# Mini-DTX Hype Thread (ITX with two PCIe slots!)



## Dyson Poindexter

I think it is time we make a push for some of the big names to develop proper Mini-DTX motherboards for today's processors and chipsets. SFF enthusiast computing continues to enjoy mainstream popularity, with all the major players having enthusiast ITX boards. I believe Mini-DTX is a natural progression, and a technical no-brainer for the likes of EVGA, Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, Asrock and others.



Spoiler: What is Mini-DTX?



The DTX and Mini-DTX form factors were developed by AMD back in 2007 for SFF applications. It never took off, because SFF computing hadn't hit the limelight. ITX was still new, and only being heavily used by VIA, who developed it. While normal DTX has advantages as well, in this thread we are interested in the Mini-DTX form factor.

*Mini-DTX can best be described as a Mini-ITX board with an extra expansion slot.* It retains the same front-to-back thickness as a normal ITX board. The only dimensional change is the increased height for the extra expansion slot. With this extra space, *a second PCIe x16* connector can be added.







Spoiler: What's the advantage over Mini-ITX?



With the ability to add an extra PCIe slot, the benefits to this form factor become apparent. Multi-GPU setups (SLI and Crossfire) are feasible for the first time in a truly SFF build. Additionally, combinations such as a GPU and dedicated sound card, RAID controller or PCIe SSD are made possible.





Spoiler: Where are the Mini-DTX cases? Why not just get a mATX board?



This is the best part: *Any Mini-ITX case that has two PCIe slot covers (for dual-slot GPUs) already supports Mini-DTX!* The required space for the dual-slot PCIe bracket and video card guarantees space for the motherboard that will extend out under the GPU. Even the tiny Silverstone SG05 supports a Mini-DTX board!

Micro ATX is significantly larger in both height and depth, and as such even the smallest mATX case is a great deal larger than a Mini-ITX case. Mini-DTX is an extension of the already popular Mini-ITX form factor, and uses most Mini-ITX cases.





Spoiler: But I like Mini-ITX!



Mini-ITX users need not worry. I believe that Mini-DTX and Mini-ITX can continue alongside each other. Even if the "Enthusiast" motherboards become Mini-DTX, the case compatibility between the two will allow the dimensions of cases to stay the same. A Mini-ITX user is free to ignore the extra expansion slot, just as cases have had two slot openings for years now. For applications that require even smaller footprints than the two-slot ITX cases we already have, Intel's NUC or the Gigabyte Brix are suitable.



I'd like to open this up as a discussion among all of us in the SFF community, and show the motherboard vendors that demand exists for these boards. There might be a trademark issue with using the name "Mini-DTX," in which case I'd call it "Extended ITX" or "ITX Plus." Some are just sold as mATX boards even though they only have two slots. Regardless, I think there are nothing but advantages to moving to this form factor. Motherboard vendors will enjoy the increase in board space for routing and placing components. Case manufacturers have nothing to change except the words on the box, stating support for Mini-DTX. (and many already list it) We, the enthusiasts and end users gain extra versatility without sacrificing case selection or desk space.


----------



## Lass3

SLI / CF? That would require single slot GPUs?

I don't see the point.


----------



## Insan1tyOne

I second this! Don't get me wrong, I love my Rampage IV Gene and 350D but I just want to move down to something smaller and still retain all of the enthusiast qualities that my RIVG has!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> SLI / CF? That would require single slot GPUs?
> 
> I don't see the point.


The point is, is that you could have a pretty small case (lets say the new Phanteks Enthoo Evolv) that supports a TON of watercooling and other options but only supports m-ITX boards. That is why m-DTX would be great.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> SLI / CF? That would require single slot GPUs?
> 
> I don't see the point.


Or watercooling. This build was quite inspirational:

Build log of "Unobtainable" - X79 and Crossfire in a white Bitfenix Prodigy

Of course, those with air cooled or dual-slot cards can safely ignore the extra slot.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> SLI / CF? That would require single slot GPUs?


You can already use something like GTX 690 or Radeon R2 295x2 in an mITX case, though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> I don't see the point.


Neither do I. Most mITX cases only have two PCI-E slot covers, which puts mDTX users in an awkward position.


----------



## fleetfeather

OHHHHHH Baby! Can we also try get some support for E-DTX on the x99 platform?









x99
2x PCIE 16x
Dual channel DDR4 (if you want quad channel, go mATX, seriously)

So.Much.Hype.


----------



## fleetfeather

TIL no one knows about single slot brackets for GPU's?


----------



## Reindoonicorn

Is there any news of any big manufacturers planning to make mini DTX boards?


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> OHHHHHH Baby! Can we also try get some support for E-DTX on the x99 platform?


As cool as it would be I just don't see that happening. Both Asus and EVGA have said that while it should technically be possible it would be cost-prohibitive considering how small a market that would be and the amount of work that would be needed to develop it.

Socket 2011 is huge and wouldn't leave much room on the board for everything else, even on mini-DTX. Here's a mockup I made a while ago that really shows this.


----------



## hyp36rmax

This is interesting as DTX only has one full PCIe lane to accommodate a single GPU at this time leaving the Short PCIe for an expansion slot for a dedicated Audio card, SSD, or smaller Add-on card. Until AIB partners release a short PCIe GPU at this point the only Crossfire and SLI we will see will be through dual GPU cards such as the AMD 7990, R9 295X2, Nivida 690, Titan-Z, Asus Mars 760...

MATX all the way if CrossfireX or SLI in a SFF. Silverstone's SG09/10 is the most compact MATX case that can accommodate this setup to date.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> As cool as it would be I just don't see that happening. Both Asus and EVGA have said that while it should technically be possible it would be cost-prohibitive considering how small a market that would be and the amount of work that would be needed to develop it.
> 
> Socket 2011 is huge and wouldn't leave much room on the board for everything else, even on mini-DTX. Here's a mockup I made a while ago that really shows this.


Yeah I heard Jacob say they tried to do a x99 mitx but ran out of room for DIMM slots, which is why I thought of E-DTX (wider than DTX, like how E-ATX is wider than ATX)


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Yeah I heard Jacob say they tried to do a x99 mitx but ran out of room for DIMM slots, which is why I thought of E-DTX (wider than DTX, like how E-ATX is wider than ATX)


But then it's even more of a niche market and you're not too far off from mATX at that point.









I'd rather see more really compact mATX cases that make use of SFX PSUs instead of non-standard form factors (I'm talking about E-Mini-DTX, I'm all for more Mini-DTX). I'm currently working on one but it'll be some time before it's ready but the Silverstone 600W is plenty capable of running a Haswell-E system and SLI 970s with modest overclocking so hopefully Silverstone does something like a smaller version of the SG09.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> But then it's even more of a niche market and you're not too far off from mATX at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather see more really compact mATX cases that make use of SFX PSUs instead of non-standard form factors (I'm talking about E-Mini-DTX, I'm all for more Mini-DTX). I'm currently working on one but it'll be some time before it's ready but the Silverstone 600W is plenty capable of running a Haswell-E system and SLI 970s with modest overclocking so hopefully Silverstone does something like a smaller version of the SG09.


Heh,

The biggest concern for me regarding mATX is the extra length of the board, rather than the width. After all, your GPU tends to hang past the side of mITX boards atm anyway. The obvious exception is cards with 170mm PCB's, but alas most mITX cases don't make great use of that width dimension anyways

I suppose I could be happy with DTX z97 too, but I'd rather see mobo manufacturers aim for the stars, rather than aim for the moon


----------



## RedCloudFuneral

I'd use this for my next build provided I could find a single slot GPU(or if cases were made with 3 expansion slots.)


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> I suppose I could be happy with DTX z97 too, but I'd rather see mobo manufacturers aim for the stars, rather than aim for the moon


If we're talking really out there stuff I'd like to see mini-BTX become a thing, either that or support for Nvidia's NVLink.


----------



## iFreilicht

Yeah I would love to see some mDTX boards, too!

One application that I have in mind is using a hardware encoding capture card in a SFF or even uSFF build. As these are great for LAN parties, and quite a few people like to record footage from their PCs, it could be a viable option to specialize the build by using a capture capture card to nearly annihilate the frame drops when recording instead of using a high performance and energy consuming CPU to merely lower them.

Also, high end HTPCs could use TV tuner cards and a dedicated GPU, which would be awesome.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Good points so far everyone!

As far as X99 on mITX/mDTX, I would love that, but I fear it's just not feasable. Shuttle did it with X79 on one of their form factor boards (which are very similar to full DTX):



A Mini-DTX X99 would be epic though, even if it was only dual channel SODIMMs. I hope one day we can look at full DTX LGA2011-3 boards, but they will break compatibility with some cases.

And again, for those who favor a dual slot/air cooled card, you don't have to use the extra slot.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hyp36rmax*
> 
> This is interesting as DTX only has one full PCIe lane to accommodate a single GPU at this time leaving the Short PCIe for an expansion slot for a dedicated Audio card, SSD, or smaller Add-on card.


My example picture showed a board with an x16 and an x1 slot, but that doesn't have to be the case (and indeed, if I could find a picture of a Mini-DTX board with two x16 slots I wouldn't have made this thread.)


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> (and indeed, if I could find a picture of a Mini-DTX board with two x16 slots I wouldn't have made this thread.)


Hi there!









This is an old render from the Z77 days.



All credit for the render goes to Confusis from sffr.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> Hi there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an old render from the Z77 days.
> 
> 
> 
> All credit for the render goes to Confusis from sffr.


See, something like that would be awesome to have!


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> This is an old render from the Z77 days.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Render!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All credit for the render goes to Confusis from sffr.


I think @Dyson Poindexter meant if he could find a picture of a real mDTX board with two x16 slots, he would've bought that and been happy ever after without a need to open this thread which aims to counteract the lack of exactly those boards.


----------



## hyp36rmax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Good points so far everyone!
> 
> As far as X99 on mITX/mDTX, I would love that, but I fear it's just not feasable. Shuttle did it with X79 on one of their form factor boards (which are very similar to full DTX):
> 
> 
> 
> A Mini-DTX X99 would be epic though, even if it was only dual channel SODIMMs. I hope one day we can look at full DTX LGA2011-3 boards, but they will break compatibility with some cases.
> 
> And again, for those who favor a dual slot/air cooled card, you don't have to use the extra slot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My example picture showed a board with an x16 and an x1 slot, but that doesn't have to be the case (and indeed, if I could find a picture of a Mini-DTX board with two x16 slots I wouldn't have made this thread.)


For sure point taken







. I'm with you if we can get an X99 mDTX with two separate 16x PCIe then that would be awesome! Until manufacturers jump i'll be following this with great interest


----------



## Shadow_Foxx

Put me on the list! If all itx boards moved to DTX, there would be no loss for ITX users (extra slot doesnt need to be used/fits in all existing itx cases with dual slots), but a gain for those who want pcie audio or SSDs along with a graphics card, or dual watercooled gpus.

I dont know jack about mobo design, but it seems like adding another slot shouldnt be that excessive? I could be totally wrong.


----------



## ccRicers

I was thinking of that Shuttle board when I read the OP, even if it isn't officially mDTX it's pretty much what I have been wanting to get. I'm mostly in it for LGA 2011 and the 4 DIMM support. But I very much like that form factor of the Shuttle board, where it is longer horizontally, about as long as a standard ATX/mATX board.

Something like this X99 mATX board, but only 2 PCIe slots shorter.



One other thing to consider with a DTX-sized board is that it's rectangular unlike mATX which is square. So it can be oriented vertically or horizontally for more potential in case sizes and modding.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccRicers*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking of that Shuttle board when I read the OP, even if it isn't officially mDTX it's pretty much what I have been wanting to get. I'm mostly in it for LGA 2011 and the 4 DIMM support. But I very much like that form factor of the Shuttle board, where it is longer horizontally, about as long as a standard ATX/mATX board.
> 
> Something like this X99 mATX board, but only 2 PCIe slots shorter.
> 
> 
> 
> One other thing to consider with a DTX-sized board is that it's rectangular unlike mATX which is square. So it can be oriented vertically or horizontally for more potential in case sizes and modding.


Yep, move the m.2 slot to a riser or around back, then have a PCIe x16 in both slots! Should be doable. I'm sure LGA2011-3 has a lot more requirements as far as routing and board layers, but Shuttle was able to do it, and they're not even a huge OEM.

I'm a big fan of "shoebox" cases, most of which would handle a full DTX board with no issues.


----------



## subtec

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccRicers*
> 
> I was thinking of that Shuttle board when I read the OP, even if it isn't officially mDTX it's pretty much what I have been wanting to get. I'm mostly in it for LGA 2011 and the 4 DIMM support. But I very much like that form factor of the Shuttle board, where it is longer horizontally, about as long as a standard ATX/mATX board.


Shuttle's motherboards are actually deeper than mATX/ATX, by about an inch. A comparison of the two form factors, scaled to match:



DTX is really what you're asking for - essentially mATX minus two slots:



And Mini-DTX is DTX with the depth cut down to mini-ITX size.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I'm a big fan of "shoebox" cases, most of which would handle a full DTX board with no issues.


I don't know about that. DTX is 74mm deeper than mini-ITX, which is a problem for a number of shoebox mini-ITX cases. The SG07/08 and Node 304, for example, wouldn't have the room due to the PSU being in front of the motherboard. It might work in the SG05/06, but the depth of the case (276mm), minus the bezel thickness (10mm?) wouldn't leave quite enough room for a standard 25mm thick front fan with a DTX motherboard (244mm).

The cases I could see DTX working in are the the Coolermaster Elite 120/130 with the drive cage removed, and maybe Silverstone's upcoming SG05 update, the SG13.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Hey, look! A link!

http://www.nmediapc.com/ATX.htm

So basically, mDTX is just mATX with some specific dimensions, as is mITX (technically).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> The point is, is that you could have a pretty small case (lets say the new Phanteks Enthoo Evolv) that supports a TON of watercooling and other options but only supports m-ITX boards. That is why m-DTX would be great.


You called the EVOLV small, your argument is invalid.







No, really - the thing is the size of some of the smaller ATX mid-towers.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Dual channel DDR4 (if you want quad channel, go mATX, seriously)


Excuse me?! SODIMMs, sir! Look at your laptop. Two SODIMMs in a line would be maybe 10% longer than a single DIMM. The only "issue" is that the frequency is much lower than desktop RAM.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Heh,
> 
> The biggest concern for me regarding mATX is the extra length of the board, rather than the width. After all, your GPU tends to hang past the side of mITX boards atm anyway. The obvious exception is cards with 170mm PCB's, but alas most mITX cases don't make great use of that width dimension anyways
> 
> I suppose I could be happy with DTX z97 too, but I'd rather see mobo manufacturers aim for the stars, rather than aim for the moon


You do realize that mATX is a very broad standard, right? It's simply using a certain placement of standoffs and must be between 171mm and 244mm in both dimensions. That means up to the four-slot, four-DIMM square we all know and love all the way down to something negligibly larger than mITX.

There are mATX boards that fit the mDTX standard (almost) exactly, but are labeled mATX. ECS has some, H61 and H81 I believe.

mDTX itself is just mITX plus an extra 33mm of height. Widen it to a 203mm square, and it ought to fit in most mITX cases while maintaining quad-channel and dual x16 slots.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shadow_Foxx*
> 
> Put me on the list! If all itx boards moved to DTX, there would be no loss for ITX users (extra slot doesnt need to be used/fits in all existing itx cases with dual slots), but a gain for those who want pcie audio or SSDs along with a graphics card, or dual watercooled gpus.
> 
> I dont know jack about mobo design, but it seems like adding another slot shouldnt be that excessive? I could be totally wrong.


Some mITX builds use square cases that couldn't fit the additional slot, but those don't even need the first extension slot and can get along with Thin-mITX in most cases. But I would certainly say that mDTX has a market, the question is just how large it is.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Wait, I just remembered. Some smaller mITX boards do use SODIMMs, but they don't fit in vertical slots. Rather, they sit parallel to the board in a laptop-esque housing. You could have a stack of four instead of just two of those. That shouldn't take much additional surface area.

Alternatively, what about a mini PCIe adapter to use the second slot? There are adapters that use USB 3.0 cables for x1 to x16 risers, and I'm sure the same could be done here using pure mITX.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Wait, I just remembered. Some smaller mITX boards do use SODIMMs, but they don't fit in vertical slots. Rather, they sit parallel to the board in a laptop-esque housing. You could have a stack of four instead of just two of those. That shouldn't take much additional surface area.
> 
> Alternatively, what about a mini PCIe adapter to use the second slot? There are adapters that use USB 3.0 cables for x1 to x16 risers, and I'm sure the same could be done here using pure mITX.


Quad-stack SODIMMs aren't a terrible idea, There's plenty of gaming laptops that use 4 sticks.

They make the mPCIe adapter you mention, but of course it's only 1x.


----------



## armourcore9brker

I have one of those mPCIe to x1 converters. It works ok with a sound card but the cabling and the placement of most mPCIe slots makes it awkward to use.

Also not all SODIMMS are horizontal (that would take up more board space) They make them vertical too.



I suppose flat ones could be placed on the bottom of the board. I'd need to check the ATX spec on that though.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Quad-stack SODIMMs aren't a terrible idea, There's plenty of gaming laptops that use 4 sticks.
> 
> They make the mPCIe adapter you mention, but of course it's only 1x.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Snappy picture!


Good thing they also make this x1 to x16 riser.



What is the 4pin floppy connector for? Current?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Mini PCIe provides only 3.3V, while a desktop slot provides that and a 12V line. The floppy power (and presumably Molex or SATA would work too) are required for most if not all full PCIe cards to function.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Quad-stack SODIMMs aren't a terrible idea, There's plenty of gaming laptops that use 4 sticks.
> 
> They make the mPCIe adapter you mention, but of course it's only 1x.


Don't worry about it being x1. That's all mini PCIe supports. You can cut off the end and make it open-ended for GPUs and the like, however.

I've got a riser that looks very weak around the solder joints, but something beefier like that should hold up well. Make sure the cable is mounted securely. M.2 SSDs becoming commonplace have a nice side effect: small PCIe x4 slots that can control a PhysX card or second GPU for crossfire. SLI requires x8 or x16 slots, unfortunately, while crossfire works down to x4. Maybe it even works with x1? I can't remember. You're likely going to have integrated WiFi as well, and sound can come from a DAC.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> Also not all SODIMMS are horizontal (that would take up more board space) They make them vertical too.
> 
> I suppose flat ones could be placed on the bottom of the board. I'd need to check the ATX spec on that though.


Well, four vertical vs four horizontal is going to be pretty close. Two vertical vs two horizontal, however? Obvious winner. Horizontal is good for laptops and thin mITX, both of which are limited by height and don't need particularly powerful VRMs.


----------



## Gilles3000

I've been wondering why there aren't any more mDTX or "Shuttle-DTX" motherboards on the market. Nearly every mITX case on the market has 2 expansion slots, why not use them?


----------



## Aibohphobia

What about splitting the x16 slot?


----------



## iFreilicht

Is that a thing? I mean yes, you could probably split 16 lanes into a pair of 8, but do such risers exist? Also, they'd make using the given expansion slot brackets impossible.


----------



## djsi38t

I did a dtx build a while back because it offered room for the video card I used.

It was a half height palit gts 450,and it just barely fit.

