Test Setup and Methodology
| Test Platform | |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i5-6600K |
| Motherboard | EVGA Z170 Stinger (mITX Intel Z170) |
| Memory | Crucial Ballistix Sport 8 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 |
| Graphics Card | XFX AMD Radeon R9 290X Double Dissipation Edition |
| Storage | OCZ Vertex 460 120GB SSD |
| Cooling | DEEPCOOL Gabriel, Corsair H75 Liquid CPU Cooler |
| Power Supply | SilverStone Strider ST1000-P 1000 W Modular PSU |
| OS | Windows 8.1 64-bit |
Beginning with the Antec P380 review I adopted a more rigorous testing methodology, with the intent of providing a more comprehensive look at how an enclosure's performance is affected by different thermal loads.
The process I have adopted is as follows:
- CPU Temperatures
- Temps generated using both a closed-loop liquid cooler and air cooler in each enclosure, with separate results presented
- Temps now measured at idle, load, and "stress". Load temps created using the video transcoder benchmark x264, with stress results from prime95 (large FFT torture test)
- Temperatures defined as the hottest core as recorded at the 5-minute mark using RealTemp software
- A custom fan profile is used to provide linear results for both liquid and air cooling
- GPU Temperatures
- Load temps created using the Unigine Valley benchmark (Extreme HD preset), with the highest temp recorded after two successive benchmark runs
- A custom fan profile is used to provide linear results
- Noise Levels
- Measured using a digital sound pressure meter positioned 24 inches from the front of the enclosure (system fully assembled with side panels in place)
- A fixed speed for load noise will be used for consistency, based on observed average max fan speeds under load for both CPU and GPU
I employed the ASUS motherboard software EVGA motherboard settings to create a custom fan profile for the CPU, and both the Deepcool Gabriel air cooler and Corsair H75 liquid cooler used this profile for their PWM fans.
The XFX R9 290X DD graphics card was also setup with a custom fan profile using MSI's Afterburner software, with a linear rise in fan speed beginning at 20%.
The reason for the custom fan profiles is simple: default fan profiles flatten out during certain temperature ranges, which results in uneven results between tests and enclosures as a given temp will often fall below the threshold to increase fan speed. In my quest to provide consistent results I didn't like the position where a single degree often determined whether the cooler was placed into a louder, but more effective, state.
Add to this the complication of testing without complete control over ambient temperature and you can understand why noise testing was done at a fixed fan speed. Ambient temps can produce very misleading results with regard to fan noise as a colder room requires less fan speed to keep the system cool, with the opposite true for warm rooms. The adjusted delta temps are the same in either case, but for a neutral look at noise output a fixed speed was chosen for both CPU and GPU noise testing.
Next we will look at temperature and noise results for the Define Nano S.
I still do not understand the
I still do not understand the reasoning behind large MiniITX cases. this is barely smaller than my Fractal Core 1000 which supports MicroATX boards.
I’d have loved for the Nano S to be an impossibly small MiniITX case like the N-Case M1, but alas, it seems to not be the case
(no pun intended)
(well, maybe a little)
I keep waiting for an M1
I keep waiting for an M1 alternative from a company like Fractal to make it affordable. At such a small size aluminum construction (such as the NCASE M1) would be less important, and it could be made less expensive.
I agree that this is close to the size of the Core 1000 (I reviewed the similarly-sized Core 1100 a couple of years ago), but the Nano S is in a different class. Better materials, better interior design, and compared to what I've seen in the past two years this is priced very competitively at $69.99. It's not a budget case, and Mini-ITX is a more expensive platform, of course; a case like the Core 1000 is more economical beyond the initial investment.
There are a lot of other
There are a lot of other differences though. I believe the Nano S is a bit higher quality in terms of overall construction, sounds dampening material and cable management with gromets, etc. It also has a bottom mounted PSU, different front panel I/O, no 5 1/2″ bays, etc. A lot of this stuff is preferential.
The Nano S is also catered towards water cooling and has greater compatibility than the Core series. If somebody wants to build the smallest single-GPU system with a full custom water cooling loop the Nano S fits the bill more than the Core.
Not to mention watercooling in the Core removes HDD mounting options. And the Nano S has filtered intake in the front and bottom, something the Core doesn’t have.
The Core 1000 is 175 x 355 x
The Core 1000 is 175 x 355 x 420 mm (26.1 L). By comparison, the Nano S is 203 x 330 x 400 mm (26.8 L). Now, the Nano S can do a lot of things the Core 1000 can’t, for sure, just not hold an mATX mobo.
Keep in mind that Fractal Design also has the very slim Node 202 as well as the shoebox Node 304/Core 500. They’re offering a traditional mini tower-sized ITX case in the Nano S here, but they do cover other grounds too, unlike some competitors. Though nothing as space-efficient as the NCase M1 or DAN Cases A4-SFX.
I was hoping this would be an
I was hoping this would be an option as a NAS box. Looks like Lian-Li Q25B is still the best option.
Umm. The power supply blocks
Umm. The power supply blocks air flow to the GPU.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the GPU on the floor and the PSU somewhere else? Like up front or on top?
I love this case but am
I love this case but am amazed at all the reviews that fail to point out, when using a stock cooler on a GPU there is a limited air flow space due to how close the PSU sets to the GPU.
When I did my build I used an SFX PSU to make sure there was a real opening there so the GPU could get proper airflow. This is a simple fix and yet no one actually talks about it.
Also the side window is crap. The material they use to keep cost down is VERY easy to scratch. Again something that is not often discussed. With an ITX case, that can be used for LAN events and thus would travel and be prone to scratching I would think this would be important.
Finally a note on the SSD mounts. I used dual SSDs and the mounts are positions so tight to the back of the motherboard that is the cabling passed under the power mount the fit is very difficult to make solid. This is a minor gripe that could have been fixed by moving the SSD mount outward a 0.25″ more from the back of the main board.
Now this is not to say this is a bad case, for the money this case is an awesome budget option and my first choice for a low cost ITX build. However the lack of any meaningful and through reviews on this case is disturbing.
I would say that showing the
I would say that showing the ins and outs of a case, and then testing that case with both liquid and air CPU coolers (not to mention the installation of a 240mm AIO liquid cooler on the upper and front intake mounts for reference, which are not included in testing and included simply to show fit), with thermal and noise performance data provided for each cooler setup, including GPU temps with both options, is "thorough".
As to the GPU clearance, it's not an issue or I would have noted it. There is a small gap between the PSU and half of the GPU, yes; though a gap nonetheless. This would be hardly ideal except for the fact that the other half of the GPU is completely unobstructed. My dual-fan R9 290X performed just fine for a small enclosure.
How is it possible for the
How is it possible for the GPU temps to be 13c on idle and CPU temps at 1.6c with air cooling?
In the graphs, it says
In the graphs, it says “temperature over ambient” that you know how hot it will be in your situation