I am quite sure you are convinced as well, so no need to dwell on that. This mostly solves the obstruction issue, although I can't think of any reason to put a 280mm in this case unless that was the only part you had in hand. In this case, you put the radiator against the rail, fans mounted behind on the internal side. Based one experience, you really don't want your fans blocked in close proximity with that kind of things. With the 280mm, the fans or radiator is partially obstructed by the railing system. I can't see any reason why a 240mm would not work just fine there? I think the specs are wrong on this case and it would happily accept a 240mm radiator bolted to the back of the top two fans? This is what it looks like from behind the fans: Which brings me back to my original post. I don't think the 360mm is an option for me as I need the hard drive caddy at the bottom, and it sure looks like if you had a 360mm radiator it would hit the caddy down the bottom. Much better is to keep the 3x120mm fans up front, and bolt either a 240mm or 360mm behind the fans. I do not think a 280mm radiator is even an option on this case simply because the fan layout would be odd. I recommend caution any time you are considering a 280mm with a mid sized case like both of those above. The 140mm wide radiator may be impossible up top (RAM/VRM heatsinks/ATX plugs) and difficult on the front stretching from MB wall to door panel. These cases tend to be not so wide, and not so tall. You especially need to be careful in the mid-tower category. However, that does not make them automatically superior for all builds. Some cases just look better with 3x120 vs 2x140. Then there is the other thing to consider. Case owners may be able to help with this as well. This will give you an idea of how much of a 280mm radiator or its fans will be blocked by rail/frame. What you are looking for is a picture of the exposed front rail. Some cases are much better with one or the other. However, that does not mean it handles both equally well. One for 120mm width and the other for 140mm. There are likely two rails in the front frame. Perhaps the grid on the 465x can be removed, or there is a different one to use for the 2x140mm fan config (I think it's the dust guard)? So if you put 2x 140mm fans up front for a 280mm radiator, the fans will move down on the front of the case and then it would look silly as they would not line up with the front panel grid? Probably more silly on the 465X which is the case I am leaning towards. The option of course is to use a 280mm radiator which it says is supported, but both of those cases have the front fans behind structures that match the 3x front fan layout. So what gives? Can those two cases have a 240mm radiator up front behind the top two fans or not? I don't really want to use a 360mm radiator up front as then you lose the hard disk trays, which I plan to use for my backup drives using ShadowProtect. That seems a bit odd to me in that the default fans setup is 3x 120mm fans? Surely a 240mm radiator would fit nicely behind the top two fans, but since it says it is not supported I am thinking maybe the mounting holes don't line up or something? But the fans normally bolt right to the radiator through the front panel, so it seems odd it says that is not supported? However according to the specs on both cases, while the front of the case supports both 3x 120mm and 2x 140mm fans, when it comes to radiator specs it says the front only supports 280mm and 360mm while the top of the case supports 240mm. I have not decided which yet, but am leaning towards the 465X due to the clean looking front glass panel but it costs a little more (better fans I am assuming and a little more room inside).Īnyway my plan is to have a radiator in the front of the case with RGB fans, so both of these are good options as they come with RGB fans in the front and I can then relocate the ones that come with the cooler to other parts of the case. I am building a new rig for work, and am looking at using either the iCUE 220T case or the iCUE 465X case.
0 kommentar(er)
