterforce with Gigabyte 850W Power Supply for $2,479
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3090 Xtreme Waterforce plus AIO Cooling System with Gigabyte 850W Power Supply for $2,479
Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 3090 Xtreme Waterforce plus AIO Cooling System with Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master Motherboard for $2,704
Regarding those pumped up prices, it’s worth noting that some of these components are also third-party custom options that generally include some extra features. It’s also unclear how much of the pricing increase comes direct from Newegg as opposed to from the AIB partners, though we do know that multiple GPU vendors announced higher prices due to increased tariffs several months ago.
With component shortages plaguing the PC industry, not to mention the smartphone and automotive industries, the latest word is that prices aren’t likely to return to ‘normal’ throughout 2021. If you can keep chugging along with whatever your PC currently has, that’s the best option, as otherwise prices are painful for all of the Nvidia Ampere and AMD RDNA2 GPUs.
Today’s Newegg shuffle starts at 1 pm EST/10 am PST. The Newegg Shuffle normally lasts for 2 hours, so if you’re interested in any of these components, act fast!
For other ways to get hard-to-find graphics cards, check out our RTX 3080 stock tracker and our feature on where to buy RTX 30-series cards. And for more Newegg savings, visit out page of Newegg promo codes.
G.SKILL is well known for its system memory and SSDs and has recently expanded into the peripheral market with gaming-oriented keyboards, mice, headsets, and more. It goes without saying that the company is well respected by the enthusiast community due in part to their high-quality memory. Regardless of whether it is their value lineup or Trident Z kits, the company’s entire portfolio of memory is well regarded. With a solid foundation to build from and a solid plan for expansion, which includes the recently announced ENKI series of liquid coolers, G.SKILL will continue to be a dominant force in the DIY PC market.
In today’s review, I put the G.SKILL ENKI 360 AIO through a battery of tests, comparing it to numerous high-end cooling solutions to see just what it’s capable of. While it does have an ARGB-illuminated pump, G.SKILL opted for black fans, giving the cooler a more subdued appearance. The company has also focused on the cooler’s performance by using a denser aluminium radiator for more surface area with fans that balance static pressure and airflow. That said, let’s take a closer look at what the G.SKILL ENKI 360 has to offer.
AMD’s EPYC Milan processors launched last month with 120 new world records to their credit in various applications, like HPC, Cloud, and enterprise workloads. But variants of these chips will eventually come to the market as Threadripper models for high end desktop PCs, and AMD’s server records don’t tell us too much about what we could expect from the PC chips. However, the company recently broke the Cinebench world record with its Milan chips, giving us an idea of what to expect in rendering work. Just for fun, we also ran a few tests on Intel’s new flagship 40-core Ice Lake Xeon chips to see how they stack up against not only AMD’s new record it set with the server chips, but also a single AMD Threadripper processor.
During the latest episode of AMD’s The Bring Up YouTube video series, the company took two of its $7,980 EPYC Milan 7763 chips for a spin in Cinbench R23, a rendering application that AMD commonly uses for its desktop PC marketing (largely because it responds exceedingly well to AMD’s Zen architectures).
As a quick reminder, AMD’s flagship 7763 server chips come armed with the 64 Zen 3 cores and 128 threads apiece and have a 2.45 GHz base and 3.5 GHz boost frequency. All told, we’re looking at a Cinebench run with 128 cores and 256 threads, which you can see in the tweet below:
So sieht das aus, wenn sich 2x 64 Zen-3-Kerne durch den Cinebench R23 fressen. pic.twitter.com/o9jiZeKPlRApril 15, 2021
See more
The dual 7763’s scored 113,631 points, while the previous world record weighed in at 105,570 (as per HWBot rankings). AMD says it used a reference server design with conventional air cooling for the test run, so there were no special accommodations or overclocking. The system peaked at 85C and 403W during the test run. Here’s AMD’s official HWBot world record submission.
1K Unit Price / RCP
Cores / Threads
Base / Boost – All Core (GHz)
L3 Cache (MB)
TDP (W)
AMD EPYC Milan 7763
$7,890
64 / 128
2.45 / 3.5
256
280
Intel Xeon Platinum 8380
$8,099
40 / 80
2.3 / 3.2 – 3.0
60
270
That isn’t much info to work with, but it’s enough for us to set up our own test. We ran a few tests with a dual Xeon 8380 Ice Lake Xeon server we used for our recent review. Much like AMD’s test system, this is a standard development design with air cooling (more details in the review). The Xeon system houses two $8,099 10nm Ice Lake Xeons with 40 cores 80 threads apiece that operate at a 2.3 GHz base and 3.2 GHz boost frequency. Yes, AMD’s Milan outweighs the Xeon system, but the Ice Lake 8380 is Intel’s highest-end part, and both chips come with comparable pricing.
We’re looking at the EPCY Milan server with 128 cores and 256 threads against the Intel Ice Lake system with 80 cores and 160 threads. Our quick tests here are not 100% like-for-like so take these with a grain of salt, though we did our best to match AMD’s test conditions. Here are our test results, with a few extras from the HWBot benchmark database mixed in:
Cinebench Benchmarks
Score
Cooling
Chip Price
2x AMD EPYC Milan 7763
113,631
Air
$15,780
1x Threadripper 3990X (Splave)
105,170
Liquid Nitrogen (LN2)
$3,990
2x EPYC 7H12
92,357
Air
?
2x Intel Xeon Platinum 8380
74,630
Air
$17,000
1x Threadripper 3990X (stock)
64,354
All-In-One (AIO) Liquid Cooling
$3,990
As you can see, in Cinebench R23, the dual EPYC Milan 7763’s are 34% faster than the dual Ice Lake Xeon 8380’s. AMD lists a 403W peak power consumption during its tests, but we assume those measurements are for the processors only (and perhaps only a single processor). In contrast, our power measurement at the wall for the Xeon 8380 server weighed in at 1154W, but that includes a beastly 512GB of memory, other platform additives, and VRM losses, etc., meaning it’s just a rough idea of power consumption that isn’t comparable to the EPYC system.
Naturally, Cinebench R23 results have absolutely no bearing on the purchasing decision for a data center customer, but it is an interesting comparison. Notably, a single Threadripper 3990X, when pressed to its fullest with liquid nitrogen by our resident overclocking guru Splave, still beats the two Xeon Platinum 8380’s, though the 8380’s pull off the win against an air-cooled 3990X at stock settings (measured in our labs).
Finally, we decided to see how two Ice Lake Xeon 8380’s compare against a broader set of processors. Intel suffered quite a bit of embarrassment back at AMD’s launch of the 64-core Threadripper 3900X for high-end desktop PCs, as this $3,990 processor (yes, just one) beat two of Intel’s previous-gen 8280 Xeons in a range of threaded workloads. Intel’s Xeon’s weighed in at $20,000 total and represented the company’s fastest server processors. Ouch.
In fact, those benchmark results were so amazing that we included an entire page of testing in our Threadripper 3990X review comparing two of Intel’s fire-breathing behemoths to AMD’s single workstation chip, which you can see here. As a bit of a redux, we decided to revisit the standings with a quick run of Cinebench R20 with the new Intel 10nm Xeons. Notably, this test is with an older version of the benchmark than we used above, but that’s so we can match our historical data in the chart below:
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Unfortunately, we don’t have a dual-socket EPYC Milan 7763 system to add to our historical test results here, but we get a good enough sense of Ice Lake’s relative positioning with this chart. The two Intel Ice Lake 8380’s, which weigh in at $17,000, beat the single $3,990 Threadripper 3900X at stock settings. That’s at least better than the dual 8280’s that lost so convincingly in the past.
However, a quick toggle of the PBO switch, which is an automated overclocking feature from AMD that works with standard cooling solutions (no liquid nitrogen required), allows a single Threadripper 3990X to regain the lead over Intel’s newest 10nm flagships in this test. Intel’s latest chips also can’t beat AMD’s previous-gen EPYC Rome 7742’s, which are 64-core chips.
Of course, this single benchmark has almost no bearing on the enterprise market that the Ice Lake chips are destined for, and the latest Xeon’s do make solid steps forward in a broader range of tests that do matter, which you can see in our Ice Lake 8380 review.
Announced back at CES 2021, MSI has finally released the water-cooled RTX 3080 Sea Hawk X. Featuring a two-part cooling system, the RTX 3080 Sea Hawk X was designed to operate silently even at full load.
The cooling system consists of a 240mm aluminium radiator cooled by 2x 120mm fans and a blower-style cooler on top of the PCB. There’s also a low-profile pump designed by Asetek to spread coolant through the system. This pump is integrated into the cold plate, resulting in fewer connectors and increased reliability. Below the pump, there’s a micro-fin copper base covering the GPU and VRAM, which should help to further reduce temperatures. The last component of the cooling system is the metal backplate, which protects the PCB, helps with passive cooling, and gives a clean look to the card.
Thanks to Zero Frozr technology, the RTX 3080 Sea Hawk X’s fans do not spin unless strictly necessary. At low loads, the fans do not spin to reduce noise, but once the load increases, the fans start to spin to keep temperatures in check.
The MSI RTX 3080 Sea Hawk X comes factory-overclocked at 1785MHz, a 75MHz boost over reference values. The 10GB of GDDR6X is set at stock settings. The card is powered by 2x 8-in power connectors and features 3x DisplayPorts 1.4 and an HDMI 2.1 port.
KitGuru says: Have you ever owned an AIO water-cooled graphics card? What do you think about its cooling performance? Would you think about getting an MSI RTX 3080 Sea Hawk X for your gaming system?
Become a Patron!