I thought it was pretty slick,and at the time it was the most gpu power you could get in that size.

The motherboard actually came in a foxconn barebones with a very small case.


----------



## aberrero

I've been thinking that we need this for a while.

What I'd really like to see is" M-ITX-X" though, which is longer than regular M-ITX (ie. the same length as a high end GPU PCB), that fits 4 ram slots and allows for quad channel X99 chips.

Alternatively, we should have four slots of SODIMMs instead in the standard M-ITX form factor.

Edit: just went and reread more of the thrad, and full DTX is exactly what I want. Micro-ATX is just unnecessarily large.


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Is that a thing? I mean yes, you could probably split 16 lanes into a pair of 8, but do such risers exist? Also, they'd make using the given expansion slot brackets impossible.


Here's the link to the one in the picture: http://www.ameri-rack.com/ARC2-PEL-2X16_m.html

*Edit:* Wrong product, this is the correct one: http://www.ameri-rack.com/ARC2-PELY423-C7_m.html
Unlike the other one, this only mentions PCIe 2.0 compatibility but it specifically mentions that it's been validated on ASRock Mini-ITX boards that support bifurcation.

It's supposed to be PCIe 3.0 compatible and I believe them, I tried one of their PCIe extenders and it worked with a GTX 980, actually got a slightly higher score in Unigine Valley benchmark than with the card plugged into the slot









It wouldn't be useable in a normal case but would make for an interesting custom build.


----------



## aberrero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> Here's the link to the one in the picture: http://www.ameri-rack.com/ARC2-PEL-2X16_m.html
> 
> It's supposed to be PCIe 3.0 compatible and I believe them, I tried one of their PCIe extenders and it worked with a GTX 980, actually got a slightly higher score in Unigine Valley benchmark than with the card plugged into the slot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be useable in a normal case but would make for an interesting custom build.


This has two PCIe connectors on each end. it is not a splitter; it is two extenders in one product.


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> This has two PCIe connectors on each end. it is not a splitter; it is two extenders in one product.


You're right, I posted the wrong one. I edited my post with a link to the splitter: http://www.ameri-rack.com/ARC2-PELY423-C7_m.html


----------



## aberrero

Interesting.

I did some googling to see if any motherboards supported bifurcation, but couldn't find anything. One guy who asked in the MSI forums got his topic locked because "this would only be used for bitcoin mining or other shady activities that are not supported"


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I did some googling to see if any motherboards supported bifurcation, but couldn't find anything. One guy who asked in the MSI forums got his topic locked because "this would only be used for bitcoin mining or other shady activities that are not supported"










Yes, because wanting/needing GPUs for number crunching must be Bitcoin. No other explanation.

Is anybody clear on how those work? I assume it's a PLX switch, like what's in the 64-lane ASRock and ASUS X#9 boards. They don't have 64 lanes of bandwidth - just the stock 40 - but the devices can actively share them as opposed to the passive "these two slots share lanes upon booting up" you see on most SLI and crossfire capable Z#7 boards.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> You're right, I posted the wrong one. I edited my post with a link to the splitter: http://www.ameri-rack.com/ARC2-PELY423-C7_m.html


Not sure how well that would work in practice. Remember, it has to plug into an initial x16 slot, and both split slots can't be used unless the case has three expansion slots. At that point, you should look into mATX.


----------



## veryrarium

I'm totally ignorant, is it the case that a motherboard needs this "PCIE bifurcation" support for any PCIE splitter (from any number of lanes, not just x16) to work properly on it?

I have this MSI miniITX board that has a PCI slot, a PCIe x1 slot, and a mini-PCIe slot (actually, even a CF slot on the flipside), with the PCI and the PCIe x1 positioned "in series" (instead of side by side vertically as in mini-DTX) at the bottom, and I have been wishing for motherboard manufactures to now put two PCIe 3.0 x8 slots in series on a mini ITX. But I guess by extending the board size to miniDTX there's not much chassis compatibility lost as the OP mentions.


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Is anybody clear on how those work? I assume it's a PLX switch, like what's in the 64-lane ASRock and ASUS X#9 boards. They don't have 64 lanes of bandwidth - just the stock 40 - but the devices can actively share them as opposed to the passive "these two slots share lanes upon booting up" you see on most SLI and crossfire capable Z#7 boards.


I was looking through the Intel socket 2011-v3 documentation while trying to settle a debate about the lane configuration on the EVGA X99 Micro and it uses the term bifurcation when talking about splitting a x16 slot into two x8 slots using the lanes off the CPU itself. So it doesn't just apply to PLX switches.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Not sure how well that would work in practice. Remember, it has to plug into an initial x16 slot, and both split slots can't be used unless the case has three expansion slots. At that point, you should look into mATX.


It's not very practical for standard cases but it could make for a very cool Steambox type build.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Excuse me?! SODIMMs, sir! Look at your laptop. Two SODIMMs in a line would be maybe 10% longer than a single DIMM. The only "issue" is that the frequency is much lower than desktop RAM.
> 
> You do realize that mATX is a very broad standard, right? It's simply using a certain placement of standoffs and must be between 171mm and 244mm in both dimensions. That means up to the four-slot, four-DIMM square we all know and love all the way down to something negligibly larger than mITX.
> 
> There are mATX boards that fit the mDTX standard (almost) exactly, but are labeled mATX. ECS has some, H61 and H81 I believe.
> 
> mDTX itself is just mITX plus an extra 33mm of height. Widen it to a 203mm square, and it ought to fit in most mITX cases while maintaining quad-channel and dual x16 slots.


I don't have a problem with the SODIMM arrangement you're quoting; I didn't realise end to end pairs were only slightly longer than a full length DIMM









Yep, I'm aware of the standards for each board type and what they're dependent on, but I don't really feel that's the point here.

I mention mITX and mATX in their stereotypical sense; the way in which we all immediately associate the form factor being.

Regardless of the flexibility of the standard/s, the point is trying to communicate what size board and what board features that we want


----------



## InfraRedRabbit

the NCASE M1 is the perfect case to take advantage of this!

it has 3 pcie slots so the ability to mount a single slot pcie (audio/SSD) and still maintain a 2 slot GPU.

man i would jump for this in an instant over mITX - opens the doors to far more options if only motherboard and case designers would see the possibilities.

really it would take a big company like ASUS (who already make motherboards, and some custom cases i think?) to jump on the bandwagon to see this take off.

can dream though


----------



## aberrero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *InfraRedRabbit*
> 
> a single slot pcie (audio/SSD)


The Asus Impact motherboard already kind of deals with this, by having upgraded audio in a daughterboard as well as a fast m.2 slot. I think that is much more practical than having a dedicated sound card in an mITX build, and Asus's sound card is pretty good from what I understand.

I really just want to see a DTX build with dual 295X2 cards, 32GB ram, and 8-core Haswell-E. It would fit in something the size of a Corsair 250D, and it would be amazing. As fast as any computer anybody can build today.


----------



## InfraRedRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> The Asus Impact motherboard already kind of deals with this, by having upgraded audio in a daughterboard as well as a fast m.2 slot. I think that is much more practical than having a dedicated sound card in an mITX build, and Asus's sound card is pretty good from what I understand.
> 
> I really just want to see a DTX build with dual 295X2 cards, 32GB ram, and 8-core Haswell-E. It would fit in something the size of a Corsair 250D, and it would be amazing. As fast as any computer anybody can build today.


the impact is also 350AUD, which makes it a pretty massive turn off - given if dtx was an option i could buy a Z97 dtx board for maybe 150AUD

for more that matter the HTPC user who wants to install a GPU/sound card - they only need a 60AUD H81 board.

the impact makes sense where it doesnt cost the world and for those that game. anyone else gets no benefit from it.

DTX could benefit a wehole not more people than the niche market you describe.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *InfraRedRabbit*
> 
> the impact is also 350AUD, which makes it a pretty massive turn off - given if dtx was an option *i could buy a Z97 dtx board for maybe 150AUD*
> 
> for more that matter the HTPC user who wants to install a GPU/sound card - they only need a 60AUD H81 board.
> 
> the impact makes sense where it doesnt cost the world and for those that game. anyone else gets no benefit from it.
> 
> DTX could benefit a wehole not more people than the niche market you describe.


Well, whatever the 150 AUD Z97 DTX is, you can guarantee the componentry and connectivity is going to be crap. Despite it's high price point, the Impact actually justifies its price.


----------



## InfraRedRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Well, whatever the 150 AUD Z97 DTX is, you can guarantee the componentry and connectivity is going to be crap. Despite it's high price point, the Impact actually justifies its price.


i payed 170AUD for my ASUS Z87I-Pro and thats pretty reasonable quality. theres a point of diminishing returns on motherboards (in AUD at least) at about 170-180AUD

im just saying think about the mini-DTX form factor in a broader context than just in what you want for your high spec SLI/CF monster


----------



## aberrero

Don't worry. I can't afford it either.

But it can be useful for two water cooked midrange cards


----------



## NFSxperts

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I think it is time we make a push for some of the big names to develop proper Mini-DTX motherboards for today's processors and chipsets. SFF enthusiast computing continues to enjoy mainstream popularity, with all the major players having enthusiast ITX boards. I believe Mini-DTX is a natural progression, and a technical no-brainer for the likes of EVGA, Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, Asrock and others.
> 
> I'd like to open this up as a discussion among all of us in the SFF community, and show the motherboard vendors that demand exists for these boards. There might be a trademark issue with using the name "Mini-DTX," in which case I'd call it "Extended ITX" or "ITX Plus." Some are just sold as mATX boards even though they only have two slots. Regardless, I think there are nothing but advantages to moving to this form factor. Motherboard vendors will enjoy the increase in board space for routing and placing components. Case manufacturers have nothing to change except the words on the box, stating support for Mini-DTX. (and many already list it) We, the enthusiasts and end users gain extra versatility without sacrificing case selection or desk space.


Good idea on starting this thread. There were several builds where I wished had two pcie expansion slots. I think we should push for this form factor.
(gpu+sound card for htpc), (sata exapnder or raid card+intel nic for file server)
You have good points about case compatibility, which is why I agree completely with what you said.

For the guy who suggested a wider dtx form factor, I think only a few existing m-itx cases will be able to support it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shadow_Foxx*
> 
> Put me on the list! If all itx boards moved to DTX, there would be no loss for ITX users (extra slot doesnt need to be used/fits in all existing itx cases with dual slots), but a gain for those who want pcie audio or SSDs along with a graphics card, or dual watercooled gpus.
> 
> I dont know jack about mobo design, but it seems like adding another slot shouldnt be that excessive? I could be totally wrong.


I think there needs to both m-itx and dtx. Most uSFF cases does not have any expansion slots.
Would both pcie slots be x16? or x1 and x16? Which would be on the top? If its at the bottom, then existing case compatibility would be lost for dual slot gpu.
Better yet, they should come up with an attachment similar to risers which could "extend" the m-itx formfactor to dtx. split the x16 lane to 2 x8 slots.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> I second this! Don't get me wrong, I love my Rampage IV Gene and 350D but I just want to move down to something smaller and still retain all of the enthusiast qualities that my RIVG has!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, is that you could have a pretty small case (lets say the new Phanteks Enthoo Evolv) that supports a TON of watercooling and other options but only supports m-ITX boards. That is why m-DTX would be great.


Am I looking at the wrong case? The evolv I'm looking at is matx at around 40L


----------



## fleetfeather

mITX cases capable of supporting a widened mDTX mobo:

CM Elite 110
CM Elite 130
Corsair 250D
EVGA Hadron Air (with HDD cage removed)
EVGA Hadron Hydro (with HDD cage removed)
Silverstone SG05
Silverstone SG08

These just off the top of my head. I'm sure could go on, but I really don't feel like trawling website catalogues. Any case which supports GPU's longer than 170mm and doesn't have a structure (like a HDD cage, or PSU) right next to the edge of the mobo will support widened mDTX mobos....


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Is anybody clear on how those work? I assume it's a PLX switch


Well, the 115x Intel chips can do this natively, as we all know the x16 slot can turn into two x8 slots. (unless a PLX bridge is used, which isn't always the case) This "bifurcation" card likely just takes the front and back halves of the x16 slots and brings them out to two electrical x8 slots. The Intel chip is obviously capable of this, but I imagine there are some requirements as far as telling the chip what is going on.

A standalone PLX-routed board does exist, but is quite expensive: (in the hundreds)



Regardless, externally splitting the lanes isn't a very forward-looking solution.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> I've been thinking that we need this for a while.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *InfraRedRabbit*
> 
> the NCASE M1 is the perfect case to take advantage of this!
> 
> it has 3 pcie slots so the ability to mount a single slot pcie (audio/SSD) and still maintain a 2 slot GPU.
> 
> man i would jump for this in an instant over mITX - opens the doors to far more options if only motherboard and case designers would see the possibilities.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFSxperts*
> 
> Good idea on starting this thread. There were several builds where I wished had two pcie expansion slots. I think we should push for this form factor.
> (gpu+sound card for htpc), (sata exapnder or raid card+intel nic for file server)
> You have good points about case compatibility, which is why I agree completely with what you said.


Thanks for the feedback so far! I think we can all agree that even if your application doesn't require both slots, having the option isn't going to hurt anyone. It's a "nothing to lose, everything to gain" situation. There are a couple ITX cases that do have 3 expansion slots, like the NCASE M1, which would allow for some flexibility in using a two-slot GPU in the second slot.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> mITX cases capable of supporting a widened mDTX mobo:
> 
> CM Elite 110
> CM Elite 130
> Corsair 250D
> EVGA Hadron Air (with HDD cage removed)
> EVGA Hadron Hydro (with HDD cage removed)
> Silverstone SG05
> Silverstone SG08


Awesome list! I can think of the HAF Stacker 915 series as well, and tons more with simple mods. Nearly all "shoebox" cases could be made to fit.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Fleetfeather: you are right, we generally think of mATX as a 244x244mm square. However, of the four mATX boards in my possession, just one is the full sized form-factor. One is basically mITX with three expansion slots. None of the three "non-standard" boards are the same size either.

Thanks for the list of cases too. I quite like the look of the Hadron Air myself. Would be a nice case for an mITX build, and knowing it supports DTX is a plus.

Dyson: yeah, you're right, Intel chips can do that. But I'm not sure how much of that is the CPU's doing. That feature is limited to the Z boards only, implying the chipset is partially responsible. Of course, it could just be an arbitrary limitation. I honestly do not know.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Fleetfeather: you are right, we generally think of mATX as a 244x244mm square. However, of the four mATX boards in my possession, just one is the full sized form-factor. One is basically mITX with three expansion slots. None of the three "non-standard" boards are the same size either.
> 
> Thanks for the list of cases too. I quite like the look of the Hadron Air myself. Would be a nice case for an mITX build, and knowing it supports DTX is a plus.
> 
> Dyson: yeah, you're right, Intel chips can do that. But I'm not sure how much of that is the CPU's doing. That feature is limited to the Z boards only, implying the chipset is partially responsible. Of course, it could just be an arbitrary limitation. I honestly do not know.


Yep, a lot of the budget mATX boards are three slot, and about as narrow as an ITX board:



There's even a few "mATX" boards that fit the Mini-DTX size, but they all use H61/H81 chipsets for whatever reason.



We just need these compact two-slot boards to inherit some of the enthusiast ITX features and then we are golden.

Regarding PCIe splitting: The PCIe lanes (ever since 1156) for the slots go directly to the CPU, so I feel it's an artificial limitation the chipset imposes. There might be a some technical reason behind it, but knowing Intel it's probably just bracketing the market.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

H61 and H81 are awful. They're PCIe 2.0 for no reason and support only one DIMM per channel. I guess we should be glad it's dual-channel? But that means it only supports two DIMMs and can't be a full 244mm without wasting a lot of space. No reason a better chipset can't be that size, you are correct. B85 is a good starting point and, assuming you don't need/want dual x16 slots, just as good as Q87 or H97.

The first board you linked is AM1, right? That's mine - 170mm wide, about 230mm tall. There are a few mDTX AM1 boards too, labeled mATX. That's single-channel and two DIMMs per channel, again, limiting it to less than 244mm wide. Since the chips' TDPs are 25W, there is absolutely no reason to make them larger to accomodate VRMs. The chips are SoCs too, meaning the southbridge is on-die. AM1 motherboards are only for power delivery and usable I/O; everything important is on the APU.


----------



## fleetfeather

So what features do we all want? What dimensions?

Let's ask the questions using Google Forms, then take the most popular suggestions and prototype it.

Once we have a clear prototype and a clear rationale, we can take it to the Asus / EVGA forums and put forward our case


----------



## m_jones_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> So what features do we all want? What dimensions?
> 
> Let's ask the questions using Google Forms, then take the most popular suggestions and prototype it.
> 
> Once we have a clear prototype and a clear rationale, we can take it to the Asus / EVGA forums and put forward our case


I'm sorry but they won't most likely even care what a niche within a niche small community has to say on this topic.


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> Once we have a clear prototype and a clear rationale, we can take it to the Asus / EVGA forums and put forward our case


Probably want to talk to Gigabyte, they seem willing to do small run semi-custom boards: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/quo/projectq-run-any-os-the-unique-motherboard

That Kickstarter seems to have run into issues but I think that's on the creators end rather than problem with Gigabyte.


----------



## ejohnson

I have been searching for a good mdtx board, so this thread makes me happy

What I am looking for in a mdtx board

pci x16
pci x1
2 ram slots (can use laptop ram to save on space)
4 hdd plugs
msata slot (m2 would take up a pci lane)

Pretty much just a asrock m8 motherboard with a extra pci x1 slot


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m_jones_*
> 
> I'm sorry but they won't most likely even care what a niche within a niche small community has to say on this topic.


Mini ITX used to be a niche too. My first ITX board was an 800 MHz Via C3, and for a long time it was either that or an Intel Atom. It was a long journey to get where we are now, but all the hard work is already done! We've got the cases, everyone is making high-end Z97 boards, ITX is no longer a niche.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> So what features do we all want? What dimensions?
> 
> Let's ask the questions using Google Forms, then take the most popular suggestions and prototype it.
> 
> Once we have a clear prototype and a clear rationale, we can take it to the Asus / EVGA forums and put forward our case


I think a board just like the current Z-series chipset boards (EVGA Singer, ASUS Impact etc.) but with another PCIe x16 slot. The ideas about full DTX with x99 become a slippery slope as far as feature creep, case compatibility, and design feasibility. We can dream though!


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> Probably want to talk to Gigabyte, they seem willing to do small run semi-custom boards: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/quo/projectq-run-any-os-the-unique-motherboard
> 
> That Kickstarter seems to have run into issues but I think that's on the creators end rather than problem with Gigabyte.


Oh dayum. That is pretty hype.

Didn't know GB was that flexible; should deffo hit them up then too

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Mini ITX used to be a niche too. My first ITX board was an 800 MHz Via C3, and for a long time it was either that or an Intel Atom. It was a long journey to get where we are now, but all the hard work is already done! We've got the cases, everyone is making high-end Z97 boards, ITX is no longer a niche.
> I think a board just like the current Z-series chipset boards (EVGA Singer, ASUS Impact etc.) but with another PCIe x16 slot. The ideas about full DTX with x99 become a slippery slope as far as feature creep, case compatibility, and design feasibility. We can dream though!


Hey man, I'm still down for pure mDTX on z97.

