Gigabyte accused of some idea stealing.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

33 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Which just seems completely asinine considering that it requires entire case redesigns and fucks up compatibility for customers.

Standards change sometimes.

are you mad that people are pushing for atx12vo?

were you mad when atx came out?

when the new intel socket came out?

about new ram?

[PocketNerd]

38 minutes ago, Helpful Tech Wiard said:

Standards change sometimes.

are you mad that people are pushing for atx12vo?

were you mad when atx came out?

when the new intel socket came out?

about new ram?

You're comparing apples and oranges because none of those are for purely aesthetic reasons. Those were mainly (if not purely) for technical reasons.

Though you could argue the Intel/AMD socket changes were bullshit, but I counter that it stops idiots from trying to install them in something that wasn't compatible for support reasons. Same would go for RAM.

[StDragon]

2 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Which just seems completely asinine considering that it requires entire case redesigns and fucks up compatibility for customers.

But it's not unheard of either. You can point to Dell in general, or Intel with their NUC Extreme series. I don't see a problem with the permanent union between a case and MB so long as the customer is aware they're inseparable to deviate from known standards. And let's be a little honest here: how many people upgrade their MB more than the case? Usually the entire thing is sold off or re-purposed to do something else. So, I don't think it's all that big of a deal IMHO.

[bcredeur97]

poor gigabyte having so many issues and stuff the last couple of years. Feel like i see them in the news all the time now lol 

[Kisai]

12 hours ago, StDragon said:

But it's not unheard of either. You can point to Dell in general, or Intel with their NUC Extreme series. I don't see a problem with the permanent union between a case and MB so long as the customer is aware they're inseparable to deviate from known standards. And let's be a little honest here: how many people upgrade their MB more than the case? Usually the entire thing is sold off or re-purposed to do something else. So, I don't think it's all that big of a deal IMHO.

I'd still be using my chassis from the Core 2 duo/quad if it wasn't for the fact the GTX 1080 didn't fit in it, and I'd still be using the chassis that build if it wasn't for going "nah, let's start fresh." with the 11th gen cpu.

 

Here's the thing, I can still reuse those both of those chassis, I just haven't because I can't use the front panel ports on the older chassis (only has firewire and USB 2.0 ports on the front panel), and the previous case (the corsair uses a magnetically held part of the top, which fell apart pretty quick, and has no usb-c ports.)

 

Pretty much the only reason I've had to change the chassis at all has been due to some part not fitting. Like never mind ATX standards, GPU vendors don't adhere to the length, and Chassis vendors put things in places that overlap with the MB. You know how much the GTX 1080 was over-length by? enough that the power connectors hit the drive cage.

 

In an ideal situation, GPU's would go back to being "1 slot" wide, and the need to have things like E-ATX/Ultra-ATX wouldn't be necessary. So just like when "AGP" was a thing, what needs to be addressed is where the GPU goes, and the most logical solution is to move the "lost expansion" capacity to the back of the board, and that can be done by putting a 90-degree x16 slot on the back of the board, having a "3 slot" height GPU space in the chassis. In a dual x16 GPU setup, you could put two PCIe x16's on the back, facing different directions so that all the ports all the vents are on the rear.

 

But this gets into "what is wrong with GPU designs", is that we put the I/O on the back of the card at all. Put a daughter card into the x16 slot that also contains the USB-C/DVI/DP ports that moves the x16 i/o past the expansion card bay, and create a dedicated "GPU" mount in the chassis. Or you know, just sell GPU's in a eGPU chassis, that connects with 4 TB connectors on a card that sits in that slot.

 

If things keep going, the way nVidia is going, the next GPU's will end up being 4-slot and 5-slot GPU's.

[StDragon]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

But this gets into "what is wrong with GPU designs", is that we put the I/O on the back of the card at all. Put a daughter card into the x16 slot that also contains the USB-C/DVI/DP ports that moves the x16 i/o past the expansion card bay, and create a dedicated "GPU" mount in the chassis. Or you know, just sell GPU's in a eGPU chassis, that connects with 4 TB connectors on a card that sits in that slot.

 

If things keep going, the way nVidia is going, the next GPU's will end up being 4-slot and 5-slot GPU's.

Would probably go back to the backplane architecture where the GPU, I/O, CPU-MB-RAM module are all daughter cards.

 

It would be something of a throwback to the days of the SGI workstation. You could easily get away with the GPU and CPU being on opposite sides facing away from each other so both CPU and GPU can intake fresh ambient air from outside the case. The I/O options being sandwiched somewhere in between.

[Touch My Hamm]

ideas and tech being "borrowed" and slightly changed in the tech world....