Check Also
Acer planning a 49-inch Mini LED monitor to rival Samsung Odyssey G9
It looks like the Samsung Odyssey G9 already has some competition. A new curved gaming …
Home/Component/Cases/CoolerMaster releases the MasterBox 540 and MasterBox MB600L V2
João Silva 1 day ago Cases, Featured Tech News
CoolerMaster is adding two new cases to its vast portfolio – the MasterBox 540 for RGB-lovers and the MasterBox MB600L V2 for those who prefer a minimalistic design.
The CoolerMaster MasterBox 540 has a unique ARGB ether front panel to create a dazzling display of colours. Users can choose to customise the RGB lighting through the included controller or sync it with the motherboard and other components. The front panel comes with a USB-C 3.2 (Gen 2) port, 2x USB-A 3.2 (Gen 1) ports, and a 3.5mm headset jack.
The top panel can be removed to improve access to the system, which is particularly useful when you have to install an AIO cooler. The tempered glass side panel can also be easily removed thanks to its screwless and tool-free design. On the inside, users can install 410mm long GPUs, 165mm tall CPU coolers, 2x 360mm radiators, and up to 7x 120mm fans.
Featuring a more subtle design, the MasterBox MB600L V2 features a brushed front panel with side mesh intakes and CoolerMaster’s hexagon logo. If you install an RGB fan on the front panel behind the hexagon, the colours shine through. There will be a version with ODD support and another without, where the first is slightly deeper. Moreover, there will be a tempered glass side panel and steel side panel model.
The MasterBox MB600L V2 offers plenty of support for cooling components, allowing users to install up to 6x fans and front and top radiators, although radiator sizes differ on whether you pick up the ODD version or the standard version. Inside the case, there’s also support for 400mm long GPUs and 161mm tall coolers. Users can also remove the included HDD cage to increase compatibility with longer PSUs.
Both cases are available now. The MasterBox 540 is priced at £109.99, and the MasterBox MB600L V2 at £49.99 with a steel panel and £54.99 with a tempered glass panel.
KitGuru says: Are many of you shopping around for a new PC case at the moment? What do you think of the two latest Cooler Master MasterBox cases?
Become a Patron!
Check Also
Acer planning a 49-inch Mini LED monitor to rival Samsung Odyssey G9
It looks like the Samsung Odyssey G9 already has some competition. A new curved gaming …
The Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X rivalry is a heated battle for supremacy right in the heart of the mid-range CPU market. AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors took the lead in the desktop PC from Intel’s competing Comet Lake processors last year, upsetting our Best CPU for gaming recommendations and our CPU Benchmarks hierarchy. Intel’s response comes in the form of its Rocket Lake processors, which dial up the power to extreme levels and bring the new Cypress Cove architecture to the company’s 14nm process as Intel looks to upset AMD’s powerful Zen 3-powered Ryzen 5000 chips.
Intel has pushed its 14nm silicon to the limits as it attempts to unseat the AMD competition, and that has paid off in the mid-range where Intel’s six-core Core i5-11600K weighs in with surprisingly good performance given its $232 to $262 price point.
Intel’s aggressive pricing, and the fact that the potent Ryzen 5 5600X remains perpetually out of stock and price-gouged, has shifted the conversation entirely. For Intel, all it has to do is serve up solid pricing, have competitive performance, and make sure it has enough chips at retail to snatch away the win.
We put the Core i5-11600K up against the Ryzen 5 5600X in a six-round faceoff to see which chip takes the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. Let’s see how the chips stack up.
Features and Specifications of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K
Rocket Lake Core i5-11600K vs AMD Zen 3 Ryzen 5 5600X Specifications and Pricing
Suggested Price
Cores / Threads
Base (GHz)
Peak Boost (Dual/All Core)
TDP
iGPU
L3
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
$299 (and much higher)
6 / 12
3.7
4.6
65W
None
32MB (1×32)
Intel Core i5-11600K (KF)
$262 (K) – $237 (KF)
6 / 12
3.9
4.6 / 4.9 (TB2)
125W
UHD Graphics 750 Xe 32EU
12MB
The 7nm Ryzen 5 5600X set a new bar for the mid-range with six Zen 3 cores and twelve threads that operate at a 3.7-GHz base and 4.6-GHz boost frequency. Despite AMD’s decision to hike gen-on-gen pricing, the 5600X delivered class-leading performance at its launch, not to mention a solid price-to-performance ratio. Things have changed since then, though, due to overwhelming demand coupled with pandemic-spurred supply chain disruptions, both of which have combined to make finding the Ryzen 5 5600X a rarity at retail, let alone at the suggested $299 pricing.
Intel’s Core i5-11600K also comes with six cores and twelve threads, but Team Blue’s chips come with the new Cypress Cove architecture paired with the aging 14nm process. Intel has tuned this chip for performance; it weighs in with a 3.9-GHz base, 4.9-GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, and 4.6-GHz all-core clock rates. All of these things come at the expense of power consumption and heat generation.
Intel specs the 14nm 11600K at a 125W TDP rating, but that jumps to 182W under heavy loads, while AMD’s denser and more efficient 7nm process grants the 5600X a much-friendlier 65W TDP rating that coincides with a peak of 88W. We’ll dive deeper into power consumption a bit later, but this is important because the Core i5-11600K comes without a cooler. You’ll need a capable cooler, preferably a 280mm liquid AIO or equivalent air cooler, to unlock the best of the 11600K.
Meanwhile, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X comes with a bundled cooler that is sufficient for most users, though you would definitely need to upgrade to a better cooler if you plan on overclocking. Additionally, a more robust cooler will unlock slightly higher performance in heavy work, like rendering or encoding. Still, you’d need to do that type of work quite regularly to see a worthwhile benefit, so most users will be fine with the bundled cooler.
Both the Core i5-11600K and Ryzen 5 5600X support PCIe 4.0, though it is noteworthy that Intel’s chipset doesn’t support the speedier interface. Instead, devices connected to Intel’s chipset operate at PCIe 3.0 speeds. That means you’ll only have support for one PCIe 4.0 m.2 SSD port on your motherboard, whereas AMD’s chipset is fully enabled for PCIe 4.0, giving you more options for a plethora of faster devices.
Both chips also support two channels of DDR4-3200 memory, but Intel’s new Gear memory feature takes a bit of the shine off Intel’s memory support. At stock settings, the 11600K supports DDR4-2933 in Gear 1 mode, which provides the best latency and performance for most tasks, like gaming. You’ll have to operate the chip in Gear 2 mode for warrantied DDR4-3200 support, but that results in performance penalties in some latency-sensitive apps, like gaming, which you can read about here.
For some users, the 11600K does have a big insurmountable advantage over the Ryzen 5 5600X: The chip comes with the new UHD Graphics 750 comes armed with 32 EUs based on the Xe graphics engine, while all Ryzen 5000 processors come without integrated graphics. That means Intel wins by default if you don’t plan on using a discrete GPU.
Notably, you could also buy Intel’s i5-11600KF, which comes with a disabled graphics engine, for $25 less. At $237, the 11600KF looks incredibly tempting, which we’ll get to a bit later.
Winner: AMD
The Ryzen 5 5600X and the Core i5-11600K are close with six cores and twelve threads (and each of those cores has comparable performance), but the 5600X gets the nod here due to its bundled cooler and native support for DDR4-3200 memory. Meanwhile, the Core i5-11600K comes without a cooler, and you’ll have to operate the memory in sub-optimal Gear 2 mode to access DDR4-3200 speeds, at least if you want to stay within the warranty.
The Core i5-11600K comes with integrated graphics, so it wins by default if you don’t plan on using a discrete GPU. Conversely, you can sacrifice the graphics for a lower price point. AMD has no high-end chips that come with integrated graphics, though that will change by the end of the year when the Ryzen 5000 Cezanne APUs arrive.
Gaming Performance on AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i9-11600K
The Ryzen 5 and Core i5 families tend to be the most popular gaming chips, and given the big architectural advances we’ve seen with both the Zen 3 and Cypress Cove architectures, these mid-range processors can push fast GPUs along quite nicely.
That said, as per usual, we’re testing with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 to reduce GPU-imposed bottlenecks as much as possible, and differences between test subjects will shrink with lesser cards, which you’ll see most often with this class of chip, or higher resolutions. Below you can see the geometric mean of our gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p, with each resolution split into its own chart. PBO indicates an overclocked Ryzen configuration. You can find our test system details here.
Image 1 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 18
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
At stock settings at 1080p, the Core i5-11600K notches an impressive boost over its predecessor, the 10600K, but the Ryzen 5 5600X is 7.8% faster over the full span of our test suite. Overclocking the 11600K brings it up to snuff with the stock Ryzen 5 5600X, but the overclocked 5600X configuration is still 3.6% faster.
As you would expect, those deltas will shrink tremendously with lesser graphics cards or with higher resolutions. At 1440p, the stock 5600X is 3.3% faster than the 11600K, and the two tie after overclocking.
Flipping through the individual games shows that the leader can change quite dramatically, with different titles responding better to either Intel or AMD. Our geometric mean of the entire test suite helps smooth that out to one digestible number, but bear in mind – the faster chip will vary based on the game you play.
Notably, the 11600K is 14% less expensive than the 5600X, and that’s if (a huge if) you can find the 5600X at recommended pricing. You could also opt for the graphics-less 11600KF model and pay 26% less than the 5600X, again, if you can find the 5600X at recommended pricing.
Winner: AMDOverall, the Ryzen 5 5600X is the faster gaming chip throughout our test suite, but be aware that performance will vary based on the title you play. This class of chips is often paired with lesser graphics cards, and most serious gamers play at higher resolutions. In both of those situations, you could be hard-pressed to notice the difference between the processors. However, it’s rational to expect that the Ryzen 5 5600X will leave a bit more gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades.
Pricing is the wild card, though, and the Core i5-11600K wins that category easily — even if you could find the Ryzen 5 5600X at suggested pricing. We’ll dive into that in the pricing section.