I feel some sort of commitment or effort from the community is needed though if we want to get this off the ground... For these manufacturers, they're going to want to see a proper push rather than a half-ass "yeah, I might be interested" sorta dealio


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Thanks for the feedback so far! I think we can all agree that even if your application doesn't require both slots, having the option isn't going to hurt anyone. It's a "nothing to lose, everything to gain" situation. There are a couple ITX cases that do have 3 expansion slots, like the NCASE M1, which would allow for some flexibility in using a two-slot GPU in the second slot.
> Awesome list! I can think of the HAF Stacker 915 series as well, and tons more with simple mods. Nearly all "shoebox" cases could be made to fit.


TBH, I don't want mITX to disappear. If it were replaced by mDTX, some builds just wouldn't be possible anymore, but I think mITX is a more specialised form factor than mDTX.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> TBH, I don't want mITX to disappear. If it were replaced by mDTX, *some builds just wouldn't be possible anymore*, but I think mITX is a more specialised form factor than mDTX.


Huh?


----------



## DuckieHo

DTX is a form-factor pushed by AMD. However, since AMD does not lead the market, they have little influence on it's adoption.

Since mITX, mATX, and ATX are established, it's going to be hard for yet another form factor to gain traction. Even mITX is vastly less common as it is so I doubt we'll see any big push for DTX or mDTX by anymore.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Huh?


I'm talking about very tightly packed cases that utilise every single cm³ available to them like Neutronium V4. If he would've had to use a mDTX board instead of a mITX one, the case would've been either higher or wider. In my current build, I would encounter a similar problem. So I'm quite happy with mITX, especially for uSFF, but regular SFF builds, mDTX is the future.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> DTX is a form-factor pushed by AMD. However, since AMD does not lead the market, they have little influence on it's adoption.
> 
> Since mITX, mATX, and ATX are established, it's going to be hard for yet another form factor to gain traction. Even mITX is vastly less common as it is so I doubt we'll see any big push for DTX or mDTX by anymore.


Well, mDTX fits in (I'm guessing) 90% or more of the cases designed for mITX boards. The ecosystem already exists. It's a supplement to mITX, not really a new form factor.


----------



## m_jones_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Huh?


There are come mini itx cases with just 1 slot or no slots at all so the motherboard would end up being too large.


----------



## armourcore9brker

To bifurcation, I was looking into splitting x16 a few years ago and found documentation on Intel's Ark site. To turn on bifurcation is a BIOS setting. It's almost entirely a firmware limitation. At least, that's how it was done on 1156. I'll see if I can find documentation on it again.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I'm talking about very tightly packed cases that utilise every single cm³ available to them like Neutronium V4. If he would've had to use a mDTX board instead of a mITX one, the case would've been either higher or wider. In my current build, I would encounter a similar problem. So I'm quite happy with mITX, especially for uSFF, but regular SFF builds, mDTX is the future.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m_jones_*
> 
> There are come mini itx cases with just 1 slot or no slots at all so the motherboard would end up being too large.


I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of mitx cases using riser cards and/or single expansion slots add up to roughly 10-15% of the mitx case range. In fact, the cases with single expansion slots existed well before the enthusiast mitx push, and will continue to exist in the future for the same reason. As for riser card cases, they can still exist with mDTX (you'd just be restricted to the same # of PCIE slots as mITX)


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Well, mDTX fits in (I'm guessing) 90% or more of the cases designed for mITX boards. The ecosystem already exists. It's a supplement to mITX, not really a new form factor.


Think about it from the manufacturer's perspective though, creating DTX mobos would require more SKUs and more validation. I mean look at the variation of motherboard models from any major player already. The benefit isn't there from their perspective.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Think about it from the manufacturer's perspective though, creating DTX mobos would require more SKUs and more validation. I mean look at the variation of motherboard models from any major player already. The benefit isn't there from their perspective.


Your points are entirely valid, but the same could be said for any deviation from a single ATX board. Looking on Newegg, there are *56* LGA1150 motherboards from Asus alone. While some R&D will be required, a company well versed in both mATX and mITX motherboards should have little trouble basically combining the two.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Your points are entirely valid, but the same could be said for any deviation from a single ATX board. Looking on Newegg, there are *56* LGA1150 motherboards from Asus alone. While some R&D will be required, a company well versed in both mATX and mITX motherboards should have little trouble basically combining the two.


...but then there will be another 3-10 SKUs for them to manufacturer and distribute. Then you have more costumer confusion on what's the difference?

I actually like DTX as well BUT it's going to be hard for it to ever hit mainstream..... Even mITX has only gotten popular in the last 2 years or so.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> ...but then there will be another 3-10 SKUs for them to manufacturer and distribute. Then you have more costumer confusion on what's the difference?
> 
> I actually like DTX as well BUT it's going to be hard for it to ever hit mainstream..... Even mITX has only gotten popular in the last 2 years or so.


And the market is always changing, as is evident from the rise in enthusiast mitx? I don't see how hard it is to fathom mDTX and mITX coexisting, given that we already have ATX, XL-ATX, and E-ATX, and there appears to be a shift towards smaller, more efficient use of space

There's lots of market segmentation, correct. You can look at that from two perspectives really; one perspective is that manufacturers feel comfortable with the current segmentation. The other perspective is that manufacturers are producing boards that don't have a space in the marketplace.

Everytime technical marketers from Asus and Corsair get asked "when will we see [some new product]" the answer is almost always the same: "make us aware that there is demand for the product, and we'll produce it"


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Don't forget that mITX started out as this:


And now we have well over a dozen enthusiast unlocked motherboards. Someone tried it and it took off. (Who was the first? I remember a few P55 boards that were ITX...)

User education can't be any more difficult than navigating the current differences between ATX, mATX, and ITX.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> 2 ram slots (can use laptop ram to save on space)
> 
> msata slot (m2 would take up a pci lane)


This is quite common on thin mITX. However, there is no need for it on mDTX unless you want four slots. Remember, it's just mITX plus 33mm height. Just look at how mich stuff can be crammed into that.

Yes, but electrically. Most Z97 mITX boards have it on the back. I think it uses southbridge controlled lanes.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m_jones_*
> 
> There are come mini itx cases with just 1 slot or no slots at all so the motherboard would end up being too large.


The M350 is a great example of one. Mini-box offers a kit with a right-angle x1 adapter and an I/O shield with an expansion slot for a very specific thin mITX board.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> And the market is always changing, as is evident from the rise in enthusiast mitx? I don't see how hard it is to fathom mDTX and mITX coexisting, given that we already have ATX, XL-ATX, and E-ATX, and there appears to be a shift towards smaller, more efficient use of space
> 
> There's lots of market segmentation, correct. You can look at that from two perspectives really; one perspective is that manufacturers feel comfortable with the current segmentation. The other perspective is that manufacturers are producing boards that don't have a space in the marketplace.
> 
> Everytime technical marketers from Asus and Corsair get asked "when will we see [some new product]" the answer is almost always the same: "make us aware that there is demand for the product, and we'll produce it"


I would love to DTX. At this point, there isn't enough push.... of course, *we* can push it and see what happens! I was more trying to explain why we don't see it much today.

I believe we'll be seeing more N.2 and mini-PCIe appearing on mITX though. These should mitigate the need for expansion slots.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Don't forget that mITX started out as this:


That doesn't look any different from today's mITX though....


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

That's what this thread is for, to push for some mDTX boards! I think demand exists, it just needs to be communicated to the manufacturers.

I guess the point I was making was that mITX for a long time existed only for the embedded/POS market, with little to no consumer usage. In the past few years this has changed dramatically.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> That's what this thread is for, to push for some mDTX boards! I think demand exists, it just needs to be communicated to the manufacturers.
> 
> I guess the point I was making was that mITX for a long time existed only for the embedded/POS market, with little to no consumer usage. In the past few years this has changed dramatically.


I think the best approach is to reach out to company reps (not customer service) and engage them directly.

Find the contact info for mobo companies or check if they have reps here.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> I would love to DTX. At this point, there isn't enough push.... of course, *we* can push it and see what happens! I was more trying to explain why we don't see it much today.
> 
> I believe we'll be seeing more N.2 and mini-PCIe appearing on mITX though. These should mitigate the need for expansion slots.


Oh, good, you were just being realistic and not a buzzkill.







Mini slots for things like WiFi and SSDs (technically SATA, but the physical socket is the same) are definitely doable. Just look at most high-end mITX boards now. Again, thin mITX is a great example. Lots of those have two mini PCIe slots and an mSATA slot, plus a full PCI(e) slot at the bottom. I've seen some that have two mini slots stacked on top of each other. Sounds cards, SATA cards, and USB cards don't really exist in that form-factor, however.


----------



## aberrero

Can we do something about that ridiculous TPM header that takes up as much room as an m.2 port?


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Oh, good, you were just being realistic and not a buzzkill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini slots for things like WiFi and SSDs (technically SATA, but the physical socket is the same) are definitely doable. Just look at most high-end mITX boards now. Again, thin mITX is a great example. Lots of those have two mini PCIe slots and an mSATA slot, plus a full PCI(e) slot at the bottom. I've seen some that have two mini slots stacked on top of each other. Sounds cards, SATA cards, and USB cards don't really exist in that form-factor, however.


You won't have to go high-end to find boards with mSATA and mPCIe. This fella from Gigabyte for example has it all: PCIe x16, half length mPCIe and full length mSATA, and it costs about 70€. (I know, its only B85







) Sound cards could be used via one of the aforementioned riser cards. If the placement of the mPCIe is somewhat decent, you can easily place that card somewhere convenient in the case.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

B85 and Q87 are the same except for two SATA and USB ports being changed from their second to third revisions. Z87 only offers an unlocked multiplier. Splitting the PCIe slot into dual x8 doesn't matter for mITX, of course.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> I think the best approach is to reach out to company reps (not customer service) and engage them directly.
> 
> Find the contact info for mobo companies or check if they have reps here.


I've already done that, and heard back from some! I think if this thread remains popular, we can show that there's enough demand at least for someone to test the waters.


----------



## aberrero

I was reading the anandtech overview of DTX and I saw this picture of the reference AMD platform:

(mATX on the left, DTX on the right)









Must the ram sltos be oriented like that? I think having 4 dimms is one important reason to get a larger motherboard, but it probably isn't feasible to put 4 sticks of ram above the CPU in the space there.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Nah, it's not necessary. You can have four parallel to the PCIe slots like that or four off to the side like most (m)ATX boards. Look at some of the Atom boards for servers: mITX with four full desktop DIMMs.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Look at some of the Atom boards for servers: mITX with four full desktop DIMMs.



8 core CPU too...


----------



## ccRicers

Intel Avoton, exactly what I was thinking of. Just remove the excess SATA ports and you can space out the DIMM slots more for the heatsink mounts. But comes to mind if a LGA 2011 chipset can even fit in the remaining space.


----------



## STUNT1990

Just saw this on the front page, I had no clue about this format and it looks great








Not sure if necessary now with the m.2 ports on the itx boards (for ssd+gpu configurations obviously) but anyway.. I see a "problem" here
Quote:


> Any Mini-ITX case that has two PCIe slot covers (for dual-slot GPUs) already supports Mini-DTX!


Using any mini-itx case would allow the installation of a mini-dtx board but even using the expansion slots for ssd+gpu it would limit the gpu to a single slot in boards like the one shown here so.. I guess a 3 slot itx case (not so common) is what most of mini-dtx systems would need.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> 8 core CPU too...


That's the one! I want one to play with, whether it's practical or not.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccRicers*
> 
> Intel Avoton, exactly what I was thinking of. Just remove the excess SATA ports and you can space out the DIMM slots more for the heatsink mounts. But comes to mind if a LGA 2011 chipset can even fit in the remaining space.


Excess?! Nah, it's just an integrated LSI RAID card.

I think that not having a southbridge - or at least a large one - helps/allows that to have as much RAM as it does. The X99 chipset, however, does take up quite a bit of space and does need some sort of heatsink. In addition, the VRMs need to support a processor using up to like ten times the energy (overclocked and overvolted), meaning they're going to be much, much bigger. That's probably one reason why we don't see AM3+ on mITX, even though it's based on Socket 939 like the APUs and is dual-channel like every other platform out there. The power requirement is just too much to handle with the slightly large socket.


----------



## DuckieHo

With DDR4 densities increasing... 2 DIMM slots might be good enough for the 99% in the future.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> With DDR4 densities increasing... 2 DIMM slots might be good enough for the 99% in the future.


I've found 2x8GB to be plenty for pretty much all gaming loads. DDR4, being mainly "one stick per channel" ought to get into some crazy densities. I just hope the prices eventually fall back in line. I still have my 2x4GB Samsung LP RAM that I paid $25 for...


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STUNT1990*
> 
> Just saw this on the front page, I had no clue about this format and it looks great
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if necessary now with the m.2 ports on the itx boards (for ssd+gpu configurations obviously)


M.2 Slots aswell as mSATA slots are sometimes found on the back of mITX boards, so that wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## aberrero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> With DDR4 densities increasing... 2 DIMM slots might be good enough for the 99% in the future.


going forward, I think socket 2011 will be the true enthusiast platform, which means 4 channels. Who knows if broad well non-E will even be attractive at all for over lockers and for high end users.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> going forward, I think socket 2011 will be the true enthusiast platform, which means 4 channels. Who knows if broad well non-E will even be attractive at all for over lockers and for high end users.


Enthusiast don't need 4 channels though. How many commercial/mainstream programs do you that need 256-bit word sizes?

Quad-channel is really useful for VERY intensive memory applications.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Enthusiast don't need 4 channels though. How many commercial/mainstream programs do you that need 256-bit word sizes?
> 
> Quad-channel is really useful for VERY intensive memory applications.


Many heavily multi-threaded applications are very bandwidth-intensive.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Many heavily multi-threaded applications are very bandwidth-intensive.


No. That is an incorrect generalization.

Being multi-threaded has nothing to do with memory in itself. Multi-threaded application can possible use memory more efficiently than single-threaded even. It has to do with the application.

I can spawn off 10000 processes to stream through files.... this would not be that memory intensive.

Memory bandwidth constrained applications tend to be HPC applications. These are usually heavily multi-threaded but that's not the same thing as what you're saying.

If B is subset of A, this does not mean B = A.


----------



## Shadow_Foxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFSxperts*
> 
> Would both pcie slots be x16? or x1 and x16? Which would be on the top? If its at the bottom, then existing case compatibility would be lost for dual slot gpu.


Many things to consider! I would say both could be 16x, as you can still use 1x cards in those slots. Then you could pick the card config based on your needs. ie whats on top/bottom.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Mini ITX used to be a niche too. My first ITX board was an 800 MHz Via C3, and for a long time it was either that or an Intel Atom. It was a long journey to get where we are now, but all the hard work is already done! We've got the cases, everyone is making high-end Z97 boards, ITX is no longer a niche.


This. We have to start somewhere. No doubt when ITX was starting, everyone was like "only one gpu? why would you limit yourself?" or "where do I put my soundcard/this/that??) Now you can OC just as well as the big boys on some ITX boards and one GPU is enough for many people. Plus the space savings! It just takes someone to start the trend, and prove the concept and then it might take off.


----------



## MrBojanglles88

if we are turning this into sort of a petition add me to the list.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shadow_Foxx*
> 
> Many things to consider! I would say both could be 16x, as you can still use 1x cards in those slots


Absolutely twin x16 slots. Of course they'll drop to dual 8x if both are in use, unless the switching chips are used or some madman can make LGA2011-3 fit.

The Shuttle boards are a good visual reference, but it should be noted that they are a proprietary form factor. (although close to full DTX)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shadow_Foxx*
> 
> We have to start somewhere. No doubt when ITX was starting, everyone was like "only one gpu? why would you limit yourself?" or "where do I put my soundcard/this/that??) Now you can OC just as well as the big boys on some ITX boards and one GPU is enough for many people. Plus the space savings! It just takes someone to start the trend, and prove the concept and then it might take off.


This is the spirit! I'm sure mATX was discounted in the beginning, and I know ITX was for the longest time, but look where they are now!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrBojanglles88*
> 
> if we are turning this into sort of a petition add me to the list.


Glad to have you on board! I'm not planning on making a poll or petition, if we were wanting to have a group buy for a one-off motherboard I might consider it though. I'm hoping to have a slightly more permanent impact on the face of SFF computing.

I've actually heard back from a few reps here, and I've been told that it will be looked into! With Maxwell using significantly lower power, we might even return to the realm of single-slot air cooled cards, at least in the midrange.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

The reason mATX and later mITX can exist is because everything is integrated now. I tore down some old P4 systems to see what I could salvage. There were Ethernet cards, sound cards, USB cards, video cards, and so on. This basically required the usage of an ATX motherboard. Then, chipsets and CPUs started to integrate things. Ethernet moved to the I/O, USB moved to the I/O (and headers), GPUs became integrated either in the southbridge or the CPU itself, sound became integrated... Mini PCIe slots help a lot.

Most consumers wouldn't be able to tell a difference between mini ATX (150x150mm) or nano ITX (120x120mm) and ATX or larger, assuming the CPU and chipset are the same. The consumers that could would be satisfied with mITX's single x16 slot. Everybody else? Mostly people like us.

And I'd be willing to pitch in for a group buy, provided the quality is good and the price isn't ludicrous. I would expect it to be a bit pricy since it's one-off, but I doubt it costs any more than mATX to produce.

Oh, and somewhat related regarding GPUs: I got an idea for a modular design. Have a blower-style cooler with a fan that extends a couple inches past the PCB. Then, have it detachable. Allow a duct to be place in-between the fan and shroud. That prevents the top card from being choked while still allowing a single SKU to be made.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Oh, and somewhat related regarding GPUs: I got an idea for a modular design. Have a blower-style cooler with a fan that extends a couple inches past the PCB. Then, have it detachable. Allow a duct to be place in-between the fan and shroud. That prevents the top card from being choked while still allowing a single SKU to be made.


I like this. Either have the blower so it can be flipped around backwards (thus sucking from the CPU side) or have cutouts on both sides so no flipping is needed. Kinda like the GTX295 sandwich cards.


----------



## fleetfeather

I would also be willing to chip in for a group buy Z97 mDTX board, providing the power delivery and bios support is adequate, and it's not priced over the moon


----------



## aberrero

The problem with single-slot air cooling is that they would not work too well with SLI if they are right on top of each other. Blowers are nice because they can exhuast air out the back of the case. Nvidia insured that we would be stuck with dual slot cards forever when it obliterated* ATI with this beauty,









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Absolutely twin x16 slots. Of course they'll drop to dual 8x if both are in use, unless the switching chips are used or some madman can make LGA2011-3 fit.
> 
> The Shuttle boards are a good visual reference, but it should be noted that they are a proprietary form factor. (although close to full DTX)


This is ideal. I want this board. It will be hard to find some IDE hard drives for it, but I don't care.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Most consumers wouldn't be able to tell a difference between mini ATX (150x150mm) or nano ITX (120x120mm) and ATX or larger, assuming the CPU and chipset are the same. The consumers that could would be satisfied with mITX's single x16 slot. Everybody else? Mostly people like us.


I never heard about those two standards, do boards with that size even get manufactured?


----------



## veryrarium

Yes, there was a nano-ITX board by Giada with mobile Sandy Bridge i5 onboard CPU two year ago




By the way the MSI mini ITX board I have is this one

but there was even a crazier mini ITX board

Both were Socket P.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryrarium*
> 
> Yes, there was a nano-ITX board by Giada with mobile Sandy Bridge i5 onboard CPU two year ago
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Small boards ahead!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way the MSI mini ITX board I have is this one
> 
> but there was even a crazier mini ITX board
> 
> Both were Socket P.


Interesting, does it plug into a PCIe or MXM slot?

Those boards are like nothing I've ever seen. The DIMM placement on the last one is pretty cool, but it of course requires sacrificing some I/O ports


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I never heard about those two standards, do boards with that size even get manufactured?


I think mini ATX is obsolete, but nano ITX is still around. It's used for embedded systems; VIA is a big manufacturer of them. Plus, many can accept daughterboards for more I/O. The Intel NUC uses a similar form-factor, but I think it's custom. I'd need to check.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veryrarium*
> 
> but there was even a crazier mini ITX board
> 
> Both were Socket P.


I had this for my router.









3x NICs, x1 PCIe, x16 PCIe, and PCI in mITX!


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I think mini ATX is obsolete, but nano ITX is still around. It's used for embedded systems; VIA is a big manufacturer of them. Plus, many can accept daughterboards for more I/O. The Intel NUC uses a similar form-factor, but I think it's custom. I'd need to check.


Can confirm, it's called UCFF.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

http://www.amazon.com/Epia-Nano-ITX-Motherboard-800MHz-EPIA-N8000EG/dp/B000WKHZEC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1412199021&sr=8-4&keywords=nano+itx+via

For size comparison, the vertical tan piece in the top-right corner is where a SODIMM plugs in. I was hoping I could find more on Amazon, but I guess not. I think it's pico ITX that takes daughterboards, or at least more often than nano. That's even smaller at 100x72mm, or 25% the surface area of mITX.

Thanks for the Wikipedia link. This isn't sarcasm - I'm bad at thinking of the obvious. The Gigabyte Brix series, or at least the ones with Nvidia graphics, use laptop-based MXM slots and a very similar form-factor. One of them has a 192-bit 760 and an i7, which is great for something that size that runs off a wall transformer.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

The "NUC" class boards are alright, but lacking in the expandability department. Obviously that's just the nature of how freakishly small they are. It's no big deal for normal consumers who set it and forget it, but I (and most here) love being able to swap parts. MXM video cards are cool in concept, but there's just not enough volume for them to be practical. You end up paying too much for comparatively weak performance. I think mITX is the smallest you can really go before you enter the realm of compromised performance and soldered parts.


----------



## iFreilicht

Oh god, imagine how builds would shrink if someone was able to cram a whole motherboard on a GPU-sized PCB. I have no idea how that would work, and it probably wouldn't. But


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Oh god, imagine how builds would shrink if someone was able to cram a whole motherboard on a GPU-sized PCB. I have no idea how that would work, and it probably wouldn't. But


There are whole systems already on GPU-sized PCBs....


----------



## aberrero

Pretty sure the 290x is about the size of Mini-ITX as it is.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> There are whole systems already on GPU-sized PCBs....


I meant full fletched x64 systems with a regular 1150 socket, PCIex16, RAM slots and whatnot. Not the Intel NUC or nVidia Tegra SoCs


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I meant full fletched x64 systems with a regular 1150 socket, PCIex16, RAM slots and whatnot. Not the Intel NUC or nVidia Tegra SoCs


Might be possible with PGA laptop chips and SODIMMs but I feel that 115x is about as small as can be already.


----------



## fleetfeather

Keep the hype going


----------



## TheReciever

I would support this, SFF with options for a change

However you will have more difficulties getting single slot cards anymore since it seems the have been ditched from enthusiast market since fermi


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> I would support this, SFF with options for a change
> 
> However you will have more difficulties getting single slot cards anymore since it seems the have been ditched from enthusiast market since fermi


With Maxwell having a bigger emphasis on power efficiency, we might see a return of single slot cards. And then there's always waterblocks.


----------



## ccRicers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> With Maxwell having a bigger emphasis on power efficiency, we might see a return of single slot cards. And then there's always waterblocks.


Single slot fans tend to be axial, though, and one card would blow its air onto another. Hmm, I guess that is not much of a big deal if they output less than 200 watts of heat.

For me that is a non-issue since I have regularly water cooled almost most of my cards ever since I started water cooling last year (750 Ti being an exception).


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccRicers*
> 
> Single slot fans tend to be axial, though, and one card would blow its air onto another. Hmm, I guess that is not much of a big deal if they output less than 200 watts of heat.
> 
> For me that is a non-issue since I have regularly water cooled almost most of my cards ever since I started water cooling last year (750 Ti being an exception).


Yep, I would totally do a pair of 970s with FC blocks, or a dedicated sound card and single watercooled card.


----------



## TheReciever

I mean actual physical single slot cards, these days the DVI inputs are stacked


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> I mean actual physical single slot cards, these days the DVI inputs are stacked


Solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoldering


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> I mean actual physical single slot cards, these days the DVI inputs are stacked


depends on the card tbh


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> I mean actual physical single slot cards, these days the DVI inputs are stacked


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoldering


The double-stacked DVIs are indeed annoying. Sure you can desolder/rip them off but you lose your warranty.

I wish more cards either had 3 DVIs in a single row (if they fit) or 3 DP++ ports with included adapters. Having 1/2 DVI, one HDMI and one DP is just annoying for anyone who runs 3 monitors.


----------



## fleetfeather




----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoldering


And your hoping mDTX becomes a thing as long as everyone desolders their DVI ports? doubtful lol
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> depends on the card tbh


Yeah very true, most of the mainstream cards follow this course though, not sure why
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*


Bingo


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> And your hoping mDTX becomes a thing as long as everyone desolders their DVI ports? doubtful lol












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I wish more cards either had 3 DVIs in a single row (if they fit) or 3 DP++ ports with included adapters. Having 1/2 DVI, one HDMI and one DP is just annoying for anyone who runs 3 monitors.


There's a great 7750 out there for multiple monitors. Has 2GB of GDDR5 and six Mini DP ports in just one slot. It supports up to two passive adapters (except to full DP, obviously) and up to six active adapters as well. Would be very nice to see something like this - even with four ports instead - make its way to the higher-end markets. The 295X2 has four Mini DP ports though, but any more and you're looking at Quadros, FirePros, and pseudo-workstation cards.


----------



## fleetfeather

I'm actually going to pick up one of those 'single slot output' GTX 970's to replace my EVGA card. Overclocking probably won't be incredible, but the idea of a mDTX board coming out is too tempting to pass up...

Gotta get Gigabyte to do a group-buy for this badboy


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> There's a great 7750 out there for multiple monitors. Has 2GB of GDDR5 and six Mini DP ports in just one slot.


See, that's awesome. All anyone needs is 3 DP++ ports. The "++" is just shorthand for supporting passive adapters. That way you can use 3 cheap passive DVI or HDMI adapters if you need to, and get rid of the ugly full size DVI ports that often get stacked.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Gotta get Gigabyte to do a group-buy for this badboy


Let's do it!


----------



## fleetfeather

Has anyone ever heard of these guys before? They appear to do mainstream mobo's, as well as OEM and custom designs.

http://www.bcmcom.com/


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> See, that's awesome. All anyone needs is 3 DP++ ports. The "++" is just shorthand for supporting passive adapters.


Oh, okay. I thought you meant DP 1.4 or something. Yeah, just two DP++ ports, unfortunately. I guess it's a good thing that DVI and HDMI are identical? You can get two DVI-HDMI cables for triple HDMI or one DVI-HDMI cable for triple DVI off a normal graphics card like that, i.e. three identical monitors using identical inputs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Has anyone ever heard of these guys before? They appear to do mainstream mobo's, as well as OEM and custom designs.
> 
> http://www.bcmcom.com/


You had me at custom.


----------



## ccRicers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> I'm actually going to pick up one of those 'single slot output' GTX 970's to replace my EVGA card. Overclocking probably won't be incredible, but the idea of a mDTX board coming out is too tempting to pass up...
> 
> Gotta get Gigabyte to do a group-buy for this badboy


PNY also has a GTX 970 with single slot outputs.
http://www.pny.com/GTX_970_4096MB_GDDR5_PCI-E_3_0

Part of me wishes I bought this card instead of Zotac's, because it is also compatible with EK's full cover 670 blocks.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoldering


I'm not going to do that to a 300€ card. Also with miniDP on more cards, especially AMD ones, there will be no need for stacked DVI anymore. There isn't really at this point, even. HDMI + 3 mDP is more than enough, the latter has adapters to anything.


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Has anyone ever heard of these guys before? They appear to do mainstream mobo's, as well as OEM and custom designs.
> 
> http://www.bcmcom.com/


Prepare for a $1000 motherboard.


----------



## Nukemaster

Would personally love a mdtx board just to add a sound card to SFF systems.

I have not come across any that meet my needs.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> Prepare for a $1000 motherboard.


Only one way to find out!









But let's be realistic. It probably won't be that bad. I'm sure it will be expensive due to the low volume, but it doesn't need too much R&D. Remember, this is an mITX board with an additional PCIe slot. They can slapp 33mm of PCB on the end and call it a day. that also leaves extra room for headers and whatnot.

Now, what do we want as a priority? Do we want low cost to get interest? If yes, H81 or B85 would be the best choices. The top slot can be x16 from the CPU and the bottom slot can be x4 from the southbridge (or flip it so x4 is on top?) for the most out of that chipset. If we want raw performance and a prototype to show off its potential, then Z87 or Z97 with dual x16 slots (classic x16/x0 or x8/x8 arrangement) and hopefully SLI support (is that determined by a chip on the motherboard or just PCIe bandwidth?) would be the way to go. Since we don't know their quality, overclocking might not be the greatest of ideas, but it would be nice to leave it as an option.


----------



## GZJR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*


i like that. where can i get it


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> Prepare for a $1000 motherboard.


The price is no doubt going to depend on how much R7D is needed. If we can find someone who has a good mITX offering which can just be extended out for an extra pcie slot, that would be ideal
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Only one way to find out!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's be realistic. It probably won't be that bad. I'm sure it will be expensive due to the low volume, but it doesn't need too much R&D. Remember, this is an mITX board with an additional PCIe slot. They can slapp 33mm of PCB on the end and call it a day. that also leaves extra room for headers and whatnot.
> 
> Now, what do we want as a priority? Do we want low cost to get interest? If yes, H81 or B85 would be the best choices. The top slot can be x16 from the CPU and the bottom slot can be x4 from the southbridge (or flip it so x4 is on top?) for the most out of that chipset. If we want raw performance and a prototype to show off its potential, then Z87 or Z97 with dual x16 slots (classic x16/x0 or x8/x8 arrangement) and hopefully SLI support (is that determined by a chip on the motherboard or just PCIe bandwidth?) would be the way to go. Since we don't know their quality, overclocking might not be the greatest of ideas, but it would be nice to leave it as an option.


One of these, with the extra pcb extension, would be amazeballs

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=138_1491&products_id=28052

I don't think NV allows SLI with a 4x slot, iirc?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GZJR*
> 
> i like that. where can i get it


Any GTX 970 which uses the short PCB will offer that layout. So, Gainward's GTX 970, PNY's GTX 970, PoV's GTX 970, Palit's GTX 970, etc.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

If we're going to play with custom board fabrication, why not look into those "bifurcation cards" again?

If someone were able to desolder the mITX board's PCIe x16 slot, a small PCB could be made that splits the front half and back half of the lanes into two slots, then sits flush on the motherboard. This would space the cards up off the motherboard, but if done right it would only be a mm or so. Well within the limits of what a case can handle.

The layout looks pretty simple:



Note how the "rear" 8 lanes just go right over to the other slot's front 8. Something like this adapter, but parallel and flush with the motherboard is probably very doable. We'd need surface mount PCIe sockets and some protruding pins to be re-soldered to the mITX board. Add in whatever that chip is in the picture (maybe an SMBus splitter?) and a power connector and you're golden.

PCIe has shown itself to be pretty resilient of signal integrity issues (USB risers anyone?) so I don't see why it wouldn't work, and be loads cheaper than a totally custom board.


----------



## aberrero

DVI just needs to die.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> If we're going to play with custom board fabrication, why not look into those "bifurcation cards" again?
> 
> If someone were able to desolder the mITX board's PCIe x16 slot, a small PCB could be made that splits the front half and back half of the lanes into two slots, then sits flush on the motherboard. This would space the cards up off the motherboard, but if done right it would only be a mm or so. Well within the limits of what a case can handle.
> 
> The layout looks pretty simple:
> 
> 
> 
> Note how the "rear" 8 lanes just go right over to the other slot's front 8. Something like this adapter, but parallel and flush with the motherboard is probably very doable. We'd need surface mount PCIe sockets and some protruding pins to be re-soldered to the mITX board. Add in whatever that chip is in the picture (maybe an SMBus splitter?) and a power connector and you're golden.
> 
> PCIe has shown itself to be pretty resilient of signal integrity issues (USB risers anyone?) so I don't see why it wouldn't work, and be loads cheaper than a totally custom board.


We still need confirmation that the ITX motherboards that are out now actually support bifurcation. If they do I think it is an easy sell.


----------



## armourcore9brker

There is bifurcation documentation in all of the Intel documentation. Some of this is from Xeon e3 stuff because I am lazy and didn't switch the pictures over to the Core documentation (it exists there too







).



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







It would appear that we need the CFG[6:5] set of pins so I presume a pin mod is possible.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







I have some old 1155 Celerons to try and see if it works. Anyone want to help get a 1x16 to 2x8 riser (for science!).










That said, a pin mod will probably set it to x8 x8 100% of the time. A little controller embedded onboard (controlled by the BIOS) is what's needed to create a bifurcation board. And probably what most motherboard manufacturers use today. It wouldn't be entirely difficult to locate where the traces on a normal board go and modify it ourselves. Which means, that when creating a new board, it will not be difficult to include in bifurcation support. Now it is just a matter of finding a manufacturer that sees the purpose of creating such a board...

SOURCES:
4th Gen Core Family Vol 1
4th Gen Core Family Vol 2
Extra Datasheet


----------



## Insan1tyOne

So just curious, but what is stopping us all from just getting an enthusiast ITX board with a single x16 slot and then splitting that slot into two x8 slots and doing two GPU's that way? I could definitely see some crazy case mods using pre-existing enthusiast mITX cases revolving around this idea.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> So just curious, but what is stopping us all from just getting an enthusiast ITX board with a single x16 slot and then splitting that slot into two x8 slots and doing two GPU's that way? I could definitely see some crazy case mods using pre-existing enthusiast mITX cases revolving around this idea.


That's what we've just been talking about!


----------



## Insan1tyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> That's what we've just been talking about!


Oh I guess you're right! I completely missed that. My bad! I think a new Parvum case would be something ideal to test this on, or maybe the new Phanteks Evolv?


----------



## ejohnson

I think the best thing would be a adjustable x1 slot. Have a ribbon cable that mounts to the backside of the motherboard and a "floating" x1 slot pcb. This slot could have adjustment rails to allow the x1 slot to slide out for dual slot gpu and a sound card, or slide in for a single slot gpu and soundcard.

I know some mitx cases do have 3 pci slots on them, some dont. This would give you the flexability to run either design.

This idea very much plays on the idea of using a pci adapter board to go from the normal "wifi" mpci slot to a x1 board. But instead of having the cable routed all over the place, it just has a micro plug on the back of the motherboard and a short cable to the x1 slot.

If you didnt want to use the feature, then you can just unplug the x1 from the back of the motherboard and unscrew the rails. Now we dont need to even try to get dtx as a new standard, just need to get mitx makers to add the single plug and the mounting points for the rails.

It could even be sold as a "add-on" for mitx boards so you buy your new motherboard, then you buy this add on board that just bolts to your new mitx board.


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> So just curious, but what is stopping us all from just getting an enthusiast ITX board with a single x16 slot and then splitting that slot into two x8 slots and doing two GPU's that way? I could definitely see some crazy case mods using pre-existing enthusiast mITX cases revolving around this idea.


Bifurcation is the problem. Unless the BIOS can recognize two separate devices coming from the 16 lanes of PCIe, it won't work. If someone wants to try blocking the U39 pin on their 1150 cpu, we can see how the computer reacts to having it manually set. It shouldn't do anything adverse.

(Insert here how I am not responsible for what you do with your own chip.)


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> I think the best thing would be a adjustable x1 slot. Have a ribbon cable that mounts to the backside of the motherboard and a "floating" x1 slot pcb. This slot could have adjustment rails to allow the x1 slot to slide out for dual slot gpu and a sound card, or slide in for a single slot gpu and soundcard.
> 
> I know some mitx cases do have 3 pci slots on them, some dont. This would give you the flexability to run either design.
> 
> This idea very much plays on the idea of using a pci adapter board to go from the normal "wifi" mpci slot to a x1 board. But instead of having the cable routed all over the place, it just has a micro plug on the back of the motherboard and a short cable to the x1 slot.
> 
> If you didnt want to use the feature, then you can just unplug the x1 from the back of the motherboard and unscrew the rails. Now we dont need to even try to get dtx as a new standard, just need to get mitx makers to add the single plug and the mounting points for the rails.
> 
> It could even be sold as a "add-on" for mitx boards so you buy your new motherboard, then you buy this add on board that just bolts to your new mitx board.


That'd require a standard between manufacturers (who remembers the early days of USB 3.0 cases?). Also PCIe is pretty finicky when it comes to signal lanes. That's why most all things that deal with x16 PCIe come in a ribbon form rather than a cable form (there are some adapters from x1 to x16 that use a USB3 cable as a transport).

On top of it all, x1 is fairly niche and can already be done with the boards from ECS. There is no incentive to bring it to market and do all the R&D for it.

As to the direction we should take, I vote for a full mDTX with 2x16 mid ranged model. Full enthusiast is the way that NCASE M1 took and they were greatly successful to enthusiasts.

(Oh boy Dyson prepare for me bringing up something fun). On the other hand, the Bitfenix Prodigy brought a case that was large and appealed to those that would not normally be in the mITX market. By hitting more features that are less specialized, Bitfenix achieved great success in the general market to those that are not necessarily die hard SFF people.

I think a model along the current ECS mITX level (Z/H97 Drone) which can do some overclocking and be good quality without skyrocketing into Maximus VII Impact levels would be the best way to convince a manufacturer to avoid losing money on this R&D investment. It is the path Asus took with the mITX market and why an Impact model took so long to come to market. Maybe even a transition board like an mATX board with 3 slots that's as narrow as mITX. Won't fit in mITX but it will be able to be used with dual slot cards. This way they could market to more people without it being full mATX.

As much as I don't trust crowd funding, I could see an agreement made with some manufacturer that if we successfully raise a large amount to pay for R&D and the first batch of boards it might be remotely possible since they receive their money up front. It would probably still be around $500 a board for the supporters.

Depending on involvement, I see it as:

Immediate Short-Term: Getting Bifurcation working.

Mid-Term: Getting ANY board with mDTX from a major manufacturer (not just ECS). Maybe even something with an x4-x1 slot.

Long-Term: Getting an enthusiast board with dual x16 and overclocking.


----------



## ccRicers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> Oh I guess you're right! I completely missed that. My bad! I think a new Parvum case would be something ideal to test this on, or maybe the new Phanteks Evolv?