Application Performance of Intel Core i5-11600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X
Image 1 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 11
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
We can boil down productivity application performance into two broad categories: single- and multi-threaded. The first slide in the above album has a geometric mean of performance in several of our single-threaded tests, but as with all cumulative measurements, use this as a general guide and be aware that performance will vary based on workload.
The Core i5-11600K takes the lead, at both stock and overclocked settings, by 3.8% and 1%, respectively. These are rather slim deltas, but it’s clear that the Rocket Lake chip holds the edge in lightly threaded work, particularly in our browser tests, which are a good indicator of general snappiness in a standard desktop PC operating system. We also see a bruising performance advantage in the single-threaded AVX-512-enabled y-cruncher.
The Core i5-11600K is impressive in single-threaded work, but the Ryzen 5 5600X isn’t far behind. It’s too bad that the 11600K’s lead in these types of tests doesn’t equate to leading performance in gaming, which has historically been the case with processors that excel at single-threaded tasks.
Image 1 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 19 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 20 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 21 of 21
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Here we take a closer look at performance in heavily-threaded applications, which has long been the stomping grounds of AMD’s core-heavy Ryzen processors. Surprisingly, in our cumulative measurement, the Core i5-11600K is actually 2.5% faster than the 5600X at stock settings and is 1.8% faster after we overclocked both chips.
These are, again, slim deltas, and the difference between the chips will vary based on workload. However, the Core i5-11600K is very competitive in threaded work against the 5600X, which is an accomplishment in its own right. The substantially lower pricing is even more impressive.
Winner: Intel
Based on our cumulative measurement, Intel’s Core i5-11600K comes out on top in both single- and multi-threaded workloads, but by slim margins in both categories of workloads, and that can vary based on the application. However, given that the Core i5-11600K has significantly lower pricing and pulls out a few hard-earned wins on the application front, this category of the Core i5-11600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X competition goes to Intel.
Overclocking of Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i5-11600K
We have reached the land of diminishing returns for overclocking the highest-end chips from both AMD and Intel, largely because both companies are engaged in a heated dogfight for performance superiority. As a result, much of the overclocking frequency headroom is rolled into standard stock performance, leaving little room for tuners, making memory and fabric overclocking all the more important. There’s still plenty of advantages with overclocking the midrange models though in today’s Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i5-11600K battle, but be aware that your mileage may vary.
Intel benefits from higher attainable clock rates, especially if you focus on overclocking a few cores instead of the standard all-core overclock, and exposes a wealth of tunable parameters with its Rocket Lake chips. That includes separate AVX offsets for all three flavors of AVX, and the ability to set voltage guardbands. Intel also added an option to completely disable AVX, though that feature is primarily geared for professional overclockers. Rocket also supports per-core frequency and hyper-threading control (enable/disable) to help eke out more overclocking headroom.
The Core i5-11600K supports real-time memory frequency adjustments, though motherboard support will vary. For example, this feature allows you to shift from DDR4-2933 to DDR4-3200 from within Windows 10 without rebooting (or any other attainable memory frequency). Intel also supports live memory timing adjustments from within the operating system.
Intel has long locked overclocking to its pricey K-series models, while AMD freely allows overclocking with all SKUs on almost any platform. However, we see signs of some improvement here from Intel, as it has now enabled memory overclocking on its B560 and H570 chipsets across the board. That said, Intel’s new paradigm of Gear 1 and Gear 2 modes does reduce the value of memory overclocking, which you can read more about in our review.
AMD’s Ryzen 5000 chips come with innovative boost technology that largely consumes most of the available frequency headroom, so there is precious little room for bleeding-edge all-core overclocks. In fact, all-core overclocking with AMD’s chips is lackluster; you’re often better off using its auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) feature that boosts multi-threaded performance. AMD also has plenty of Curve Optimization features that leverage undervolting to increase boost activity.
Much of the benefit of the Ryzen 500 series0 comes from its improved fabric overclocking, which then allows you to tune in higher memory overclocks. We hit a 1900-MHz fabric on our chip, allowing us to run the memory in a 1:1 mode at a higher DDR4-3800 memory speed than we could pull off with the 11600K with the same 1:1 ratio. It also isn’t uncommon to see enthusiasts hit DDR4-4000 in 1:1 mode with Ryzen 5000 processors. There’s no doubt that Intel’s new Gear 1 and 2 memory setup isn’t that refined — you can adjust the 5600X’s fabric ratio to expand the 1:1 window to higher frequencies, while Intel does not have a comparable adjustable parameter.
Winner: Tie
Both the Ryzen 5 5600X and the Core i5-11600K have a bit more overclocking headroom than their higher-end counterparts, meaning that there is still some room for gains in the mid-range. Both platforms have their respective overclocking advantages and a suite of both auto-overclocking and software utilities, meaning this contest will often boil down to personal preference.
Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling of Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Image 1 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 12
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The Core i5-11600K comes with the same 125W TDP rating as its predecessor, but that rating is a rough approximation of power consumption during long-duration workloads. To improve performance in shorter-term workloads, Intel increased the PL2 rating (boost) to 251W, a whopping 69W increase over the previous-gen 10600K that also came with six cores.
Power consumption and heat go hand in hand, so you’ll have to accommodate that power consumption with a robust cooler. We didn’t have any issues with the Core i5-11600K and a 280mm liquid cooler (you could get away with less), but we did log up to 176W of power consumption at stock settings during our Handbrake benchmark.
In contrast, the Ryzen 5 5600X sips power, reaching a maximum of 76W at stock settings during a Blender benchmark. In fact, a quick look at the renders-per-day charts reveals that AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X is in another league in terms of power efficiency — you get far more performance per watt consumed, which results in lower power consumption and heat generation.
The 5600X’s refined power consumption comes via TSMC’s 7nm process, while Intel’s 14nm process has obviously reached the end of the road in terms of absolute performance and efficiency.
Winner: AMD
AMD wins this round easily with lower power consumption, higher efficiency, and less thermal output. Intel has turned the power up to the extreme to stay competitive with AMD’s 7nm Ryzen 5000 chips, and as a result, the Core i5-11600K pulls more power and generates more heat than the Ryzen 5 5600X. Additionally, the Core i5-11600K doesn’t come with a bundled cooler, so you’ll need to budget in a capable model to unlock the best the chip has to offer, while the Ryzen 5 5600X comes with a bundled cooler that is good enough for the majority of users.
Pricing and Value of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K
AMD was already riding the pricing line with the Ryzen 5 5600X’s suggested $299 price tag, but supply of this chip is volatile as of the time of writing, to put it lightly, leading to price gouging. This high pricing comes as a byproduct of a combination of unprecedented demand and pandemic-spurred supply chain issues, but it certainly destroys the value proposition of the Ryzen 5 5600X, at least for now.
The Ryzen 5 5600X currently retails for $370 at Microcenter, which is usually the most price-friendly vendor, a $69 markup over suggested pricing. The 5600X is also $450 from Amazon (not a third-party seller). Be aware that the pricing and availability of these chips can change drastically in very short periods of time, and they go in and out of stock frequently, reducing the accuracy of many price tracking tools.
In contrast, the Core i5-11600K can be found for $264 at Amazon, and $260 at Microcenter, which is surprisingly close to the $262 suggested tray pricing. Additionally, you could opt for the graphics-less Core i5-11600KF if you don’t need a discrete GPU. That chip is a bit harder to find than the widely-available 11600K, but we did find it for $240 at Adorama (near suggested pricing).
Here’s the breakdown (naturally, this will vary):
Suggested Price
Current (volatile for 5600X)
Price Per Core
Core i5-11600K
$262
$262 to $264
~$32.75
Ryzen 5 5600X
$299
$370 to $450
~$46.25 to $56.25
Core i5-11600KF
$237
$240 (spotty availability)
~$29.65
The Core i5-11600K doesn’t come with a cooler, so you’ll have to budget that into your purchasing decision.
Winner: Intel
Even at recommended pricing for both chips, Intel’s aggressive pricing makes the Core i5-11600K a tempting proposition, but the company wins this stage of the battle convincingly based on one almost insurmountable advantage: You can actually find the chip readily available at retail for very close to its suggested tray pricing. With much cheaper pricing both on a per-core and absolute basis, the Core i5-11600K is the better buy, and if you’re looking for an even lower cost of entry, the Core i5-11600KF is plenty attractive if you don’t need integrated graphics.
AMD’s premium pricing for the Ryzen 5 5600X was a bit of a disappointment for AMD fans at launch, but the chip did offer enough advantages to justify the price tag. However, the arrival of the Core i5-11600K with its disruptive pricing and good-enough performance would probably merit a slight pricing adjustment from AMD, or the release of a non-X model, if these were normal times. These aren’t normal times, though, and instead of improving its value proposition, AMD is facing crippling supply challenges.
Bottom Line
Intel Core i5-11600K
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Features and Specifications
X
Gaming
X
Application Performance
X
Overclocking
X
X
Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling
X
Pricing and Value Proposition
X
Total
3
4
Here’s the tale of the tape: AMD wins this Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K battle with a tie in one category and a win in three others, marking a four to three victory in favor of Team Red. Overall, the Ryzen 5 5600X offers up a superior blend of gaming performance, power consumption and efficiency, and a bundled cooler to help offset the higher suggested retail pricing, remaining our go-to chip recommendation for the mid-range. That is if you can find it at or near suggested pricing.
Unfortunately, in these times of almost unimaginably bad chip shortages, the chip that you can actually buy, or even find anywhere even near recommended pricing, is going to win the war at the checkout lane. For now, Intel appears to be winning the supply battle, though that could change in the coming months. As a result, the six-core twelve-thread Core i5-11600K lands with a friendly $262 price point, making it much more competitive with AMD’s $300 Ryzen 5 5600X that currently sells far over suggested pricing due to shortages.