Best part is that the riser cards already exist. Makes me wonder how SLI 970's would perform on that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> Bifurcation is the problem. Unless the BIOS can recognize two separate devices coming from the 16 lanes of PCIe, it won't work. If someone wants to try blocking the U39 pin on their 1150 cpu, we can see how the computer reacts to having it manually set. It shouldn't do anything adverse.
> 
> (Insert here how I am not responsible for what you do with your own chip.)


Ideally, the best people to ask would be those that have been heavily invested into bitcoin/litecoin mining. Bandwidth loss is a non-issue for that activity and they tend to cram as many cards as possible in one board. But I can't seem to find a mining-related subject that relates to this type of bifurcation, as the word also has an important context with the function of bitcoins themselves (dealing with the blockchain, branch splits etc). So it's hard even to find the right information there.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Great points so far about the challenges of bifurcation. (I just like saying that word) I like the bifurcation approach as it's almost totally passive on the board and introduces no latency. As such, the add-on board should be dirt cheap and even possible to fab/assemble at home for just a few dollars in parts. The one I posted with a ribbon cable is about $70 on eBay, but there might be some mining inflation there.

armourcore9brker has already done the legwork about what is required electrically to support it. Since it sounds like it's configured by grounding pins, I'm curious to see how boards work that do both 1x16 and 2x8. It doesn't sound like the CPU can adapt to that on it's own. Perhaps the bios looks at the "presence detect" lines of the PCIe slots and asserts/grounds the proper config pads before the CPU is initialized. I am hoping that is the case, because then controlling bifurcation would be a bios tweak, or better yet already be in there.

Worst case, an active PLX PCIe switch could be implemented. It would essentially be a dual-gpu card (295x2, 690 etc) to the CPU, and we all know those work fine.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

CPU can do dual x8 easily, just look at Z chipsets. AM3+ boards, specifically 990FX and 970, allow x16 slots to split. Those are controlled by the northbridge, however, not the CPU. The problem with Intel is that they artificially lock down the CPU lanes on all chipsets that don't start with Z; they are only a single x16 slot.


----------



## fleetfeather

so... you want one of these?

http://www.ameri-rack.com/ARC2-PELY423-C7_m.html

but soldered onto the board directly?

edit: LOL stuff it, buy a 3 expansion slot case, plug'n'play 2 single-slot cards


----------



## iFreilicht

Yes, that's the idea. It is supposed to keep R&D costs at a minimum and probably make it possible to mod some mITX boards to be mDTX.


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> CPU can do dual x8 easily, just look at Z chipsets. AM3+ boards, specifically 990FX and 970, allow x16 slots to split. Those are controlled by the northbridge, however, not the CPU. The problem with Intel is that they artificially lock down the CPU lanes on all chipsets that don't start with Z; they are only a single x16 slot.


I didn't know that. Just looked it up and confirmed. Thanks!









It might not be as simple as we think (Link).
I'm not an EE/CPE major so at this point someone in that field would have to take over.

From what it sounds like though, if the chipset supports bifurcation, it should be possible with the Ameri-rack splitter without anything else needed to be modified. I've also seen mention that a bridge chip is required. I messaged Ameri-rack for interest in buying the card (if you look at the ARC2 model names, it looks like they are space further apart). Depending on the price, I'll just buy one and see what happens. I'll test on my boards and if I don't see any results, I'll ship it to someone that has a Z* board or any of the server chipset boards so they can test.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> I didn't know that. Just looked it up and confirmed. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be as simple as we think (Link).
> I'm not an EE/CPE major so at this point someone in that field would have to take over.
> 
> From what it sounds like though, if the chipset supports bifurcation, it should be possible with the Ameri-rack splitter without anything else needed to be modified. I've also seen mention that a bridge chip is required. I messaged Ameri-rack for interest in buying the card (if you look at the ARC2 model names, it looks like they are space further apart). Depending on the price, I'll just buy one and see what happens. I'll test on my boards and if I don't see any results, I'll ship it to someone that has a Z* board or any of the server chipset boards so they can test.


Terminating the clock should be handled as long as both slots stay populated, right? A PCIe card is going to display the proper impedance to the signal. Of course, having the bifurcator with an empty slot will cause issues.

Does anyone remember the early 939 era SLI boards? They had a PCB in a sodimm-looking socket that had to be flipped around to enable dual x8 PCIe lanes.

Looking at the traces, it looks like it either terminates the slot for x16 or loops the back half to the front half for dual x8. Was this a "manual bifurcation"?


----------



## ccRicers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> CPU can do dual x8 easily, just look at Z chipsets. AM3+ boards, specifically 990FX and 970, allow x16 slots to split. Those are controlled by the northbridge, however, not the CPU. The problem with Intel is that they artificially lock down the CPU lanes on all chipsets that don't start with Z; they are only a single x16 slot.


Is this a hardware implemented restriction by Intel, or can board manufacturers create their own BIOS to open up the CPU lanes? Like the way some Intel CPUs are overclockable on some non-Z chipsets.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

It's a chipset limitation. I'm sure manufacturers are able to cheat and bypass it. It's sort of like H61 and H81 being limited to PCIe 2.0, not 3.0 - arbitrary restriction so you buy the next step up. But let's be honest. There is no reason for a consumer to move past B85 until they get to Z#7 - there just aren't enough features to make any premium worthwhile between those two. Even then, if they don't need much RAM H81 is an option; it only allows one DIMM per channel instead of two per. Q87 is good for workstations since it is the only consumer chipset to officially allow VT-d, but my ASRock Z97 board allows that too.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Terminating the clock should be handled as long as both slots stay populated, right? A PCIe card is going to display the proper impedance to the signal. Of course, having the bifurcator with an empty slot will cause issues.
> 
> Does anyone remember the early 939 era SLI boards? They had a PCB in a sodimm-looking socket that had to be flipped around to enable dual x8 PCIe lanes.
> 
> Looking at the traces, it looks like it either terminates the slot for x16 or loops the back half to the front half for dual x8. Was this a "manual bifurcation"?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Board pr0n!


I have never seen that before but it looks pretty cool. I think it just enabled the use of bifurication, but didn't actually do anything actively.

From what I know, we don't need anything like this today because boards can switch modes by themselves. So if you've got two x16 slots, but one is only using x4, the board can detect and switch modes to make more lanes available to the other slot. May be absolutely incorrect, but that's what I've heard.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Look up what a multiplexer is on Wikipedia and on Simple English Wikipedia. The latter is much less technical but a lot easier to understand. Basically, they're transistors that can take one input and switch it to many outputs depending on the signal received. I believe this is how most PCIe lanes are allocated if there are multiple options.


----------



## armourcore9brker

I think it is half and half CynicalUnicorn. The point of the old card was both to signal to the proc that SLI was going to be used and to allocate the lanes like a multiplexer. Nowadays, they are separated and the bifurcation signal is taken over by the chipset and the multiplexers built into the board just do the lane allocations.

If people are interested in the Ameri-rack models, which would be the most useful? .

1) ARC1-PELY423-C3V3(w/3cm ribbon to face away the board for 1U)
2) ARC1-PELY423-C5 (w/5cm ribbon to face away the board)
3) ARC1-PELY423-C7 (w/7cm ribbon to face away the board)
4) ARC1-PERY423-C5(reversed, w/5cm ribbon to face over the board)
5) ARC1-PERY423-C10(reversed, w/10cm ribbon to face away the board)
6) ARC2-PERY422(2U fixed, to face over the board)
7) ARC2-PELY423(2U fixed, to face away the board)
8) ARC2-PERY424NT(2U fixed, to face over the board)

I am thinking about ordering a (7) and maybe (5) or (3). Thoughts? I am talking to a rep to get pricing.


----------



## Aibohphobia

They're probably $50+

I have a few each of the 3cm and 5cm right angle x16 flexible extenders that I got for a now abandoned Steambox case design and they were $38 each plus shipping.

Pricey but from my research the PCIe cables are very sensitive to interference so it is worth it for good quality shielded extenders.


----------



## ilovelampshade

Shuttle has a new unit out that may be of interest to the people wanting to DTX.

Tom's Article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/shuttle-barebone-sh81r4-pc,27888.html

Shuttle Product Website:

http://global.shuttle.com/news/productsDetail?productId=1827

Quote:


> he XPC Barebone SH81R4 comes with a motherboard that features the Intel H81 chipset, along with support for up to 16 GB of DDR3 memory. All LGA1150 CPUs are supported, as the maximum TDP is rated at 95 W, although K-series CPUs won't be overclockable. Internally, you'll also find two SATA3 (6 Gb/s) connectors, one SATA2 (3 Gb/s) connector, a *PCI-Express 3.0 x16 slot, and a PCI-Express x1 slot*, along with two Mini-PCI-Express slots, one of which is only a half-size slot.


----------



## iFreilicht

Picture of the board from the manual:



It is a regular DTX board again, so most cases will have trouble getting it in, but I think the cube cases from Silverstone or corsair could manage it.

Also the placement of the mPCIe slots is very convenient, it enables easy use of riser cards to full PCIex1, so you can place cards underneath the board. On the other hand, you'll have to uninstall those cards before installation or uninstallation as they block two screw holes.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Shuttle could have used the Z87 or Z97 and pulled off a dual x8 slot configuration, but this is a start. It's cheap too. Their x79 board is still the pinnacle of DTX awesomeness.

The x79 isn't too horribly priced either: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007UZJYEG


----------



## TheReciever

Now all we need is SLI


----------



## ccRicers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Now all we need is SLI


And have it be x99 (though this should be obvious)


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Nah, not X99. Let's wait until Broadwell-EX comes out and use that!

So that Shuttle board. Why is the x16 slot on top? I feel like it defeats the purpose. Single-slot GPUs are definitely possible: take a 750(Ti) and use a single-slot cooler from a FirePro. It's too much effort, however, for something that should have been done stock. Would've been nice if they had stacked more mini PCIe slots and used an x4 slot on the bottom instead, but beggars can't be choosers and the feature set is pretty good despite that.


----------



## iFreilicht

As the shuttle board was designed for the Barebone, the purpose probably was to allow either a dual slot gpu or two single slot extension cards. The x16 slot on the bottom would've been a lot worse, as the Barebone only has two extension slots in the case.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Single-slot GPUs are definitely possible: take a 750(Ti) and use a single-slot cooler from a FirePro. It's too much effort, however, for something that should have been done stock.


You mean like this?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> You mean like this?










Also that, but they're few and far between. I really don't know how/why it's taken this long. Yeah, that'll do for general use.

My problem is that I need single-slot AND a low-profile PCB. Hassium, my proposed uSFF build, is very powerful for the volume it takes up. It's about three-fourths as powerful as a base model Trashcan Edition Mac Pro in terms of FLOPS/liter. It just needs most of the rear I/O totally removed and a PCIe x4 riser (good compromise between bandwidth and reliability) for the GPU. A Xeon or unlocked i# are also options, but I'm thinking in terms of singlethreaded power.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> As the shuttle board was designed for the Barebone, the purpose probably was to allow either a dual slot gpu or two single slot extension cards. The x16 slot on the bottom would've been a lot worse, as the Barebone only has two extension slots in the case.


Ah, that would explain that. Triple-slot case would be nice, but it would add a couple centimeters of height. Not much, but probably not desirable. If you do use a dual-slot GPU, then this offers no benefits whatsoever. H81 only supports two RAM slots, after all. Thin mITX is going to offer the same or more mini slots, though the main slot can't be as powerful.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also that, but they're few and far between. I really don't know how/why it's taken this long. Yeah, that'll do for general use.
> 
> My problem is that I need single-slot AND a low-profile PCB.


Beats me, seems quite logical to make such a low power card single slot. And yeah, those single slot Elsa 750ti's are only available in japan. So not the most convenient solution. Lets hope some of the major manufacturers bring something to market.

I doubt a single slot low profile card is ever going to happen tho, that's something you'll have to mod yourself. Like you said, the firepro cooler might do the job.

Edit: typo.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Found the article! It's either this or the Galaxy card. In my case, it has to be this. Too bad.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Found the article! It's either this or the Galaxy card. In my case, it has to be this. Too bad.


I was just checking out an e-tailer when i saw the galaxy card for sale, I thought that card had been ditched. But yeah its way too wide.
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/2048MB-Galax-GeForce-GTX750-Ti-Razor-2GB-True-Single-Slot_977799.html


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> My problem is that I need single-slot AND a low-profile PCB. Hassium, my proposed uSFF build, is very powerful for the volume it takes up. It's about three-fourths as powerful as a base model Trashcan Edition Mac Pro in terms of FLOPS/liter. It just needs most of the rear I/O totally removed and a PCIe x4 riser (good compromise between bandwidth and reliability) for the GPU. A Xeon or unlocked i# are also options, but I'm thinking in terms of singlethreaded power.


You mean like this one? http://www.logicsupply.eu/riser-cards/pci-express/exp4-797-10/

I know it's the wrong angle, but because the cable is so long, you should be able to just turn the upper part around and be fine.

I also found that there are x1 to x16 risers with an IDE power connector to get the output up to the 75W PCIex16 can do, but that would of course limit your performance. They are made for bitcoin mining where the bus doesn't need to be that fast.


----------



## methebest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> You mean like this?


I really like the look of the firepro single slot coolers. And because that cooler is basically a black firepro cooler i really want to get one. >.>


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *methebest*
> 
> I really like the look of the firepro single slot coolers. And because that cooler is basically a black firepro cooler i really want to get one. >.>


They're available on Amazon Japan, shipping shouldn't be too bad to NZ. If you're actually interested in buying one.

Edit: Link: http://www.amazon.co.jp/ELSA-GEFORCE-%E3%82%B0%E3%83%A9%E3%83%95%E3%82%A3%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89-VD5492-GD750-2GERTSP/dp/B00NA309A0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413599245&sr=8-2&keywords=elsa+750ti


----------



## methebest

Probably wouldn't be much more than getting a 750ti locally.

Just made an account and amazon jp wont ship it to me. so will have to try one of the other sellers.

Though it will be a few months before i need it so maybe some will make it out of japan. >.>


----------



## WEXX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Found the article! It's either this or the Galaxy card. In my case, it has to be this. Too bad.


Why did they not use the single slot cooler off of the Evga GT640?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> They're available on Amazon Japan, shipping shouldn't be too bad to NZ. If you're actually interested in buying one.
> 
> Edit: Link: http://www.amazon.co.jp/ELSA-GEFORCE-%E3%82%B0%E3%83%A9%E3%83%95%E3%82%A3%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89-VD5492-GD750-2GERTSP/dp/B00NA309A0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413599245&sr=8-2&keywords=elsa+750ti


Ew. 19000 yen?! That's about $190, right? I'll buy a trash card for parts and find a card that can be easily modified for less.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WEXX*
> 
> Why did they not use the single slot cooler off of the Evga GT640?


That would look nicer I'm sure, but they were using parts they had on hand.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Ew. 19000 yen?! That's about $190, right? I'll buy a trash card for parts and find a card that can be easily modified for less.


Well yeah, japan isn't the cheapest place for pc hardware and that seems to be a pretty niche card. Not really surprising imo.


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> You mean like this?


If only ELSA and Galaxy sold their single slots in the US. Would love this one instead though since it's a DVI vs a VGA for the second connector and cooler looks better.

Edit: $175-$180 w/o shipping...ehhhh.


----------



## fleetfeather

Oh I got in contact with Gigabyte too. They weren't too keen on the idea of doing a group-buy for a mDTX version of their mITX Gaming 5 board









Did anyone else have any luck, or are we stuck with using expansion PCB components?


----------



## akromatic

remember these?

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG_Xpander/


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Oh I got in contact with Gigabyte too. They weren't too keen on the idea of doing a group-buy for a mDTX version of their mITX Gaming 5 board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone else have any luck, or are we stuck with using expansion PCB components?


I might actually reach out to Shuttle, they know the DTX game pretty well, and I don't think it would be a stretch for them to release a standalone motherboard, even if they are more known for their barebones.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *akromatic*
> 
> remember these?
> 
> http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG_Xpander/


Never saw that! Good to see a add-on lane splitter at least see some commercial availability.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I might actually reach out to Shuttle, they know the DTX game pretty well, and I don't think it would be a stretch for them to release a standalone motherboard, even if they are more known for their barebones.


I don't know how large the barebone market is, but I could really see them reaching into the mDTX niche.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

There's also ECS. They tend to make some odd sized boards. Jetway makes mini, pico, and nano ITX boards as well for VIA systems.


----------



## MiiX

Subbed. Really wanting to do a build with a SLI DTX board... Shuttle mobo's any good?


----------



## fleetfeather

Any word on shuttle, ecs, or jetway yet?

I know ECS just released a z97 mITX mobo. Maybe try get the same mobo with the PCB extended and an extra pcie slot?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I've emailed Shuttle, but haven't heard back yet. I think they would be happy to expand into the standalone motherboard arena.


----------



## MiiX

Just found this....
http://www.overclock.net/t/541767/club-for-those-with-beastly-matx-itx-rigs/3580_20#post_17076721

I shouldnt look at these pictures, my wallet might get angry...


----------



## fleetfeather

I'd be all over a shuttle mDTX board for watercooling purposes, provided they can do a z97 chipset with a decent VRM solution. I have a, erm... "golden" 4790k here that I can't just leave at stock


----------



## subtec

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I've emailed Shuttle, but haven't heard back yet. I think they would be happy to expand into the standalone motherboard arena.


I'm not too sure about that, considering that's a market they used to be in and moved _out_ of.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *subtec*
> 
> I'm not too sure about that, considering that's a market they used to be in and moved _out_ of.


If so, we could probably also try to convince them to make a short barebone with an mDTX on the inside. They could keep their basic layout and would only need to replace the 1U PSU they currently use with a short FlexATX one.


----------



## fleetfeather

Keep the dream alive


----------



## Insan1tyOne

The dream!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

It lives and grows in all our hearts!

Since we are looking at a loooong wait until Skylake, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new iteration of z97 boards before the 100-series boards are released. Hopefully someone tries something new and comes out with some Mini-DTX boards.


----------



## aberrero

Will broadwell get new chipsets?I know 97/99 are forward compatible, but will there be new revisions?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> Will broadwell get new chipsets?I know 97/99 are forward compatible, but will there be new revisions?


Z97 was the "new chipset" for Broadwell, but the CPUs never showed up


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Broadwell for laptops and tablets is starting to show up now, and the desktop version should hit shelves around Q1 or maybe Q2 2015. Yeah, it sucks, but performance gains are negligible over Haswell, the process is immature and I think ran into some issues early on, and the die is going to be much more dense and therefore harder to cool.


----------



## iFreilicht

Guys, it's happening!!!

Asrock lists two H81 (yes, I know) mDTX boards with one PCIex1 and one PCIex16 on their site!

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H81M-VG4%20R2.0/

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H81M-DG4/

All courtesy w9gb who postet this on Hardforum: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1041268891#post1041268891


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Not bad! With the layout already established it would be trivial to change the chipset to a z97 and replace the x1 with an x16.

Keep the dream alive!


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Not bad! With the layout already established it would be *trivial* to change the chipset to a z97 and replace the x1 with an x16.
> 
> Keep the dream alive!


Uhhh... I don't think it's that trivial. Gotta worry about relays and switches and traces. All that jazz. I'm excited Asrock is making something mDTX but trivial is pushing it a bit.


----------



## fleetfeather

I'll get in touch with ASRock later today and bug them for a z97 mDTX with 2 x16 slots.

Does anyone know if PLX switches can enable SLI x8 operation with a x4 pcie SSD slot populated? I'm trying to determine if I'd have to sell of my XP941 to do SLI GTX 970's on a mDTX z97 board


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Guys, it's happening!!!
> 
> Asrock lists two H81 (yes, I know) mDTX boards with one PCIex1 and one PCIex16 on their site!
> 
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H81M-VG4%20R2.0/
> 
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H81M-DG4/
> 
> All courtesy w9gb who postet this on Hardforum: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1041268891#post1041268891


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> I'll get in touch with ASRock later today and bug them for a z97 mDTX with 2 x16 slots.
> 
> Does anyone know if PLX switches can enable SLI x8 operation with a x4 pcie SSD slot populated? I'm trying to determine if I'd have to sell of my XP941 to do SLI GTX 970's on a mDTX z97 board


A PLX chip on mDTX? That'll be fun to heatsink. But in regards to the question, yes, sorta. There are a ton of different PLX switches and there are some that meet that need. The most common model (one that Asrock would have in stock in their factories) is the PLX PEX8747. This doesn't look like it can do 2x16 and then extra lanes.



There are other chips but they would be more expensive to purchase because they are not as common.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> A PLX chip on mDTX? That'll be fun to heatsink. But in regards to the question, yes, sorta. There are a ton of different PLX switches and there are some that meet that need. The most common model (one that Asrock would have in stock in their factories) is the PLX PEX8747. This doesn't look like it can do 2x16 and then extra lanes.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are other chips but they would be more expensive to purchase because they are not as common.


Do we need an actual PLX full-bandwidth switch or will a "lane mux" work?


vs.


----------



## Nukemaster

Splitting lanes should work fine with most cards on the market.

X8 pci-e 3 is as fast as x16 2.0 and that is fast enough to have almost no performance hit on any single gpu card.


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Do we need an actual PLX full-bandwidth switch or will a "lane mux" work?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vs.


I don't think we'd need a PLX at all. I was just responding directly to the question about splitting lanes and having an x4 PCI-e SSD available as well (through an M.2 slot).


----------



## fleetfeather

yeah sorry guys, wasn't trying to suggest we need PLX for multi-gpu setups, was just curious about my pcie SSD









thanks for the info armourcore


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Ahh this all makes sense now. Yeah, you'd need to pipe the SSD to the PCH lanes. I think there's 4 2.0 lanes able to be used there, but a few things normally contend for those.

What backs up SATA Express? Is that PCIe?


----------



## fleetfeather

So that means a XP941 would be reduced to PCIE 3.0 x2 bandwidth through the PCH. That's a bit annoying haha... Honestly, I understand the logic behind NV's decision to restrict SLI to minimum 3.0 x8 bandwidth, but really they need to release a use-at-own-risk update to allow 3.0 x4 operation for those who are keen...

If I can't throw a pair of GTX 970's into a Maximus VII Gene (or similar, high-end z97 mobo) with a 3.0 x4 PCIE SSD, that's kinda dumb :/

Anyways, yes, I'll try get in touch with ASRock.

And yeah I have no idea what the backbone of SATAExpress is... That's a good question for sure!


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Ahh this all makes sense now. Yeah, you'd need to pipe the SSD to the PCH lanes. I think there's 4 2.0 lanes able to be used there, but a few things normally contend for those.
> 
> What backs up SATA Express? Is that PCIe?


Haswell/Broadwell chipsets have eight PCIe 2.0 lanes (except H81 which has just six), most often used as a single x4 slot, one or two x1 slots, and some additional on-board PCIe "cards." Those are most often extra USB 3.0 ports or SATA controllers, often Marvell or ASMedia. A possible board configuration, in this case a Z87 ATX board, could be:

x1 (PCH)
x16 @ x16 or x8 (CPU)
[empty]
x1 (PCH)
x16 @ x0 or x8 (CPU)
Legacy PCI (PCH)
x16 @ x4 (PCH)

Check here for some more specs. Find the table listed under "Intel DZ87KL-75K (Kinsley) Motherboard" and look at the "Expansion Capabilities" section.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> So that means a XP941 would be reduced to PCIE 3.0 x2 bandwidth through the PCH. That's a bit annoying haha... Honestly, I understand the logic behind NV's decision to restrict SLI to minimum 3.0 x8 bandwidth, but really they need to release a use-at-own-risk update to allow 3.0 x4 operation for those who are keen...
> 
> If I can't throw a pair of GTX 970's into a Maximus VII Gene (or similar, high-end z97 mobo) with a 3.0 x4 PCIE SSD, that's kinda dumb :/
> 
> Anyways, yes, I'll try get in touch with ASRock.
> 
> And yeah I have no idea what the backbone of SATAExpress is... That's a good question for sure!


I think it would be 2.0 x2 bandwidth unless that's a 3.0 drive. Remember, the speed is based on the fewest lanes and the earliest revision between the host and the device. A PCIe 3.0 x4 card in a 2.0 x16 slot will run at 2.0 x4 speeds, for example.

Read up, regarding SATA Express. The connectors on a Z97 boards can fit either of these:



There are two electrical interfaces, however. If I understand it correctly, a SATA Express drive would have one PCIe lane spit out from each SATA port physically on the board. Each of those SATA ports has I believe two differential pairs, as does a PCIe lane. As far as the motherboard is concerned, it's the same connection as long as right wires go to the right places. However, plugging in a SATA drive like an HDD or ODD would switch the electrical interface to the normal SATA III we all know and love. The differential pairs would be spitting out an independent SATA III signal in each port.

I hope this helps, but I am not the greatest at explaining things.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Haswell/Broadwell chipsets have eight PCIe 2.0 lanes (except H81 which has just six), most often used as a single x4 slot, one or two x1 slots, and some additional on-board PCIe "cards." Those are most often extra USB 3.0 ports or SATA controllers, often Marvell or ASMedia. A possible board configuration, in this case a Z87 ATX board, could be:
> 
> x1 (PCH)
> x16 @ x16 or x8 (CPU)
> [empty]
> x1 (PCH)
> x16 @ x0 or x8 (CPU)
> Legacy PCI (PCH)
> x16 @ x4 (PCH)
> 
> Check here for some more specs. Find the table listed under "Intel DZ87KL-75K (Kinsley) Motherboard" and look at the "Expansion Capabilities" section.
> I think it would be 2.0 x2 bandwidth unless that's a 3.0 drive. Remember, the speed is based on the fewest lanes and the earliest revision between the host and the device. A PCIe 3.0 x4 card in a 2.0 x16 slot will run at 2.0 x4 speeds, for example.
> 
> Read up, regarding SATA Express. The connectors on a Z97 boards can fit either of these:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two electrical interfaces, however. If I understand it correctly, a SATA Express drive would have one PCIe lane spit out from each SATA port physically on the board. Each of those SATA ports has I believe two differential pairs, as does a PCIe lane. As far as the motherboard is concerned, it's the same connection as long as right wires go to the right places. However, plugging in a SATA drive like an HDD or ODD would switch the electrical interface to the normal SATA III we all know and love. The differential pairs would be spitting out an independent SATA III signal in each port.
> 
> I hope this helps, but I am not the greatest at explaining things.


Ah-hah! I thought the XP941 was 3.0 x4, but the controller on it is actually only 2.0 x4, as per Anandtech's review:
Quote:


> The controller supports up to four PCIe 2.0 lanes, so in practice it should be good for up to ~1560MB/s without playing with the PCIe clock settings (it's possible to overclock the PCIe interface for even higher bandwidths)


So.. if I've interpreted you correctly, it could be possible for a mobo manufacturer to throw in a pair of 3.0 x16 slots (working in 3.0 x8 when both occupied) for the GPU/s, as well as a working 2.0 x4 PCIE SSD slot - so long as I was willing to uninstall drivers for things such as front panel USB 3.0 ports and non-native SATA ports - all on a mDTX board









However, as far as an ASRock mDTX mobo goes, I think I'd still be screwed, because their m.2 slot is limited to 2.0 x2 bandwidth. I could maybe get around that limitation by using some sort of mythical _SATAExpress to m.2 adapter_, but alas I doubt it would be bootable









I think I'm just going to have to accept that my XP941 will have to be sold if someone (other than Asus/ROG) came out with a mDTX board haha


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> I could maybe get around that limitation by using some sort of mythical _SATAExpress to m.2 adapter_, but alas I doubt it would be bootable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'm just going to have to accept that my XP941 will have to be sold if someone (other than Asus/ROG) came out with a mDTX board haha


For all being based on PCIe, SATAe, M.2, and mPCIe sure are incompatible. I tried for ages to get a mPCIe-to-M.2 adapter to use M.2 SSDs on an AM1 build and no such thing exists. If M.2 uses PCIe, why not allow an adapter to use existing mPCIe slots?

There's always good ol' mSATA. Two mSATA SSDs in RAID 0 would scoot, and sidestep the lane issue entirely.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

There are PCIe to mPCIe adapters and mPCIe to PCIe ribbon cables. There are also PCIe to M.2 adapters. The Plextor M6e has its warranty voided if you detach it from the one shipped from the factory.

Both mPCIe and M.2 can, but do not necessarily, support SATA drives in the form of mSATA and I believe the M key for M.2.

However, I can't find any M.2 to mPCIe or mPCIe to M.2 adpaters. I also can't find any PCIe cards that have a SATA Express port on them. And finally, I can't find ribbon cables to turn M.2 into standard PCIe. You can get M.2 WiFi cards though!

Just give it some time. These are transitioning standards and they'll be a mess for a while.


----------



## armourcore9brker

Big problem for finding a mPCIe card is that it is only able to handle x1 (Generally at 2.0 speeds) which is slower than a 600 - SATA port. There are provisions for future revisions of the slot to add a 2nd slot. And I am not sure if PCI-SIG is working on a new revision of the port to go to 3.0 or x2.

Reference: PCI-SIG spec on mPCIe -or- Simple Pin Out

In regards to compatibility between Sata Express and M.2, there are a few options to repurpose a M.2 drive without losing speed on it.

Oh so close.










Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







EDIT: Found it! Link


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!















EDIT 2: If you really want to use an M.2 card in a mPCIe slot (and have it be slow), you can use a SI-PEX50065 with an mPCIe to PCIe ribbon.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!















EDIT 3: Found M-Key to mSATA. Link


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Couple of things: PCIe 2.0 is 500MB/s in both directions. SATA is 600MB/s total, or X MB/s in one direction and (600-X) MB/s in the other. If you've got a heavy upstream and downstream, then PCIe will be better.

M key is, I think, a hybrid "universal" key that can be PCIe x2 or SATA. B is exclusively SATA IIRC. That means you can use M.2 SATA in mSATA slots. I could be wrong though, since M.2 is so gosh-darned overly-complicated.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Couple of things: PCIe 2.0 is 500MB/s in both directions. SATA is 600MB/s total, or X MB/s in one direction and (600-X) MB/s in the other. If you've got a heavy upstream and downstream, then PCIe will be better.
> 
> M key is, I think, a hybrid "universal" key that can be PCIe x2 or SATA. B is exclusively SATA IIRC. That means you can use M.2 SATA in mSATA slots. I could be wrong though, since *M.2 is so gosh-darned overly-complicated*.


From Wikipedia:


There's no way that can get confusing at all. Not to mention that's only 2 of the possible *12* keyings.
Quote:


> Various types of M.2 devices are denoted with WWLL-HH-K-K or WWLL-HH-K codes, where WW and LL specify the module width and length, respectively, in millimeters. Part HH specifies, in an encoded form, whether a module is single- or double-sided, and the maximum allowed thickness of mounted components; possible values are listed in the right table above. Module keying is specified by the K-K part, in an encoded form by using key IDs from the left table above; it can also be specified as K only, if a module has only one key.


Once you factor all the combinations of height, width, thickness and keying, there's *over 3000* different M.2 types.

I love PCIe based storage as much as the next guy but the NGFF people really screwed up M.2.


----------



## ejohnson

So I have been watching this thread for awhile now. I see the asrock boards that are out (very nice)

But, I am trying to figure out what a mdtx board could be used for in my situation.

Currently I am running a asrock z77 itx with a 750ti in a lian li tu100.

I had though about getting a mdtx, then a sound card, but with new mitx boards the sound cards are getting prettty damn good.
Thought about using the extra slot for a ssd, but most mitx boards have a m2 slot on them, or at least a msata
Thought about a eithernet card, but thats pointless
Thought about a tv tuner, but I have a usb one already

I cant really think of something I need to put in a x1 slot that a mitx board doesnt already offer me. ANy help or suggestions? I really want to justify something like this, but I guess untill that x1 slot is turned into another x16 slot to allow sli, its a little pointless for me









The thought of a pair of 970s in sli with water cooling inside a lian li tu100 gets me excited....


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> I had though about getting a mdtx, then a sound card, but with new mitx boards the sound cards are getting prettty damn good.
> Thought about using the extra slot for a ssd, but most mitx boards have a m2 slot on them, or at least a msata
> Thought about a eithernet card, but thats pointless
> Thought about a tv tuner, but I have a usb one already


True. For most users, nothing goes in PCIe slots except GPUs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> I cant really think of something I need to put in a x1 slot that a mitx board doesnt already offer me. ANy help or suggestions? I really want to justify something like this, but I guess untill that x1 slot is turned into another x16 slot to allow sli, its a little pointless for me


That's what we're pushing for! With two x16 slots, you can do whatever you want, SLI-wise, or ignore the second slot entirely.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> The thought of a pair of 970s in sli with water cooling inside a lian li tu100 gets me excited....


Welcome to the hype thread!


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> That's what we're pushing for! With two x16 slots, you can do whatever you want, SLI-wise, or ignore the second slot entirely.


Or if you're rich/mad enough. Intel P3x00 PCIe SSD's


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Any idea what board is actually in this thing?

http://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/Case-Mods/Cooler-Master-HAF-Stacker-915R-Asus-Z9PE-D16-Modification-Package-10077


----------



## subtec

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Any idea what board is actually in this thing?
> 
> http://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/Case-Mods/Cooler-Master-HAF-Stacker-915R-Asus-Z9PE-D16-Modification-Package-10077


I was tempted to be a jerk about it, since it say right on the page you linked, but I looked up the model they list (Z9PE-D16) and it's clearly an E-ATX board which would never fit in the case. Rather, it appears to be the Z9P*H*-D16. It's a server/computing board, and the lack of a usable PCIe slot makes it next to useless for average users. It's also not remotely related to mini-DTX.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

There's a PCIe slot on the board. Could you use a riser?

You know, so I can take my 256GB of RAM and 36 Haswell cores to a LAN party?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *subtec*
> 
> I was tempted to be a jerk about it, since it say right on the page you linked, but I looked up the model they list (Z9PE-D16) and it's clearly an E-ATX board which would never fit in the case. Rather, it appears to be the Z9P*H*-D16. It's a server/computing board, and the lack of a usable PCIe slot makes it next to useless for average users. It's also not remotely related to mini-DTX.


Yep, it's not the one they listed but instead the H model. Neat board, even if it's not a DTX.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *subtec*
> 
> It's also not remotely related to mini-DTX.


It might not be related to mDTX, but its (imo) pretty relevant to the the topic of this thread, which is (I think) more about bringing more features and power to the SFF platform.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Neat board, even if it's not a DTX.


Indeed, it takes compact workstations to a whole new level. Also nice to finally see a useful application of the 915R


----------



## Elloquin

Why are those pics rendered? Look at the ram...


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elloquin*
> 
> Why are those pics rendered? Look at the ram...


I'll eat my hat if those are rendered.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elloquin*
> 
> Look at the ram...


? Looks legit to me.


----------



## iFreilicht

I noticed there's also a "10G" version of the board: http://www.asus.com/Commercial_Servers_Workstations/Z9PHD1610G/

Interesting use of the 915R, though, that's pretty neat-o.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Put me in for one. For the following reasons
1. Single Slot /Liquid Cooled Crossfire/SLI
2.Triple Slot GPU support
3.GPU+Expansion card


----------



## iFreilicht

I don't think we have a list of existing mDTX boards yet, so here are some: (Credit to Necere and Blk from [H])

ASRock H81M-DG4
ASRock H81M-VG4 R2.0
ECS H81H3-M4
Biostar H81MHV3

A little wider than mDTX (177mm instead of 170mm):

ASUS H81MP


----------



## Blze001

I think I might need to figure out how to get some watercooling in my Hadron Air... a dual-780 SLI rig in a wee little Hadron would be awesome (-ly difficult, granted).

I'd have to figure out how to shoehorn an ATX power supply in there too, I don't think 500w would cut it for two 780s.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I don't think we have a list of existing mDTX boards yet, so here are some: (Credit to Necere and Blk from [H])
> 
> ASRock H81M-DG4
> ASRock H81M-VG4 R2.0
> ECS H81H3-M4
> Biostar H81MHV3
> 
> A little wider than mDTX (177mm instead of 170mm):
> 
> ASUS H81MP


There's a few out there for sure. No idea why there's no dual-16x Z97 boards though. It should honestly be trivial to make one.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blze001*
> 
> I think I might need to figure out how to get some watercooling in my Hadron Air... a dual-780 SLI rig in a wee little Hadron would be awesome (-ly difficult, granted).
> 
> I'd have to figure out how to shoehorn an ATX power supply in there too, I don't think 500w would cut it for two 780s.


500W would indeed be cutting it very close for 2 780's. But That Silverstone SFX 600W would probably be fine, and much easier to get in there than an ATX PSU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> There's a few out there for sure. No idea why there's no dual-16x Z97 boards though. It should honestly be trivial to make one.


Maybe we should get a poll going here on OCN (and maybe some other forums?), If they see there's interest, they might make one.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Maybe we should get a poll going here on OCN (and maybe some other forums?), If they see there's interest, they might make one.


I've thought about a poll/petition before. Not sure how effective it would be. I've already reached out to several vendor reps on the forums here and sent a few emails. If we're lucky we may see some excitement when 1151 motherboards start showing up.

I still think Mini-DTX is the future of SFF systems. As 95% of all enthusiast cases already include provisions for the second slot, the transition will be seamless, and nobody has to sacrifice anything. Single-card users don't have to use the second slot, and the rest of us gain loads more versatility.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I've thought about a poll/petition before. Not sure how effective it would be. I've already reached out to several vendor reps on the forums here and sent a few emails. If we're lucky we may see some excitement when 1151 motherboards start showing up.
> 
> I still think Mini-DTX is the future of SFF systems. As 95% of all enthusiast cases already include provisions for the second slot, the transition will be seamless, and nobody has to sacrifice anything. Single-card users don't have to use the second slot, and the rest of us gain loads more versatility.


I was just thinking if we could quantify the amount of interest, the vendors might be a bit more eager, but then again, polls are hardly what you could call a reliable source.

But like you said, it should be a no-brainer. ITX doesn't make much sense compared to DTX for the majority of SFF dual-pci slot cases out there.


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> But like you said, it should be a no-brainer. ITX doesn't make much sense compared to DTX for the majority of SFF dual-pci slot cases out there.


But most video cards in the top slot would block the bottom slot and if you put the video card in the bottom slot then you need a 3 slot case.