The Core i5-11600K has a very competitive price-to-performance ratio compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X in a broad swath of games and applications. The 11600K serves up quite a bit of performance for a ~$262 chip, and the graphics-less 11600KF is an absolute steal if you can find it near the $237 tray pricing. If you don’t need an integrated GPU, the KF model is your chip.
Even if we compare the chips at AMD’s and Intel’s standard pricing, the Core i5-11600K is a potent challenger with a solid value proposition due to its incredibly aggressive pricing. While the Core i5-11600K might not claim absolute supremacy, its mixture of price and performance makes it a solid buy if you’re willing to overlook the higher power consumption.
Most gamers would be hard-pressed to notice the difference when you pair these chips with lesser GPUs or play at higher resolutions, though the Ryzen 5 5600X will potentially leave you with more gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades. The Ryzen 5 5600X is the absolute winner, though, provided you can find it anywhere close to the suggested retail price.
Asus’ ROG Maximus XIII Hero is a full-featured Z590 motherboard that includes robust power delivery, premium audio with a DAC, four M.2 sockets, dual 2.5 GbE ports and integrated Wi-Fi 6E. Overall, the $499 Hero is a well-rounded premium board for Intel’s Z590 platform.
For
+ High-quality 14-phase 90A VRM
+ 10 USB ports, incl. 2x Thunderbolt 4
+ Dual 2.5 GbE plus Wi-Fi 6E
+ Four M.2 sockets
+ Premium audio
Features and Specifications
Asus’ ROG Maximus XIII Hero hits the motherboard scene offering users an extended features list, premium styling, and a price tag of $499.99. While that’s certainly expensive, it’s no longer flagship motherboard territory in terms of pricing. The latest Hero includes loads of USB ports (including ultra-fast Thunderbolt Type-C), high-quality VRMs and four M.2 sockets. All that, plus a high-end appearance and overall good performance help make this board worth the cost of admission.
Asus’ current Z590 product stack consists of 13 models. Starting from the top, the ROG Maximus XIII Extreme and its water-cooled counterpart, the Extreme Glacial, carve out the flagship SKUs, followed by the ROG Hero and the overclocking focused ROG Apex. There are four other ROG Gaming boards, Z590-E/-F/-A/-I(ITX), along with two TUF Gaming boards and three Prime boards on the budget end. Asus presents a well-rounded product stack with boards and price points for just about everyone from top to bottom.
Overall, performance on our Hero was the best out of the boards we’ve tested so far. Granted, the difference isn’t much between most of the higher-performing boards ( which bypass the Intel specification), but the Hero and its out-of-the-box settings lead the group. Overclocking went without a hitch, easily handling our 5.1 GHz clock speed along with the memory set to DDR4 4000. Of the several boards we’ve looked at, this and the MSI MEG Ace were some of the easier boards to overclock and get the memory to speed with little or no tweaking.
Generation after generation, the Asus ROG Maximus line has delivered (what this reviewer considers to be) devilishly good looks and a long list of features for the high-end segment. The Maximus XIII Hero continues this trend, tweaking the appearance a bit from the last generation and making other changes including adding PCIe 4.0 support for M.2 sockets and PCIe slots, Wi-Fi 6E, dual Thunderbolt USB Type-C ports and more. We’ll take a look at those and other features in detail. Below is the full specifications list from Asus.
Specifications – Asus ROG Maximus XIII Hero
Socket
LGA 1200
Chipset
Z590
Form Factor
ATX
Voltage Regulator
16 Phase (14+2, 90A MOSFETs)
Video Ports
(1) HDMI
USB Ports
(2) Thunderbolt 4, Type-C (40 Gbps)
(6) USB 3.2 Gen 2, Type-A (10 Gbps)
(2) USB 2.0 (480 Mbps)
Network Jacks
(2) 2.5 GbE
Audio Jacks
(5) Analog + SPDIF
Legacy Ports/Jacks
✗
Other Ports/Jack
✗
PCIe x16
(2) v4.0 x16, (x16/x0, x8/x8, x8/x4)
(1) v3.0 x4
PCIe x8
✗
PCIe x4
✗
PCIe x1
(1) v3.0 x4
CrossFire/SLI
Nvidia 2-Way SLI
DIMM slots
(4) DDR4 5333(OC), 128GB Capacity
M.2 slots
(1) PCIe 4.0 x4 / PCIe (up to 110mm)
(1) PCIe 4.0 x4 / PCIe (up to 80mm)
(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / PCIe (up to 80mm)
(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / PCIe + SATA (up to 110mm)
U.2 Ports
✗
SATA Ports
(6) SATA3 6 Gbps (RAID 0, 1, 5 and 10)
USB Headers
(1) USB v3.2 Gen 2×2 (Front Panel Type-C)
(2) USB v3.2 Gen 1
(2) USB v2.0
Fan/Pump Headers
(8) 4-Pin
RGB Headers
(3) aRGB Gen 2 (3-pin)
(1) Aura RGB (4-pin)
Legacy Interfaces
✗
Other Interfaces
FP-Audio, TPM
Diagnostics Panel
Yes, 2-character debug LED, and 4-LED ‘Status LED’ display
Along with the motherboard, the box includes several accessories ranging from cables to graphic card holders and a support DVD. For the price, this isn’t the most inclusive accessory stack we’ve come across, but it will get you started (hopefully) without a trip to the store. Below is a complete list of all included accessories.
Support DVD
User’s Manual
Q-connector
ROG stickers / keychain / thank you card
Graphics card holder
Wi-Fi Moving Antenna
(4) SATA cables
(1) Screw package for M.2 sockets
(1) ARGB extension cable
(1) RGB extension cable
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Asus)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Asus)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Asus)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Asus)
Handarbeit
(Image credit: Asus)
Focusing on the top half of the board, we get a better look at the massive heatsinks/shrouds that cover a significant portion of the board. Wedged between the heatpipe-connected VRM heatsink are two reinforced 8-pin EPS connectors (one required) to send power to the CPU. To the right of the socket area and its gunmetal-colored capacitors are four DRAM slots capable of supporting up to 128GB of RAM. Asus lists supported speeds up to DDR4 5333(OC). But as always, your mileage may vary.
Just above the DRAM slots are the first three 4-pin fan/pump headers (of eight total). Six headers (CPU, Chassis, and AIO_Pump, support up to 1A/12W while the W_Pump and H_Amp headers support up to 3A/36W. The AIO and W_Pump headers run at full speed while the rest are Q-Fan controlled.
Continuing right is the 2-character Q-Code debug LED, and just below it are the four Q-LEDs (CPU, DRAM, VGA and Boot) that light up during the boot process. If there is an issue during POST, that specific LED remains lit and tells you, generally, where the problem is. You can use the Q-Code display for more details.
Moving down the right edge, we see the first two (of four) RGB headers. In this area are two 3-pin (ARGB) headers. You’ll find the other two headers, a 4-pin RGB and a third 3-pin ARGB, across the bottom edge. Just below this is a large Start button to power the PC on and a smaller multi-function FlexKey button. By default, this reboots the system, but you can configure this as a quick access feature to activate Safe Boot or turn Aura lighting on/off. Further down the right edge is the 24-pin ATX power connector and below that, a USB 3.2 Gen2x2 Type-C front-panel header.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Asus went with a 14-phase ‘teamed’ VRM configuration for the XIII Hero. Power is sent to a Renesas ISL69269 controller (7+2+1), where each channel feeds two phases (no doubler inline). After that, it’s on to the 14 Texas Instrument NexFET 90A Smart Power stages. This allows the CPU to use up to 1260A, one of the higher values we’ve seen. While the Hero isn’t the most robust solution at this price point, it will have no issues with ambient and even extreme overclocking. You’ll be limited by CPU thermals long before this VRM gets in the way.
(Image credit: Asus)
Taking a closer look at the bottom half of the board, we’ll start with the audio section on the left side. Underneath the plastic shroud, Asus chose the premium Realtek ALC4082 codec along with Chemicon brand Japanese audio capacitors. The Hero also includes an ESS Sabre9018Q2C DAC/Amp for driving your headphones properly. The onboard audio solution provides more than sufficient quality for an overwhelming majority of users.
In the middle of the board we find the PCIe slots and M.2 sockets. On the PCIe front, the Hero has three full-length PCIe slots and one x1 size slot. The top two PCIe slots are wired to the CPU and support PCIe 4.0 when using an 11th generation Intel processor. These top two slots run at x16/x0, x8/x8 or x8/x4 (lane bifurcation) and support Nvidia 2-Way SLI (AMD Crossfire is not mentioned in the specifications). The bottom full-length slot is fed from the chipset and runs at PCIe 3.0 x4. Out of the box, the bottom slot runs at PCIe 3.0 x2 mode and disables SATA ports 3/4. If you need to run the bottom slot at the full x4 mode, SATA ports 1/2/3/4 get disabled.
The Maximus XIII Hero has four M.2 sockets mixed in with the PCIe slots. The top two sockets are both wired PCIe 4.0 x4. Asus accomplishes this by sharing bandwidth with the CPU-fed PCIe slots. When M.2_2 is enabled, the top PCIe slot runs at x8 and the second slot drops to x4. These sockets support PCIe modules only, with the top slot able to handle 110mm modules and the second slot up to 80mm. The third M.2 socket, connected to the chipset, runs at PCIe 3.0 x4 mode, supporting up to 80mm modules. The bottom socket supports up to 110mm PCIe 3.0 x4 and SATA-based M.2 devices. If M.2_4 (bottom right) is populated, SATA ports 5/6 are disabled. There’s a fair amount of lane sharing between the SATA ports, M.2 sockets and PCIe slots. So be sure to check out the manual for details on your specific configuration.
To the right of the PCIe area is the chipset heatsink, with the ROG symbol illuminated with RGB LEDs from underneath. On the right edge is another fan header, six SATA ports and two USB 3.2 Gen1 front panel headers that bookend the SATA ports.
Across the board’s bottom are several headers and buttons, including more USB ports, fan headers and more. If you’re into monitoring your custom water loop, there are headers for temperature and water flow as well. You can keep an eye on your entire cooling system, be it air or water. Below is the full list, from left to right:
Front-panel audio
RGB and ARGB headers
Retry button
Chassis fan and High Amp fan headers
(2) USB 2.0 headers
(2) Chassis fan headers
Temperature sensor, water flow headers
Speaker
Front panel header
(Image credit: Asus)
The Asus ROG Maximus XIII Hero comes with a pre-installed rear IO panel sporting a black background with white writing for all of the ports and buttons. There are a total of 10 USB ports: two USB 2.0 ports, six USB 3.2 Gen2 Type-A and two Thunderbolt 4 Type-C ports for ultra-fast USB storage. Located above the Type-C ports are the two 2.5 GbE ports, while next to those are the two Wi-Fi 6E antenna sockets. A single HDMI port handles video output when using integrated graphics. The audio stack is the full 5-plug analog, plus SPDIF output. Finally, also here are the BIOS flashback button to flash without a CPU and a Clear CMOS button.
Noctua, a leading maker of coolers, said that many of its existing aftermarket CPU cooling systems will be compatible with Intel’s forthcoming Alder Lake processors in LGA1700 packaging, with appropriate upgrade kits. The manufacturer did not say that all of the existing coolers will be compatible with the new CPUs, though.
Don’t Throw Away Your LGA115x Cooler
When asked about compatibility of existing coolers with Intel’s upcoming LGA1700 desktop platform in a Twitter post, a Noctua representative stated the following:
“We cannot disclose any details yet due to NDA, but we’re working on it and you should definitely be able to keep using your NH-U12A via an upgrade kit!”
(Image credit: Noctua)
The Noctua NH-U12A is a higher-end CPU cooler that’s compatible with a wide variety of sockets, including AMD’s AM4, Intel’s LGA1200, LGA115x, LGA2011, and LGA2066. As it turns out, the device will also be compatible with Intel’s yet-to-be-released CPUs using a new mounting kit.
There’s a catch though. According to EXPreview, Intel’s upcoming LGA1700 processors could be 0.8-mm shorter when installed into a socket than their existing counterparts. Based on our own observations, CPU substrates are indeed getting thinner as CPUs migrate to new process technologies, so it’s logical to assume that Alder Lake-S — which is made using Intel’s 10nm Enhanced SuperFin node — will be shorter than the current CPUs (as far as z-height is concerned).
Keeping in mind that socket LGA1700 will be completely different from existing sockets and that Alder Lake-S (or maybe its successor) are expected to be shorter than its predecessors, compatibility with existing coolers will depend on the ability of their manufacturers to design a new mounting kit that will take into account not only X and Y dimensions of the CPU, but also its Z height. To that end, it may not be easy to upgrade coolers with fastening clips.
A Major Upgrade
Intel’s upcoming 12th Generation Core processors for desktops codenamed Alder Lake-S will be rather special in a number of ways. Firstly, Alder Lake-S will be Intel’s first hybrid processors with high-performance and energy-efficient cores. Secondly, Alder Lake-S will be the first CPU to support DDR5 memory as well as PCIe 5.0 interconnects. Last, Alder Lake-S will use a brand-new LGA1700 socket, which is obviously different from existing LGA115x and LGA1200 sockets.
(Image credit: Noctua)
LGA1700 will be the first major upgrade of Intel’s sockets for mainstream desktop CPUs since 2004. Back then, the company introduced its socket LGA775 that measured 37.5×37.5 mm. This socket was succeeded by LGA1155, LGA1156, LGA1150, LGA1151, and LGA1200, which all retained its 37.5×37.5 mm dimensions, though obviously they changed the number of pins and their layout. LGA1700 will retain the 37.5mm width, but will increase its length to 45mm, which may require coolers with a larger base and a different mounting mechanism.
Note that LGA2066 has the same 45mm length, but an even wider 52.5mm width. AMD’s TR4 and TRX40 are even larger, measuring 58.5×75.4mm. Z-height is still a concern, but any cooler capable of supporting both HEDT and mainstream platforms should be adaptable to LGA1700.
Because Intel’s LGA1700 processors will not only be physically larger than Intel’s mainstream processors released in the last 17 years, but they are also expected to be shorter, makers of coolers will have to do some additional work to ensure compatibility and proper performance. We expect higher-end coolers and AIO designs that already support numerous sockets, while cheaper existing solutions probably won’t get LGA1700 support.
Sơn Gầy Custom, a Vietnamese modder, recently built a tube-free all-in-one liquid cooler that’s integrated into itself — essentially a low-profile CPU cooler, but instead of using heatpipes, it uses water and a water pump to transfer heat to the fin stack, or 120mm radiator in this case.
But although it looks simple on the surface, there’s more to it than initially meets the eye. He uses an Alphacool waterblock with an integrated pump as a base, which pushes fluid into custom manifolds from where the fluid is pushed through a small 120mm radiator. It’s then dissipated by a Noctua NF-A12x15 PWM fan.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Sơn Gầy Facebook)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Sơn Gầy Facebook)
Sơn Gầy hasn’t said anything about thermal performance yet, nor anything about noise levels. We know that the Noctua spinner he used, the NF-A12x15 PWM Chromax.Black, isn’t very loud with a maximum noise rating of 23.9 dBA.
That being said, this isn’t a very big cooling setup, and although the radiator does use copper fins (which also creates a very striking look), we can’t imagine this is the kind of liquid cooling setup you would push high overclocks on.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Sơn Gầy Facebook)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Sơn Gầy Facebook)
In fact, between the risk of leaks and likely limited added cooling benefit over a normal low-profile cooler, there’s probably little more to this unit than the cool factor of it being an integrated, low-profile (63mm tall) liquid cooler that doesn’t need an external radiator.
No word on pricing, nor do we know when or if Sơn Gầy will bring the product out onto the open market at all.
Thermaltake’s Divider 300TG is attractive, but lacks the quality and performance needed to stand out in today’s market. It didn’t perform well thermally or acoustically in our testing, making it tough to recommend.
For
+ Unusual, but fresh design
+ Complete front IO
Against
– Thermally disappointing
– Intake fans have little effect on temps, are noisy, and speed cannot be controlled
– Material quality lacking
– Glass frame is closer to turquoise than white
– 5.7-inch max CPU cooler height
– Difficult to remove sticker on glass side panel
– Frustrating side panel installation
– No support for top-mounted radiators
Features and Specifications
The vast majority of new ATX cases these days come with large slabs of tempered glass as side panels. The alternative seems to be a solid steel panel, but what if you want something in the middle?
That’s the idea behind Thermaltake’s Divider 300TG. Specifically, today on our test bench is the Divider 300TG ARGB Snow Edition. This chassis has both tempered glass and steel for its side panel, creatively slicing both in half for a fresh look. Pricing is set at $115 for this Snow Edition (or about $5 less for the black model) with all the bells and whistles, which sets expectations high.
So without further ado, let’s dig in to find out whether it’s worthy of a spot on our Best PC Cases list.
Thermaltake Divider 300TG Specifications
Type
Mid-Tower ATX
Motherboard Support
Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX, ATX
Dimensions (HxWxD)
18.7 x 8.7 x 18.1 inches (475 x 220 x 461 mm)
Max GPU Length
15.4 inches, 14.2 with front radiator (360 mm, 390 mm without front radiator)
CPU Cooler Height
5.7 inches (145 mm)
Max PSU Length
7.1 inches, 8.7 inches without HDD cage (180 mm, 220 mm)
External Bays
✗
Internal Bays
2x 3.5-inch
5x 2.5-inch
Expansion Slots
7x
Front I/O
2x USB 3.0, USB-C, 3.5 mm Audio + Mic
Other
2x Tempered Glass Panel, Fan/RGB Controller
Front Fans
3x 120 mm (Up to 3x 120mm)
Rear Fans
1x 120mm (Up to 1x 120mm)
Top Fans
None (Up to 1x 120mm)
Bottom Fans
None
Side Fans
Up to 2x 120mm
RGB
Yes
Damping
No
Warranty
3 Years (2 years for fans)
Thermaltake Divider 300TG Features
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Touring around the outside of the chassis, two things immediately stand out: One is of course the slashed side panel, but on the other side you’ll spot an air intake. As we’ll see later, you can mount two extra 120mm fans here or mount an all-in-one liquid cooler.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
However, while all may look okay in the photos, the quality of the materials is quite disappointing. The sheet metal is thin, and the glass’s frame isn’t actually white – it’s closer to turquoise, which is a bit odd given that the chassis is named ‘snow edition,’ and it’s not a great look contrasting with the actual white of the rest of the chassis.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The case’s IO resides at the top, cut through the steel panel. Here you’ll spot two USB 3.0 ports, a USB Type-C port, and discrete microphone and headphone jacks – a complete set that’s much appreciated. You’ll also spot the power and reset switches. But as we’ll find out later, the reset switch doesn’t serve as a reset button.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
To remove the case’s paneling, you first remove the steel part of the slashed side panel, and then the glass. The steel part is removed by undoing two thumbscrews at the back, after which it awkwardly falls out of place. The same goes for the side panel on the other side; undo two screws and it falls out of the chassis – and re-installation is just as clunky, as the screws don’t line up nicely with the threads. The glass panels are clamped in place by a handful of push-pins, so de-installation and re-installation is as easy as pulling the panels off or pushing them back into place.