The M1 has shown that you can do a 3 slot case that's still very compact so that'd be my preference but then it's a chicken and egg kind of problem.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> But most video cards in the top slot would block the bottom slot and if you put the video card in the bottom slot then you need a 3 slot case.
> 
> The M1 has shown that you can do a 3 slot case that's still very compact so that'd be my preference but then it's a chicken and egg kind of problem.


Not if you use a card with a single slot IO and single slot cooler/waterblock.









The problem with triple-slot SFF cases is that they're not very common yet, the majority of user would be using DTX in a dual-slot case. Which wouldn't be a problem, as they wouldn't be losing anything compared to ITX anyway.

The majority of users will probably be blocking the second slot, and use it like an ITX board. But it will also allow for users with more niche setups like SLI/CF single slot gpu's, triple slot cases, alternative pci-e functionality, etc.

The main advantage of DTX is versatility, even if the majority won't be utilizing it.


----------



## fleetfeather

mDTX is either equal or superior to mITX in every way, depending on your hardware choices. There is no lose side to mDTX.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Precisely. Lots of opportunities available with zero downsides. Any manufacturer capable of making mITX and mATX boards will have no issues with the routing and layout of a mDTX board. Plus, motherboard vendors who also make GPUs are incentivized as well, because the mDTX boards can hold two GPUs!


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Precisely. Lots of opportunities available with zero downsides. Any manufacturer capable of making mITX and mATX boards will have no issues with the routing and layout of a mDTX board. Plus, motherboard vendors who also make GPUs are incentivized as well, because the mDTX boards can hold two GPUs!


And with the TDP's getting lower and lower, high performance single slot air coolers might actually be more viable.


----------



## fleetfeather

Prices are unlikely to change much either. I would expect an mDTX board price difference would be determined by the trade-off between extra PCB material and slightly less compact working space for electrical components.

We know, for example, mobo size does not constitute price; high end mITX boards are often more expensive than an equivalent mATX board, perhaps due to the extra design costs of manufacturing something so dense in such a small space. Perhaps the slightly extra space to work with will offset the extra cost of adding a few more circuits?


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Prices are unlikely to change much either. I would expect an mDTX board price difference would be determined by the trade-off between extra PCB material and slightly less compact working space for electrical components.
> 
> We know, for example, mobo size does not constitute price; high end mITX boards are often more expensive than an equivalent mATX board, perhaps due to the extra design costs of manufacturing something so dense in such a small space. Perhaps the slightly extra space to work with will offset the extra cost of adding a few more circuits?


mATX Seems to be the sweetspot in terms of price atm. So moving closer to the size of mATX would make it more likely to be cheaper rather than more expensive right?

Altough, mDTX being relatively new, they'll probably charge more than M-ITX for it.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

The DTX Wikipedia page states that 6 mDTX boards fit on a single PCB panel, so they ought to be cheaper (as far as PCB costs) than mATX and the same as ITX.


----------



## subtec

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> But most video cards in the top slot would block the bottom slot and if you put the video card in the bottom slot then you need a 3 slot case.
> 
> The M1 has shown that you can do a 3 slot case that's still very compact so that'd be my preference but then it's a chicken and egg kind of problem.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> The problem with triple-slot SFF cases is that they're not very common yet, the majority of user would be using DTX in a dual-slot case. Which wouldn't be a problem, as they wouldn't be losing anything compared to ITX anyway.


Unfortunately if you make a 3-slot case there will be all those people saying "why not 4 slots and mATX?" The almost 3 inches of depth freed up by the shorter ITX/mDTX form factors compared to mATX doesn't seem to register at all.

I think mDTX has a marketing problem, and if it's going to take off it really needs a new name. Nobody has ever heard of it outside of a few niche subforums like this one. To really be accepted, I think it needs to have some connection to an existing popular form factor, Just to give people some reference point. ASRock has a roughly mDTX-sized board they call "extended ITX," which would do fine IMO. Something like "Super ITX" or "ITX Pro" would also work.


----------



## BirdofPrey

As great as DTX sounds, I think there's something people seem to keep forgetting: It seems like only a couple of video cards come out each generation (if that many), that can actually be fit in a single slot. MOST of them always seem to have a DVI port stuck in the second slot. I'd like to see that change before I can get excited about this (seriously manufacturers, DVI is obsoleted by both HDMI and DP and you can fit 4-5 of those ports in a single slot).


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *subtec*
> 
> Unfortunately if you make a 3-slot case there will be all those people saying "why not 4 slots and mATX?" The almost 3 inches of depth freed up by the shorter ITX/mDTX form factors compared to mATX doesn't seem to register at all.
> 
> I think mDTX has a marketing problem, and if it's going to take off it really needs a new name. Nobody has ever heard of it outside of a few niche subforums like this one. To really be accepted, I think it needs to have some connection to an existing popular form factor, Just to give people some reference point. ASRock has a roughly mDTX-sized board they call "extended ITX," which would do fine IMO. Something like "Super ITX" or "ITX Pro" would also work.


I'm sure the same can be said for mATX. "Why bother when ATX isn't that much bigger?" However, I'd like to shy away from 3-slot cases, at least initially. Compatibility with mITX cases needs to be ensured in the short term. Coming to rely on a GPU using up slots 2 and 3 does undermine the idea of mDTX.

I agree on the naming as well, Mini-ITX+ or similar helps drive home the case compatibility. It's true that (m)DTX is unheard of, but it does describe the form factor perfectly.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> As great as DTX sounds, I think there's something people seem to keep forgetting: It seems like only a couple of video cards come out each generation (if that many), that can actually be fit in a single slot. MOST of them always seem to have a DVI port stuck in the second slot. I'd like to see that change before I can get excited about this (seriously manufacturers, DVI is obsoleted by both HDMI and DP and you can fit 4-5 of those ports in a single slot).


Very true. Have 3 DP++ ports on a card and you're golden. That way passive adapters can be used to go back to HDMI or DVI. The DVI double-stack is a great faux pas of this generation.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I like DVI because of the screws.







But let's be honest, HDMI is the future because of its ubiquity, and DP is the future because of its price ($0 to license) and features. Actually, scratch that - they're the present, and there is minimal reason to keep VGA and DVI around on anything but low-end cards for systems that need legacy support.

The reference 970 and 980 would be awesome in a DTX system. Just get a single-slot bracket and a couple waterblocks. If you want to go all the way, you've got the ARES III or whatever it was, the waterblock-equipped 295X2 that ASUS launched? Yeah, a quadfire setup using 290Xs in an mITX box would be pretty awesome.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I like DVI because of the screws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's be honest, HDMI is the future because of its ubiquity, and DP is the future because of its price ($0 to license) and features. Actually, scratch that - they're the present, and there is minimal reason to keep VGA and DVI around on anything but low-end cards for systems that need legacy support.
> 
> The reference 970 and 980 would be awesome in a DTX system. Just get a single-slot bracket and a couple waterblocks. If you want to go all the way, you've got the ARES III or whatever it was, the waterblock-equipped 295X2 that ASUS launched? Yeah, a quadfire setup using 290Xs in an mITX box would be pretty awesome.


I actually prefered DL-DVI because (for the longest time) it was superior to everything else. HDMI 2.0 is now capable of 2160p60, but I'm still mad about it keeping displays in the 1080p dark ages for so long. I still don't think HDMI does anything over 60 FPS.

DisplayPort++ supports everything else through passive adapters, and soon will carry USB 3.0 as well, making it the ultimate PC video interface. Plus you can fit 4/6 of the things on a single PCIe slot!


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> DisplayPort++ supports everything else through passive adapters, and soon will carry USB 3.0 as well, making it the ultimate PC video interface. Plus you can fit 4/6 of the things on a single PCIe slot!


Wow.







And I bet it's getting integrated in Thunderbolt, right? That's basically mini DP and some PCIe lanes over an external cable IIRC.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Have 3 DP++ ports on a card and you're golden. That way passive adapters can be used to go back to HDMI or DVI. The DVI double-stack is a great faux pas of this generation.


If I am not mistaken, in the space a single DVI takes up, you can fit 2 HDMI or DP ports or 3 mini-DP. One problem that I have seen lately that bugs the crap out of me even more than the dual DVI is some boards with a couple DP and HDMI ports AND a single DVI on the second slot, so they are getting away from packing the card edge but still can't completely lose it and just ship port adapters. One thing to note, though, is with passive DP adapters, the third one would actually have to be active since most cards don't have more than 2 external clocks (each DVI and HDMI connection needs a dedicated clock).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I like DVI because of the screws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's be honest, HDMI is the future because of its ubiquity, and DP is the future because of its price ($0 to license) and features. Actually, scratch that - they're the present, and there is minimal reason to keep VGA and DVI around on anything but low-end cards for systems that need legacy support.


I've always always hated screws. I never understood why nobody used sliding lock connectors like e server markets

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I actually prefered DL-DVI because (for the longest time) it was superior to everything else. HDMI 2.0 is now capable of 2160p60, but I'm still mad about it keeping displays in the 1080p dark ages for so long. I still don't think HDMI does anything over 60 FPS.
> 
> DisplayPort++ supports everything else through passive adapters, and soon will carry USB 3.0 as well, making it the ultimate PC video interface. Plus you can fit 4/6 of the things on a single PCIe slot!


It's actually the other way around. there WAS Dockport which had USB 3.0 and 2 DP links over a mini-DP connector, but it never went anywhere. What we have now is USB 3.1 and the Type C connector. It has a USB 2 link and 4 links that can carry USB 3.1 (which only uses 2 of the links atm) along with up to 100W of power, and it lets you caarry other data types besides USB, so you can have 1,2 or 4 DP links over USB with the remaining lines able to carry USB (and you ALWAYS have the USB 2 link)

I wish DP would gain traction more quickly. HDMI works fine for the home theater space, but DP has always been better geared toward PCs. 1.2 has been able to do 4k for a while, an the next version is supposed to carry 5k, and a cable can carry multiple video signals. I just wish there were more monitors that can daisychain. So far most monitors that do that are Dells.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I bet it's getting integrated in Thunderbolt, right? That's basically mini DP and some PCIe lanes over an external cable IIRC.


It's something else. Thunderbolt takes PCIe lanes out to the mini-DP port, but this is USB 3.1 which allows for other data to be carried over it. Right now there's no integration that I know about, but presumably they could come up with a scheme to carry PCIe over USB 3.1


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Both slots on the board would have to be at least 2X X8 when fully populated right?


----------



## iFreilicht

I think for now the benefit of mDTX wouldn't be for dual-GPU systems, but for people that need a second expansion card. Think TV-Tuners, Audio-Interfaces, RAID controllers, PCIe SSDs, capture cards, stuff like that. mATX will be the way to go for SLI/CF for a long time, especially since it's a very versatile form factor (mDTX still falls under the mATX specs dimension-wise), and even though we might see single-slot GPUs again in the future, it will take quite some time for that to happen. The only time mDTX can actually be worthwhile for two GPUs is when they are watercooled.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Both slots on the board would have to be at least 2X X8 when fully populated right?


When you're using two GPUs, yes, because else SLI and CF would have problems synchronising the cards and balancing the workload. It would work, but you will get a higher amount of micro hickups.
But for other configurations, you could run x16+x1, too.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I think for now the benefit of mDTX wouldn't be for dual-GPU systems, but for people that need a second expansion card. Think TV-Tuners, Audio-Interfaces, RAID controllers, PCIe SSDs, capture cards, stuff like that. mATX will be the way to go for SLI/CF for a long time, especially since it's a very versatile form factor (mDTX still falls under the mATX specs dimension-wise), and even though we might see single-slot GPUs again in the future, it will take quite some time for that to happen. The only time mDTX can actually be worthwhile for two GPUs is when they are watercooled.


I see a pair of single-slot cards as a niche for the moment (since you'd have to watercool them and also desolder that aforementioned DVI stack) There's also utility in putting the GPU in the second slot to help clear a large air cooler. With a single-slot, passive, low profile GPU in the second slot, a massive downdraft cooler on the CPU would make for an awesome fanless HTPC. Raid cards and PCIe SSDs are a great use too.

And of course, the added utility of mDTX removes no functionality from "conventional" ITX builds. There's no compromise. This is, in my opinion, the most important part. mDTX is purely an extension of the features of ITX.


----------



## ejohnson

I still think having the second pcie slot on a "rail system" that allows it to be adjusted from 2 slot cases to 3 slot cases would be the best universal solution. A ribbon cable that goes from the back of the mother board to the pci slot to allow for the slot to move back and forth.

This would give 100% better flexabilty in terms of itx vs dtx cases... got a itx case and just need a single card? cool, just unplug the second slot and unscrew the slider to remove it, now you have a standard itx motherboard.
Need a x1 slot and not a full x16 slots? ok, you can buy a x1 slot.

It has the best of both itx and dtx and allows the manufaturer alot of flexabilty and not locking them into a making 2 form factors. They can just make a single form factor that has expansion slot to add more.

To make it even better, you can have the slot be a m.2 form factor, that way you have even more selling points, you can plug in your m.2 ssd, or you can plug in the adapter and dtx rails and add another pcie slot, or you can leave it empty.

Its like how some monitors had sound bar mounts on them. Both parts sold individually, You can have one or not, its up to you, but the extra plastic clip to hold the sound bar on didnt add anything to the overall cost of the monitor. Adding 4 holes and a m.2 slot to the back of a motherboard wouldnt add too much to the cost, you could sell the adapters for 30 bucks and make even more money.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> and also desolder that aforementioned DVI stack


Not really necessary if you buy the right cards. PNY, Palit and Gainward have single slot I/O versions of the GTX970/980. Grandted they are not the most popular brands. But its an option.

edit again:
Good news nonetheless.
Quote:


> Hi James Shuttle is working on a Cube with two PCI slots like the X79 but with the Haswell chipset call or email me for more info [email protected] phone 626-854-5346


----------



## Allanitomwesh

@ejohnson that would be unnecessarily complex. Simply plug in your GPU in the second slot and your X1 card in the first.


----------



## ejohnson

I dont see it as being that complex, its just like a pci riser card.

My idea mainly just removed the need for the motherboard company to make a mitx board and a dtx board. They can make a single board with a addon to make it dtx.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

That goes back to the "bifurcation" talk. With a board designed for it, it may be easily doable. Without changing the dimensions of an ITX board, it might be hard to fit that extra 8x slot somewhere a riser could get to it though.


----------



## BirdofPrey

I wouldn't mind seeing a specific riser card extension for PCIe. If I remember correctly, they used to have one for PCI, an extension added on to a standard PCI slot with data lines to handle multiplexing and some extra power so you can have just one riser capable slot and be able to plug a riser card into it with multiple cards. It would certainly be a worthwhile addition for ITX at least, it can keep the one slot, but is expandable with a riser, though I am sure you wouldn't get full 2x PCIe 3.0 x 16 or anything like that.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

I'm trying to visualize this and its not making sense to me. So you have an itx board,you buy a chunk of PCB on a riser that plugs into? (surely not your x16 slot) and it gives you the second X16 slot?


----------



## Blze001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> I'm trying to visualize this and its not making sense to me. So you have an itx board,you buy a chunk of PCB on a riser that plugs into? (surely not your x16 slot) and it gives you the second X16 slot?


I think that's the gist... similar to how people set up bitcoin mining cards: instead of one x16, they have two x8.

I'm not an SLI expert, but I have to imagine the slower speeds and smaller bandwidth would negate some of the SLI benefit.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Not really. PCIe bandwidth has minimal effect. And let's be honest, if you can run SLI on 2.0 x8, or even 1.1 x8, you should be able to do it on 3.0 x4.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Unless you're using a PLX lane switch, ANY 115x platform only has 16x total lanes to distribute to the slots. So "normal" SLI is still 8x by 8x.

Still, this adapter would require a custom motherboard, or lift the card up physically, breaking case compatibility.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Even with a PLX switch, you've still only got 16 lanes worth of bandwidth from the CPU. They can just be distributed differently.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Yes,but my concern is,consider that this motherboard is placed vertically in the case. How would you hold it down? It would need its own mounting holes? Seems rather complex to me as that would break compatibility with itx.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Yes,but my concern is,consider that this motherboard is placed vertically in the case. How would you hold it down? It would need its own mounting holes? Seems rather complex to me as that would break compatibility with itx.


That second slot could use the mITX mounting holes with an adapter plate. But I don't see that daughterboard idea working out.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> But I don't see that daughterboard idea working out.


Same here, (modular) daughterboards are expensive and less reliable. A simple one piece DTX board makes more sense imo.


----------



## KaffieneKing

Really want to convert my itx rig into a dual GPU moster, does anyone know where you can buy something like this that ships to the UK?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Try Ebay. You'll probably need to order from China. China has every single cable you could ever need if you're willing to wait a month for shipping.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaffieneKing*
> 
> Really want to convert my itx rig into a dual GPU moster, does anyone know where you can buy something like this that ships to the UK?


Ebay ofc: http://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/RC1PELY423-C7-PCIe-dual-lanes-flexible-splitter-one-PCIe-x16-to-2-slots-PCI-/390755166399?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5afad2a8bf

But first and foremost, check whether your board is compatible. And I'm not even sure if its recommended to use those with GPU's.


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Ebay ofc: http://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/RC1PELY423-C7-PCIe-dual-lanes-flexible-splitter-one-PCIe-x16-to-2-slots-PCI-/390755166399?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5afad2a8bf
> 
> But first and foremost, check whether your board is compatible. And I'm not even sure if its recommended to use those with GPU's.


Yeh I found that and decided to just stick with mATX, really wish DTX was a thing


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> I'm trying to visualize this and its not making sense to me. So you have an itx board,you buy a chunk of PCB on a riser that plugs into? (surely not your x16 slot) and it gives you the second X16 slot?


Pretty much yes. Plugs into X16 gives you two
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Unless you're using a PLX lane switch, ANY 115x platform only has 16x total lanes to distribute to the slots. So "normal" SLI is still 8x by 8x.
> 
> Still, this adapter would require a custom motherboard, or lift the card up physically, breaking case compatibility.


That's why I was saying it would be nice to if it were a standard, then motherboards could do it without having to do something proprietary

As for case compatibility, it would depend on the case. There are already a fair number of cases that support 2 slots off a generic riser card (granted, nobody can seem to decide if the riser should be on the first or second slot on the motherboard). The difference is that means a mATX board, and the second slot on the riser is connected to a slot on the mobo through a ribbon cable. Having the cards perpendicular to the board would still likely require some custom work on the case's part, I admit. Also, having the cards mounted parallel would mean you'd have a HTPC style case rather than the cubes some of you seem to like.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Even with a PLX switch, you've still only got 16 lanes worth of bandwidth from the CPU. They can just be distributed differently.


True, but again, large boards already do this

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Yes,but my concern is,consider that this motherboard is placed vertically in the case. How would you hold it down? It would need its own mounting holes? Seems rather complex to me as that would break compatibility with itx.


Riser cards are small enough they don't really need much support, they are already connected to the motherboard and cards that are screwed in, so it's not going anywhere. X16 cards also have the locking connector.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> That second slot could use the mITX mounting holes with an adapter plate. But I don't see that daughterboard idea working out.