Thermaltake Divider 300TG Internal Layout
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
With the chassis stripped down, you’ll spot a fairly standard layout with room for up to an ATX-size motherboard. The only unusual thing about the main compartment is the cover on the right, which either houses three 2.5-inch drives or can be removed to make space for two extra intake fans and an AIO.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Switch to the other side of the chassis, and you’ll spot the fan bracket we spoke of, along with two 2.5-inch SSD mounts behind the motherboard tray. In the PSU area there is also room for two 3.5-inch drives.
Thermaltake Divider 300TG Cooling
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
While there wasn’t much to talk about regarding the case’s general features, there is plenty to discuss when it comes to cooling. From the factory, the chassis comes with a total of four fans installed, which seems quite lavish. The front intake fans are three 120mm RGB spinners, while the rear exhaust fan is a simple 3-pin spinner without any lighting features.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
But, behind the motherboard tray there is also a fan controller hub, where you can spot the reset switch header plugging in at the bottom. All four fans can be plugged into this hub, though the front trio come plugged in from the factory with very unusual connectors. As we’ll detail further on later, the RGB is controlled through the reset switch, and the fans offer no speed control.
The hub is powered by SATA power. There is an LED-out header on the hub, and an M/B-in header for connecting the RGB up to your motherboard with the included cable. The RGB effects included with the chassis’ controller are quite jumpy with infrequent changes, so it’s nice to see it tie into your motherboard’s control system.
The exhaust fan can be plugged into the motherboard, as it’s a 3-pin spinner but other than that, it’s safe to say that the chassis’ intake fan speeds cannot be controlled, which is a real let-down as they’re quite noisy.
Graphics cards can be up to 14.2 inches (360mm long), or 15.4 inches (390 mm) without a front radiator in place. This is plenty, but the space isn’t very wide: CPU coolers can only be up to 5.7 inches (145 mm) tall due to the side panel design, which isn’t much. Our Noctua cooler barely fit, so you’ll want to be careful with wide GPUs and tall CPU coolers.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
For liquid cooling, it’s tight, but there is space for a front-mounted 360mm radiator or a side-mounted 240 mm radiator–but you’ll have to pick between one or the other. Also, be careful with side-mounted radiators, as they’ll likely bump into long GPUs. Most standard-length GPUs shouldn’t have an issue here, but if you’re using a bigger GPU, you’re probably better off using the front mount, as counterintuitive as that might seem.
Performing as well as premium air cooling and costing less than expensive 360 AIOs, the IceGiant ProSiphon Elite makes for an interesting alternative for high-end performance builds. Standing tall as a monstrous, monolithic cooling solution with a commanding presence, the IceGiant ProSiphon Elite shows that big air really doesn’t get any bigger than this.
For
Retail version designed for HEDT for both Intel and AMD (incl. Threadripper)
Great cooling performance
Four fans allow for push+pull
Against
Huge and heavy
Premium price
Features and Specifications
Back in 2019 we were one of the few media outlets to get an early look at the prototype IceGiant ProSiphon, an innovative CPU-cooling behemoth that uses natural convection of warmer and cooler states of coolant to effectively ‘pump’ the energy-rich evaporated vapor through the cooler. The months since have brought us to the final version of the IceGiant ProSiphon Elite, and while it still maintains its massive stature, it is noticeably thinner due to a redesigned condenser, which improves upon the original prototype.
The new and improved IceGiant doesn’t break any records, but it does provide a great alternative for system builders who want big and bold, yet still opt to avoid large AIO liquid cooling. Currently available for order from the IceGiant website, it will soon be available for purchase at MicroCenter retail stores as well as available at e-tailers Amazon and Newegg.
Ice Giant Prosiphon Elite Specifications
Height
6.5″ / 165.1mm
Width
9.88″ / 251mm
Depth
2.0″ / 50.8mm (4.0″ / 102mm w/ fans)
Base Height
1.75″ / 44.5mm
Assy. Offset
1..0″ / 25.4mm up
0.75″ / 19.1mm forward
Cooling Fans
(4) 120 x 25mm
Connectors
(4) 4-pin PWM
Weight
70.8 oz / 2007g
Intel Sockets
1366, 115x, 1200, 2011, 2066
AMD Sockets
AM4, TR4, sTR4x
Warranty
10 years
Web Price
$170
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The IceGiant ProSiphon Elite includes mounting hardware to accommodate current processor models for both Intel and AMD, including high-end desktop (HEDT) variants like Intel’s i9 Comet Lake chips and the multi-core behemoths that are AMD’s Threadripper processors. The IceGiant makes use of four 4-pin 120mm cooling fans to allow for push+pull airflow configuration out of the box.
Mounting brackets, backplates and supports are incredibly over-engineered to account for the 2-kilogram (4.42 pounds) mass they must support. In fact, just about everything about the IceGiant feels industrial-grade, down to the syringe of high-performance Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut thermal compound included.
IceGiant covers the ProSiphon Elite with an unprecedented 10-year warranty, which includes the cooling fans.
For those who might have missed our original definition of how the IceGiant ProSiphon Elite thermosiphon cooler differs from a traditional heatpipe cooler, please allow us to gratuitously plagiarize our own coverage of the original ProSiphon Elite Protopype:
Heatpipe coolers rely on the boiling and evaporation of a liquid (typically distilled water) within each individual heatpipe, which travels up the hollow center of the pipe, begins cooling and then fully condenses further up the cooling tower, while dissipating thermal energy in the process. Once that liquid has fully converted back to liquid form, a sintered wicking material along the heatpipe walls then draws the liquid back down to the base to begin the process once again.
A thermosiphon works on similar principles, as it also requires the boiling, evaporation and condensation of a liquid–in this case, a dielectric fluid. A thermosiphon instead makes use of natural convection of warmer and cooler states of coolant to effectively ‘pump’ the energy-rich evaporated vapor through the cooler. Using large, flat condenser cores, the IceGiant ProSiphon Elite utilizes greater surface area to effectively transfer thermal energy out of the fluid vapor, into the cooling fins and away from the cooler.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The primary heat exchanger features three condenser cores, which dissipate heat provided from the evaporator in the cooler’s base. The original ProSiphon prototype featured only two condenser cores, allowing the newer retail version of the cooler to have a thinner overall profile when compared to the original. Retention hardware is engineered into the cooler’s base pedestal, which provides an anchored mount once the cooler is installed.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The ProSiphon Elite makes use of four 120mm, 4-pin PWM fans rated up to 2300 RPM for push+pull operation. The front pair push cool, ambient air into the heat exchanger and over the condenser cores, while the rear fans pull the warmed air out and away from the cooler. This provides the IceGiant plenty of fresh air in which to breathe (or rather, cool) freely.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The entirety of the IceGiant ProSiphon is made of high-grade aluminum, including the precision-milled pedestal base and mounting contact which is large enough to fully cover an AMD Threadripper CPU. Tension screws are permanently affixed to the primary tension bar on the cooler base, which ultimately adds to your advantage later during the installation process.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The base of the ProSiphon Elite is milled perfectly flat; we are unable to see any residual light peeking beneath the face of a steel rule.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The thermal paste contact patch from our i9-10850k is dwarfed by the untouched backdrop of clean, remaining aluminum of the mounting base.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
By comparison, the thermal compound patch from our Threadripper 2990WX consumes the entire canvas of the cooler base.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Remember those tidbits about the rugged mounting hardware and the tension screws mounted into the cooler base? Once the backplate and brackets are secured, the cooler base centers itself neatly into position atop the CPU, which aligns the tension screws with their sockets. Both Intel and AMD/Threadripper mounts benefit from this design.
To secure the IceGiant ProSiphon Elite, the front fans are removed and the tension screws torqued into place. Once secure, the front fans are added back and connected via PWM pigtail splitter to the other fans of the cooler to be managed by your favorite fan controller or motherboard header.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
We’ve tested some large coolers before (including the prototype predecessor to the current IceGiant), yet it always manages to bring a bit of a smirk to our faces seeing such a large piece of cooling hardware in operation. The base height of the IceGiant does allow for relatively tall memory modules to be used. But as usual, check for clearances for specific hardware as needed.
When Noctua came out with the NF-A12x25 fan almost three years ago, it quickly went on its way to becoming arguably the world’s best PC fan. It performed great as an airflow fan, CPU cooler fan, and radiator fan. But bathed in the company’s iconic brown and beige, the one place it lost out to the competition was looks.
At least, that’s what the general consensus seems to be. And while I personally absolutely dig the Noctua’s colors as a classy option (especially with a few plants in the room), the vast majority of PC builders would rather see a more neutral color scheme. But what if you want the best PC fan along and great looks?
In comes the Thermaltake ToughFan 12. Dressed in a suit of black and grey, It’s the best alternative lookalike option to the brown and beige NF-A12x25, at least until Noctua finally comes out with the black variant, which is supposed to happen near the end of Q2 2021.
The Thermaltake ToughFan 12 came out near the end of last year, and at first sight, it appears to be a blatant copy of Noctua’s award-winning fan design. Both have nine forward-swept fan blades, a partially-exposed hub, similar noise performance ratings, an identical RPM range with PWM control, and included low-noise cables for reducing the fan’s maximum speed. But whereas the Noctua spinner is priced at $30 each, the ToughFan 12 comes in at $25 per fan or $40 for a two-pack, which is where things start to get interesting. Let’s dig a little deeper.
Inspection of Physical Differences
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
At first sight, these two fans look very similar–aside form the color scheme–with nearly identical designs. However, there are more differences than initially meet the eye, so lets go through them.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Starting off with the blades, you’ll spot that both appear to be made of a similar material. Noctua’s blades are made from Sterrox, a liquid-crystal polymer material that ensures it stays as rigid as possible. Apparently, fan blades can expand over time, and because Noctua wants the blades as close as possible to the frame, the material needs to be strong enough to withstand this expansion.
Thermaltake’s blades appear to be manufactured from a similar type of material, but I was unable to find a clear answer whether it’s the same.
The blades on Noctua’s NF-A12x25’s also have flow acceleration channels that help speed up airflow and reduce side flow, which increases performance and reduces noise. The blades on the Thermaltake Toughfan 12’s are smooth.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Having a look at the blade gap, you’ll spot that the blades from both fans are really close to the frame. Noctua has a slight advantage here, and the frame seems to be more consistently round, ensuring an equal blade-to-frame gap across the fan.
Also notice that Noctua’s frame has a ribbed guide for air inlet, whereas Thermaltake’s frame offers a simpler design.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
In fact, there’s more to Noctua’s frame than might be clear at first sight. If you look very closely at the inside of the frame, there are small dimples. These are Noctua’s “inner surface microstructures,” which help air ‘roll’ along the edge, reducing blade passing noise.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Looking at the fan hub of both spinners, they again seem to have similar designs at first. However, where Noctua’s blades transition into a large cover for the hub, Thermaltake uses a sticker to cover up the majority of the fan hub.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Turning to the back of the fans, there are clearer design differences in the frame. Noctua’s frame uses four legs to hold the fan motor, and the frame expands outward. There is also a rubber seal around the entirety of the frame.
The fan doesn’t come with this rubber seal installed from the factory, but instead with four rubber feet at the corners. However, the seal does come in the box.
When it comes to the cables, Noctua’s fan only has a short cable of just 20 cm long. Thermaltake’s fan has a very long cable: 90 cm. For anything other than very large builds, that’s inconveniently long.
Thermaltake’s fan uses six smaller legs to hold the fan motor and does not come with a radiator seal.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Drop both fans onto a radiator, and you can see why this radiator seal is a thing. Noctua’s spinner makes a clear seal around the radiator, which will ensure, together with the tight fan blade tolerance within the frame, that very little air leaks and a high static pressure can be generated to push more air through the radiator.
If you look at Thermaltake’s assembly, you can see the radiator’s fins with the fan sat in place. Air can leak through here, which theoretically reduces performance and can increase noise levels. When the fan is at work, you can also feel a light breeze escape through this gap.
Overall, it’s clear that a lot more R&D has gone into the design of Noctua’s NF-A12x25, especially when it comes to the frame. Both fans might have nine forward-swept fan blades with similar shapes, along with partly-exposed motors, but that’s about where the similarities end.
Spec Sheet Differences
To compare the fans, I have also made a spec sheet with both fans on it as follows, with the information provided by each of the manufacturers:
Noctua NF-A12x25 PWM
TT Toughfan 12
Size
120 x 120 x 25 mm
120 x 120 x 25 mm
Power & Control
4-pin PWM
4-pin PWM
Bearing Type
SSO2 Bearing
Hydraulic Bearing Gen2
Maximum RPM
2000 RPM
2000 RPM
Maximum RPM with LNA
1700 RPM
1500 RPM
Minimum RPM
450 RPM
500 RPM
Maximum Airflow
60.09 CFM
58.35 CFM
Static Pressure
2.34 mm H₂O
2.41 mm H₂O
Noise Level
22.6 dBA
22.3 dBa
Noise Level with LNA
18.8 dBA
19.2 dBa
Power Consumption
1.68 W
1.44 W
Expected Lifetime
> 150,000 hrs
40,000 hrs at 25 °C
Warranty
6 Years
2 Years
Looking at the specs, the two fans battle closely. There’s not much depth here though, and considering both sheets weren’t made under identical testing conditions, these specs are suitable for casual comparison at best. The biggest thing that stands out is the difference in expected lifetime and the warranty. Whereas the Toughfan is only rated to last 40,000 hours, Noctua’s spinner is rated to almost a four-fold of that, and it comes with an impressive six-year warranty. It’s clearly a fan that’s intended to last a few builds.
And with that, it’s time to get into our own testing of the two fans.
Do All These Details Matter?
To start off, we’ll be testing the fans for their noise levels across the RPM range. We installed three of each fan to an AIO radiator in an open bench equipped with an Intel Core i9-9900K, placed the dB meter at 30 cm distance, and started testing.
No GPU was included in this test, as the Founder’s Edition RTX 2070 Super I have on-site produces so much noise at idle due to the lack of a Zero-RPM mode that it threw off the results. I also set the AIO’s pump to the absolute minimum speed it was still happy to keep the CPU cooled at to ensure pump noise doesn’t pollute the results either. (Don’t worry, I’ve raised it for the thermal tests later).
Of course, we’re aware that testing in an open bench isn’t a real-life scenario, but with these two fans performing as closely together as they do, this open bench is the most brutal test that will best bring out any difference in acoustic performance. Data was recorded at the minimum speed, 500 RPM, 750 RPM, 1000 RPM, 1250 RPM, 1500 RPM, 1750 RPM, 1930 RPM (Thermaltake’s maximum speed), and at 2090 RPM, the NF-A12x25’s maximum speed. Both the Noctua NF-A12x25 and Thermaltake ToughFan are able to spin much slower than the spec sheet indicates, with minimum speeds of 250 RPM and 270 RPM, respectively, giving the Noctua fan a greater usable range.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
There are a couple things that stand out about the result, but of course the most notable is that the Noctua fan is (drumroll please) a little bit quieter at identical RPMs. At the bottom end of the RPM range, the difference is minimal at just 0.2 dB, though at the top end Noctua gets the advantage with up to a 0.7 dB lower noise level. Subjectively though, I do feel like the difference is big enough to observe, and the Noctua’s sound profile is ever so slightly smoother, especially at higher speeds.
However, what’s clear from the chart is that both these fans are best operated at speeds of up to about 1000 RPM, after which diminishing returns quickly take hold of the results. The trick, therefore, will be to ensure adequate radiator surface so that you don’t need to run them above 1000 RPM. Do that, and your system will be practically inaudible, especially if it isn’t in an open chassis like ours.
But what about airflow performance? Because we don’t have airflow testing equipment on-site, the best alternative I can provide are tests of CPU thermals at different RPM ranges.
Because we have the luxury of a 360 mm radiator for this test, I set the Core i9-9900K to run at a steady 4.7 GHz at 1.25 V on all cores, which pegged power consumption at a constant 260 watts (give or take 5W). I then gave the loop some time to reach thermal equilibrium and recorded the results, constantly monitoring the ambient temperature to ensure the data is consistent. Data was recorded at 1000 RPM, 1250 RPM, 1500 RPM, 1750 RPM, and 1930 RPM.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
What’s interesting to note here is that both fans seem to witness performance benefits, but only up to a certain point. With my IR heatgun, I measured the inlets and outlets of the AIO when this happened, and it was clear that past a certain RPM, the AIO’s fluid was so close to ambient, pushing more air through the AIO wasn’t going to net us any more performance, just deliver much more noise.
For more data, I also ran both setups through a 10-minute Prime95 run at as close as I could get to thermally-identical levels. For the Noctua, this meant running 1000 RPM, whereas the Thermaltake fan had to run at 1200 RPM for about the same thermal performance – I’ll let you be the judge of how close I got from the graph below. As you can imagine, it took a few runs before I narrowed in on 1200 RPM being the closest matching result.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Of course, the catch with raising the fan speeds like this is that you enter that territory of diminishing returns, where you get a significant increase in noise levels for thermals that marginally improve. In the second graph above, you’ll see that Thermaltake’s fan has give or take a 400 RPM range where you get a 5 °C improvement in CPU temperatures. And personally, I don’t think the noise levels are worth it. You’re better off keeping the fan speed lower and accepting that the temperature is a little higher than you would have gotten, had you purchased the Noctua instead.
What Does Noctua Have to Say?
Of course, we couldn’t write up this head-to-head test without consulting Noctua and Thermaltake to ask what they had to say about these similar fans.
Noctua told us the following about the similarities between its spinners and Thermatake’s: “We’re investigating legal options, but generally, we prefer to spend funds in further R&D rather than wasting them in international legal battles that often end fruitless. Thankfully, our tests show that the fan measurably lags behind in performance and this has also been confirmed in third party tests. There’s more to building excellent fans than doing 3D scans!”
We have also reached out to Thermaltake, but the company has yet to respond. Will update this section if and when we hear back.
So Which Should You Buy?
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Round
Noctua NF-A12x25
Thermaltake Toughfan 12
Technical Design
✗
Color Scheme
✗
Acoustic Performance
✗
Thermal Performance
✗
RPM Range
✗
Cable Length
✗
Included Accessories
✗
Warranty & Lifespan
✗
Price
✗
Total
6
3
When it comes to performance, Noctua is the clear winner between the two fans. As the original fan with this design, it includes a handful of design details that help it maintain the upper hand, ranging from acceleration channels on the fan blades to a much more advanced frame design that helps reduce noise and air leakage. From a technical perspective, it’s clear that the Noctua fan has more detail in its engineering and execution.
That’s not the case for Thermaltake’s fan. To be fair, Thermaltake likely did that on purpose – copying every detail of the fan would both cost more and make it easier to lose a battle in court were Noctua to pursue them, but it does put the fan at a disadvantage.
Nevertheless, the Thermaltake Toughfan 12 also turned in an admirable showing in our performance tests that’s not too far off from Noctua’s NF-A12x25. And at its intended price point, I can see why the ToughFan 12 is a compelling option: it offers most of the performance, isn’t brown, and costs about a third less if you’re buying in two-packs. But these two-packs aren’t in stock anywhere at the time of writing, and at the single-fan price of $25 for the ToughFan 12, it becomes a very tough sell against the NF-A12x25 at $30, as that added $5 is more than worth it if you don’t mind the NF-A12x25’s color scheme.
The catch with coming as close in performance, though, is that you shouldn’t want to target the same thermals. If you want the same thermals from Thermaltake’s fan, you’ll have to run it at higher RPMs than Noctua NF-A12x25, at which point you enter the diminishing returns territory where you get greater noise levels for not a lot more cooling. You’re better off sacrificing a few degrees and enjoying the blissful silence.
If you’re the kind of buyer who wants the very best, money is no object and you don’t mind the (brown) looks, and value rewarding the original creator, Noctua’s NF-A12x25 is a brilliant fan that should last through multiple builds. But at the same time, Thermaltake’s fan comes so close in performance that it’s still excellent in most respects. Chances are your AIO’s pump or coil whine will bother you sooner than the noise profile from either of these fans, provided you keep them under about 1250 RPM.
Cooler Master’s MasterFrame 700 is an open-air presentation case and test bench that transforms in just a few minutes. But while it’s built like a tank and has a true quality finish, it requires a skilled, patient builder to make the best of it.
For
+ Gorgeous open-chassis looks
+ Excellent build quality
+ Beautiful paint finish
+ Heavy steel panels
+ Includes lightly-tinted glass panel
Against
– Very heavy
– Paint finish in threads makes some screws difficult to insert
– Transforming from open-air case to test bench requires longer AIO tubes
– Can be tedious to work in (needs a skilled, patient builder)
– Motherboard tray covers back of socket
Assembling the MasterFrame 700
When Cooler Master reached out asking if I could have a look at its upcoming MasterFrame 700 open-air chasis / test bench, I was scratching my head a little about how to approach it. I wondered what mainstream appeal there could be in a test bench.
And while ‘mainstream’ is absolutely not how I would describe the MasterFrame 700, it actually left me quite impressed. After my experience with it, I can appreciate its appeal as an open-air chassis to showcase pretty builds.
It won’t be making it onto our Best PC Cases list as it’s not a chassis meant of the masses, but if you’re into this sort of thing, it might be worth reading on to find out more about the MasterFrame 700 – if the photos haven’t already convinced you.
Specifications
Type
Open-air/Test bench chassis
Motherboard Support
Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX, ATX, E-ATX
Dimensions (HxWxD)
16.1 x 12.1 x 27.6 inches (410 x 306 x 702 mm)
Max GPU Length
17.7 inches (450 mm), Up to 12.2 inches (310 mm) for maximum compatibility
CPU Cooler Height
6.2 inches (158 mm)
Max PSU Length
8.3 inches (210 mm)
External Bays
✗
Internal Bays
4x 3.5-inch
7x 2.5-inch
Expansion Slots
8x
Front I/O
2x USB 3.0, USB-C, 3.5 mm Headphone/Mic Combo
Other
(Removable) Tempered Glass Panel
Left Fans
None (Up to 2x 140mm, 3x 120mm)
Right Fans
None (Up to 2x 140mm, 3x 120mm)
Top Fans
None (Up to 2x 140mm, 3x 120mm in Test Bench Mode on a Radiator)
Bottom Fans
None (Up to 2x 140mm, 3x 120mm in Test Bench Mode on a Radiator)
Side Fans
✗
RGB
No
Damping
No
Warranty
1 Year
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Normally, we start off case reviews with a tour of the features, build a standardized system in it, and wrap up with thermal and acoustic testing – but today we’re foregoing the usual format. Instead, I’m going to take you on the path I took to familiarize myself with the product, which starts off with assembling the MasterFrame 700.
Unboxing, Layer by Layer
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The Cooler Master MasterFrame 700 comes flat-packed into a relatively compact, briefcase-style box. None of the components come assembled, and as such we have to start with assembling the case. I started off by fixing the case’s radiator wings to the main frame, which was easily accomplished by using three countersunk screws per hinge, of which there are four. I also stuck on four rubber feet.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The hinges are beautifully manufactured to a mirror finish. In fact, all the parts are quite nicely made with a very smooth and even paint job. The panels themselves are also very thick steel, and altogether, it’s a very heavy chassis that oozes quality – which is no surprise given that it’s partly manufactured by hand.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
However, at this stage, I already ran into my first issue – with the wings on, the entire chassis was tilted quite far forward, which didn’t seem right.
With no manual to be found (yet), I played around a bit with the wing layout and eventually got the wings attached the correct way – with the text on the user’s side and the straight edge at the bottom – the top of the wings are slanted down slightly for style.
I then proceeded to attach the PCIe bracket, PSU bracket, and rear cover. The case comes with two PSU covers that you can install above one another for extra power. I don’t really see the need for a second PSU, but I suppose the addition of just one bracket can’t do much harm for those who do.
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
At this point, the chassis was almost assembled and ready for system installation. I also chucked on the glass panel holder, a small SSD bracket at the rear, a fifth rubber foot at the bottom of the rear cover, the IO panel at the top, and voila:
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
However, in this assembly I had a few moments where I got stuck, not knowing exactly how to fix a certain bracket to the mainframe. When it was all done and built, which took longer than it looks like from the pictures, I was wondering where the manual was. I had already turned the box over twice looking for it. But eventually, I found it hidden under the glass panel.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Yep. I had placed the glass panel aside for when I neared the end of the build, but in doing so totally overlooked that the manual might be in there. Oh well, we made it this far.
Neat Little Details
The MasterFrame 700 comes with a few neat little details that show thoughtful design. For example, it includes a magnetic rubber pad shaped like the Cooler Master logo that you can use to keep track of screws, a VESA 100 mount for if you want to wall-mount the chassis, and there are instructions on where to place the standoffs for the motherboard.
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 3
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
That said, I’m not sure I fully understand the VESA mount. It’s part of the main frame, but behind it is the PSU mount, cable management space and the rear cover to hang hard drives nto. As such, you’d need to make a lot of sacrifices to be able to wall-mount this chassis if you want it flat against the wall – or you’ll need an arm. And it better be a strong arm, because this chassis is very heavy with a system installed into it.
Razer’s Tomahawk ITX values form over function. And although it looks great for a Mini-ITX chassis, it has design flaws that keep it from being worth its steep price.
For
+ Easy to work in
+ Thermally capable
+ Minimalistic looks
+ Built like a (small) tank
Against
– Very expensive
– Doesn’t get dust filtration right
– Ineffective front intake
– Doesn’t include fans
Specifications and Features
When Razer reached out asking if I wanted to review the Tomahawk ITX, I of course said yes. After all, it’s the first time Razer is delving into the ITX chassis market. And I have to admit, it’s a good looking case with a simple but purposeful desing.
Razer wouldn’t disclose who its production partner was, but the chassis closely resembles that of the Lian Li TU150, albeit with a few changes. Given the collaboration history between the two companies, a collaboration with Lian Li wouldn’t be surprising.
Whether this compact Razer case deserves a spot on our Best PC Cases list remains to be seen.Let’s dig into the Razer Tomahawk ITX’s design and performance to find out.
Razer Tomahawk Specifications
Type
ITX Tower
Motherboard Support
Mini-ITX
Dimensions (HxWxD)
8.46 x 9.72 x 14.49 inches (215 x 247 x 368 mm)
Max GPU Length
12.6 inches (320 mm)
CPU Cooler Height
6.5 inches (165 mm)
Max PSU Length
SFF, SFF-L
External Bays
None
Internal Bays
3x 3.5-inch
Expansion Slots
3x
Front I/O
2x USB 3.0
1x USB Type-C
Mic, Headphone
Other
Chroma RGB Controller
Front Fans
None (Up to 1x 120mm)
Rear Fans
None (Up to 1x 120mm)
Top Fans
None (Up to 2x 120mm)
Bottom Fans
None (Up to 2x 120mm)
Side Fans
x
RGB
Yes, Razer Chroma Underglow
Damping
No
Warranty
1 Year
Features
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Touring around the chassis, there’s not much to mention of any significance – the Tomahawk ITX is shaped like a shoebox on its side, with dark tinted tempered glass panels on each side and a closed front. There is some semblance of intake mesh on the side of the front panel, but the perforation is tiny and likely won’t do much for cooling.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
At the bottom of the case you’ll spot two Chroma RGB strips between the front and back feet. These provide Chroma underglow lighting, which we’ll demonstrate later in the review. With diffusers, they should handsomely light up the area underneath the chassis.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
The case’s side panels swing open on hinges, making it really easy to open and show off your system without the hassle of unscrewing and removing a panel. That said, there’s not a lot of space for cable management behind the motherboard tray, and without anything to hold the cables in place, it might become a challenge to keep the panel closed later on, as it’s only held shut by a magnet.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Top IO comprises a USB Type-C port, discrete microphone and headphone jacks and two USB 3.0 ports. Power and reset switches are naturally also present.
Internal Layout
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 2
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
After removing the glass panels, because I don’t want them swinging around during the build process, we reveal the interior of the case. There is space for up to Mini-ITX motherboards, an SFX power supply near the front, and large 3-slot graphics cards.
Image 1 of 1
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Cooling
Despite being a $189 chassis, Razer does not include any fans with this case. You can install up to a 240mm AIO at the top of the case, two 120mm fans at the bottom, along with single 120mm spinners at the front intake and rear exhaust.
CPU coolers can be up to 6.5 inches (165 mm) tall, and GPUs up to three slots thick and 12.6 inches (320 mm) long.
However, air filtration is bound to be problematic in this case. There is a front intake filter, but the mesh design is so restrictive here that I doubt the case will pull much air through this filter. As a result, this can only turn into a negative-pressure case that draws unfiltered air in from the bottom and rear of the chassis.
Storage
An SSD mount is present on the side tray and the bottom also supports another two. There are no 3.5-inch HDD mounts.
Does it fit an RTX 3080?
Yes, the case fits triple-slot GPUs up to 320mm (12.6 inches) long.
Current page:
Specifications and Features
Next PageHardware Installation
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