Maybe, maybe not.
I say, if you build it, they will come.
====
If I want to be really honest though, DTX does sound like a better idea than trying to shoehorn an extra card onto an ITX, even if I do like the idea of a riser with a PCIe MUX on it (and think it should totally happen). Lane splitters are problematic at best. I am not sure what to say about the name; I don't know that calling it extended ITX is the best, and to be perfectly fair the names are somewhat arbitrary at this point anyway. I also think form factors may need a refresh soon anyways (yes transitioning sucks, AT to ATX was a pain in the ass, but it gave us some good improvements).

One thing I have seen that I want on full sized boards is Thin-ITX is powered off 19 volts (a 2 pin cable internally or a power brick externally) and convert other voltages on the board. Less tangling wires is something I like (though larger boards would probably need a half dozen wires to carry the required amperage) and it might not be a bad idea to put 20 volts to the board anyways with USBs power spec 2.0 using it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaffieneKing*
> 
> really wish DTX was a thing


Same here.
Admittedly I also liked BTX. it always bugged me that the PCISIG decided that PCIe boards should be oriented the same way as PCI (ie. on a vertical ATX board components are on the bottom).
Also my computer is on my left side so components end up facing away from me


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I think desktop form factors are pretty well established. The future is going to be in laptop, tablet or really tiny desktop. See: MXM, Ara and the NUC.

So, this might be a loaded question, but given the choice between a mITX board and a dual-x16 mDTX board, would anyone not pick the DTX? I think it's important to establish that if a DTX board is released, it won't bother any of the mITX people. I honestly can't see why someone would choose a mITX board if all other things (cost, features, etc) were the same. Single card folds would be happy ignoring the extra slot, just like most of the (m)ATX people do, and we'd get the extra versatility.


----------



## fleetfeather

the only instance where I'd pick mITX over dual-8x mDTX offerings is if:

a) there's no bootable m.2 pcie slot for SSD's on the mDTX offering, and;
b) the manufacturer can't force the mDTX board to act in *PCIE 2.0 8x/8x* mode (Rather than either of the PCIE slots running in 3.0 4x mode)

Point (b) is important. At the moment, Nvidia has no plans to rectify SLI support to run when a card is seen as running at 4x bandwidth. This includes PCIE 3.0 4x, despite it offering the exact same bandwidth as PCIE 2.0 8x. Therefore, to run a SLI setup on a mDTX board, you need to make sure the nvidia SLI "system" views the cards as if they're running in 2.0 8x/8x rather than 3.0 8x/4x or 3.0 4x/4x.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> the only instance where I'd pick mITX over dual-8x mDTX offerings is if:
> 
> a) there's no bootable m.2 pcie slot for SSD's on the mDTX offering, and;
> b) the manufacturer can't force the mDTX board to act in *PCIE 2.0 8x/8x* mode (Rather than either of the PCIE slots running in 3.0 4x mode)
> 
> Point (b) is important. At the moment, Nvidia has no plans to rectify SLI support to run when a card is seen as running at 4x bandwidth. This includes PCIE 3.0 4x, despite it offering the exact same bandwidth as PCIE 2.0 8x. Therefore, to run a SLI setup on a mDTX board, you need to make sure the nvidia SLI "system" views the cards as if they're running in 2.0 8x/8x rather than 3.0 8x/4x or 3.0 4x/4x.


Is this issue unique to DTX?

I assume you're wanting PCIe 3.0 lanes devoted to m.2 storage, and of course the PCH doesn't have 3.0.

If we look at the config as (top slot / bottom slot / m.2 slot) we might have

x16/0/0
or
x8/x8/0
or maybe
x8/x4/x4

But I would have to imagine that tricking the card into thinking "bottom slot" is a 2.0 x8 instead of a 3.0 x4 would require active conversion (the CPU only gives out 16 lanes total no matter the speed)

Sounds like an nvidia problem, and something that would happen even to a full ATX board. A PLX lane switch might be useful here, or use the PCH lanes for m.2


----------



## fleetfeather

it's a general ZX7 chipset problem, although boards which rectify this typically use PLX chips (M7Gene -> utlra m.2 + SLI). I'm guessing it wouldn't be possible to fit a PLX chip on a mDTX board tho...? If there is a PLX chip possibility, then my condition above goes away.


----------



## IAmDay

On certain ITX cases if you ran the GPU on the bottle PCI with a single slot mod so to speak you could put a sound card or a capture card above correct?


----------



## methebest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IAmDay*
> 
> On certain ITX cases if you ran the GPU on the bottle PCI with a single slot mod so to speak you could put a sound card or a capture card above correct?


Yup, though thats pretty much all you can do with current mini-dtx boards due to them having a pciex1 slot on the top.(Ones I've looked at so far and mine.)


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I think desktop form factors are pretty well established. The future is going to be in laptop, tablet or really tiny desktop. See: MXM, Ara and the NUC.


Fair enough. Desktop Pcs are going more in the way of being a mostly enthusiast platform, though I personally think a small pc like a nettop for home and a tablet for travel is better than a laptop all the time.

The one I have actually been watching is thin ITX. It's designed mainly for all in one PCs but also works great for tiny PCs of moderate power. Since it normally uses a half height IO shield and the heat sinks sits off to the side, they can be super thin, and I've also seen some that use a full ATX shield with the top half being a screw mounting for an expansion card.

Unfortunately, at the moment, I haven't seen any with an M.2 slot or more than an x4 PCIe (though they have a couple of mPCIe). I'm hoping for a discrete graphics option, probably mobile graphics, though like what they use on laptops.
Quote:


> So, this might be a loaded question, but given the choice between a mITX board and a dual-x16 mDTX board, would anyone not pick the DTX? I think it's important to establish that if a DTX board is released, it won't bother any of the mITX people. I honestly can't see why someone would choose a mITX board if all other things (cost, features, etc) were the same. Single card folds would be happy ignoring the extra slot, just like most of the (m)ATX people do, and we'd get the extra versatility.


Depends on the features, really. I'd probably go for it, but there are SOME single slot mITX cases.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Sadly, thin mITX is limited to PCIe x4 and 25W of power. However, using a riser and the aforementioned I/O shield with a bracket, it might be possible to cut the 12V lines off the riser and attach them to a Pico PSU. There are a few models that can take 19V (like the mainboard) and spit out around 100W. It would be enough for a 750Ti and a quad-core CPU. The Pico PSU would probably need to be shorted and remain on at all times, but that might cause damage. I'm not actually sure how this could work safely.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Yeah, Thin-ITX is _defined_ as having that x4 slot and the CPU socket in that odd place.

It does have merits as far as truly tiny cases, but unfortunately I can't seem to find any cases thinner than a m350. I actually have a thin-itx board inside a m350 along with a 6TB 3.5" drive and 64GB 2.5" SSD!


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I've got an M350. Been meaning to make an HTPC (once I get the cash, which may or may not be for a while lol) with a single-slot GPU. See how much stuff can be crammed in there. I'm not sure there is a thinner case - the thing is as high as the I/O shield! Unless you mean dedicated thin mITX case?

I think the reason for the CPU socket placement is due to cooler specifications. Intel, I think, makes one that hangs off to the side. It increases footprint a bit, but it's intended for AIOs that can fit it. I guess in theory you can have a mobile "slab" holding your system or something.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> So, this might be a loaded question, but given the choice between a mITX board and a dual-x16 mDTX board, would anyone not pick the DTX?


I would've done so in my build because mDTX would've been to wide to fit with the configuration I have. With a 15mm fan on the PSU, no problem, though. And I'm in a case that was never made to fit a GPU in the first place, but could actually take mDTX in its base configuration.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Sadly, thin mITX is limited to PCIe x4 and 25W of power. However, using a riser and the aforementioned I/O shield with a bracket, it might be possible to cut the 12V lines off the riser and attach them to a Pico PSU. There are a few models that can take 19V (like the mainboard) and spit out around 100W. It would be enough for a 750Ti and a quad-core CPU. The Pico PSU would probably need to be shorted and remain on at all times, but that might cause damage. I'm not actually sure how this could work safely.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Yeah, Thin-ITX is _defined_ as having that x4 slot and the CPU socket in that odd place.


I could have swore the spec only defined an x1, and the x4s were value added.
As far as power is concerned, only graphics cards are allowed to pull more than 25W anyways. One would think if they added an x16 slot, they up the available power. If you do need all that 12V power for something, I have seen some power supplies on HD PLEX that would do the job. Shoehorning a graphics card in there would be dubious anyways which is why I brought up mobile graphics which are designed for lower power, heat and space.

The CPU spot is defined since the space is so small they want to ensure a standard blower that works with all motherboards and cases
Quote:


> It does have merits as far as truly tiny cases, but unfortunately I can't seem to find any cases thinner than a m350. I actually have a thin-itx board inside a m350 along with a 6TB 3.5" drive and 64GB 2.5" SSD!


I've seen a few. They are mostly marketed towards HTPCs or businesses running signage or needing carts Still, when it DOES come to HTPCs an m350 with a thin mITX and tvtuner card could make a pretty good set-top box.


----------



## armourcore9brker

This is pretty much a Thin-ITX with a full x16 slot.

Good luck finding it though. Last time I tried to get a gigabyte B2B board, I was told they only sell in MOQ.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

That is a very flat motherboard


----------



## ilovelampshade

Put me down for two of those. Let's hit the MOQ and everyone on OC can have one.


----------



## subtec

Not sure I see the point - once you've got a cooler on the CPU and cables plugged in, it essentially takes up the same height as any other mini-ITX motherboard.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Unless you have an AIO cooler on there. Intel sells them


----------



## BirdofPrey

Well it wouldn't work with that board, but actual thin mini ITX is designed to use a heat sink off to the side of the board connected to a blower, so it won't add any extra height, and you're supposed to use right angle cables or have the ports facing sideways.

The other thing I like is the board power connection is only 2 pins and a the board provides power for a couple of drives, so there's less cable spew (and cable management in a small case is a real pain in the ass)


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Well it wouldn't work with that board, but actual thin mini ITX is designed to use a heat sink off to the side of the board connected to a blower, so it won't add any extra height, and you're supposed to use right angle cables or have the ports facing sideways.
> 
> The other thing I like is the board power connection is only 2 pins and a the board provides power for a couple of drives, so there's less cable spew (and cable management in a small case is a real pain in the ass)


Found the cooler! It's one of the strangest things I've ever seen, but it's probably pretty effective.

There's two parts to an ATX PSU: the AC-DC transformer, and the various DC-DC convertors. Thin mITX has the latter on-board and only needs the former supplied by the user. In this case it's a 19V laptop charger.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Found the cooler! It's one of the strangest things I've ever seen, but it's probably pretty effective.
> 
> There's two parts to an ATX PSU: the AC-DC transformer, and the various DC-DC convertors. Thin mITX has the latter on-board and only needs the former supplied by the user. In this case it's a 19V laptop charger.


Actually, the Gigabyte 1150 thin-mITX models have a wide input range of 12V-19V, so you could use a HDPlex PSU to power both the mainboard and a GPU, if you were crazy enough to try such a thing.

Now that I'm thinking of it, there are quite a few ways one could do this thin-mITX + GPU rig.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Oh my god! This is my dream mobo setup for my homelab! I LOVE small form factors now, even loving nanoITX and the VIA's PicoITX. Would love to have tiny render farms. I don't need massive boards for every single build. mATX builds somehow tend to come out pretty much just as big as ATX, it's a shame. mITX feels right but that extra slot would be amazing for dual single slot GPUs or raid cards or soundcards, anything really. I know most don't care for looks in such setups but I FREAKING HATE green PCBs. I love the aesthetics of the gaming & enthusiast boards much more with black pcbs and single coloring.

So count me in for the petition or crowd funding.

P.S. while we are at it, can get we GPU makers to make the slot holder sections black instead of silver already? All of us are buying BLACK cases, not silver or bare aluminum like before. The back of the GPUs don't match the back of our cases anymore for most of us.


----------



## fleetfeather

Anyone tried hitting up ASRock yet? I know I said I would do it myself, but I got distracted with uni exams..

Tell them we want their Z97 mITX board, but with a second 16x size slot, and a PLX chip


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> and a PLX chip


Why is that needed? x16/x0 and x8/x8 are both incredibly common. I don't think that requires a switch.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Why is that needed? x16/x0 and x8/x8 are both incredibly common. I don't think that requires a switch.


Probably for a pcie M.2 SSD +2 GPU's. But good luck getting a PLX chip on an M-DTX board.










Actually they're less big than I expected.


They might be able to cram it next to the pcie slots.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

PCIe x4 from the chipset. It's not like it's being used for anything but some bonus USB 3.0 ports, right? Not on mITX.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Doesn't the Maximus VII Impact have an x4 M.2 slot?


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Doesn't the Maximus VII Impact have an x4 M.2 slot?


I assume it does?
Quote:


> Support M.2 Type 2242/2260/2280/22110 SSD card (up to 110mm in length), support PCI express 3.0 x4 standard


----------



## Laine

I had this AsRock H61M-VG3 for a while, it's not x16 + x16 but I guess it's still DTX. Worked nicely with sound card on top and GPU below.



Would love to see proper DTX boards out soon, right now I always end up buying FlexATX.


----------



## fleetfeather

keep the hype alive


----------



## Dyson Poindexter




----------



## Allanitomwesh

Will buy DTX with X16 slots for premium.

*that should motivate manufacturers







*


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Will buy DTX with X16 slots for premium.
> 
> *that should motivate manufacturers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Oh, I can imagine a lot of motherboard makers that also do GPUs love the idea of being able to sell twice as many video cards.

But, considering ITX board are generally a little more than mATX, I imagine the mDTX will end up costing the same as a similar sized ITX.


----------



## fleetfeather

Let's just brainstorm for a moment...

If Asus were to make a ROG branded mDTX board, what would the name of it be..?

Maximus VIII ________


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Which is indeed a premium
EDIT: Asus Maximus VII Hammer


----------



## Allanitomwesh

oops DP.
Or Asus Maximus VII Impact Pro


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Double-Impact? Impact X2?


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Asus Maximus VII Impact Pro


This actually sounds pretty possible.


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Oh, I can imagine a lot of motherboard makers that also do GPUs love the idea of being able to sell twice as many video cards.
> 
> But, considering ITX board are generally a little more than mATX, I imagine the mDTX will end up costing the same as a similar sized ITX.


I'd probably pay even more than the itx premium to be honest! Just imagine having 2 R9 295x2 on a board only 1 cm or 2 bigger than an itx, sure it'd need a lot of cooling but it'd just make some of the larger itx cases make sense!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaffieneKing*
> 
> I'd probably pay even more than the itx premium to be honest! Just imagine having 2 R9 295x2 on a board only 1 cm or 2 bigger than an itx, sure it'd need a lot of cooling but it'd just make some of the larger itx cases make sense!


295X2 Quadfire in something like an Elite 130 would set all kinds of power and performance per volume records!


----------



## Aibohphobia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> 295X2 Quadfire in something like an Elite 130 would set all kinds of power and performance per volume records!


You could also put a slot in the case somewhere and it could double as a toaster oven


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> You could also put a slot in the case somewhere and it could double as a toaster oven


Definitely worth taking up the 5.25" bay


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> You could also put a slot in the case somewhere and it could double as a toaster oven


genius


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> You could also put a slot in the case somewhere and it could double as a toaster oven


Reminds me of this:

http://hackedgadgets.com/2006/07/02/hack-the-toaster/


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Toasty


----------



## Blze001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaffieneKing*
> 
> Just imagine having 2 R9 295x2 on a board only 1 cm or 2 bigger than an itx


You'd probably need to custom-build a case to handle that heat:


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blze001*
> 
> You'd probably need to custom-build a case to handle that heat


They don't even run that hot, I'd be more concerned about the power draw


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Haha DEM FANS Yo! That's a cruel joke.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> They don't even run that hot, I'd be more concerned about the power draw


Since you'd have to use a long case anyway for the 295's, you'd be able to fit an extended ATX PSU in there.

Honestly, 295's are perfect since they have a single slot of outputs on the back. I'm thinking a front mount PSU so a 280mm rad could be on the top of the case (assuming SG07-style shoebox layout)


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Looks like ASRock has a X99 ITX board coming out. A total waste of 40 PCIe lanes, too bad they never saw this thread.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1546083/


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Looks like ASRock has a X99 ITX board coming out. A total waste of 40 PCIe lanes, too bad they never saw this thread.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1546083/


Too bad it isn't MDTX... Oh well, lets see what shuttle does at CeBIT in 3 days.


----------



## fleetfeather

XP941 and Titan Z???










(jk, no one should ever buy a Titan Z)


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Looks like ASRock has a X99 ITX board coming out. A total waste of 40 PCIe lanes, too bad they never saw this thread.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1546083/


Yup. I need to review trig for a placement test (trig >= evil), so I'm going to shamelessly cut and paste my train of thought from Steam chat:

Quote:


> 10:49 AM - CynicalUnicorn: so dat mITX X99 board
> 10:49 AM - CynicalUnicorn: only dual-channel
> 10:49 AM - CynicalUnicorn: 20 PCIe lanes will never be used
> 10:50 AM - CynicalUnicorn: incompatible with most coolers
> 10:50 AM - CynicalUnicorn: but MAN does it look neat
> 10:50 AM - CynicalUnicorn: SO-DIMM would have been a better option, but I guess that's not out in DDR4 varieties yet
> 10:58 AM - C#Coder.cs: impractical and dumb if you ask me lol
> 11:48 AM - CynicalUnicorn: DTX would be better
> 11:49 AM - CynicalUnicorn: you know, the two-slot ATX form factor?
> 11:49 AM - C#Coder.cs: much
> 11:49 AM - C#Coder.cs: yes
> 11:49 AM - CynicalUnicorn: quad channel, 32 PCIe lanes worth of slots
> 12:11 PM - CynicalUnicorn: I guess 36 if they use their M.2 ultra slot - that's 3.0 x4
> 12:11 PM - C#Coder.cs: omy
> 12:11 PM - CynicalUnicorn: then they could build-in a 10Gb ethernet card and a USB 3.1 port or something
> 12:11 PM - C#Coder.cs: woa
> 12:11 PM - CynicalUnicorn: in any case
> 12:11 PM - CynicalUnicorn: those ports won't go to waste
> 12:12 PM - CynicalUnicorn: *lanes


And yes, mDTX would work too, but it would be a bit more complicated. DTX is going to fit in a lot of the larger mITX cases out there as long as there's another 2" of clearance for the motherboard. I guess it would be no more difficult than taking the mITX board and adding another x16 slot. It should have perfect compatibility for the 5820k too if they only allocate 16 lanes total to the x16 slots, regardless of how many integrated PCIe devices they use. Which, let's be clear, is no worse than the x8/x8 boards we see for LGA-115#. (Although LGA-1151's chipset is rumored to have 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes, so that's somthin'. Quad-SLI on a consumer board? Yes please!)


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I agree that SODIMMs would have made more sense, though I haven't seen any yet. I do have to give ASRock the credit for making a 2011-3 ITX board (many said it was totally impossible). They even managed a proper M.2 on there.

Two things I noticed are that the socket screw holes are using the less common rectangular layout, and that the whole socket/vrm/ram slots are rotated 90 degrees clockwise. I wonder if there were any routing issues with that?

Back OT, if we can have a 2011-3 ITX board, there's absolutely no technical reason an 1150 DTX board would be too difficult to lay out. No excuses anymore.


----------



## Nukemaster

I am still looking forward to some new boards.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

That As rock X99 ITX soooo needed to be DTX. You think if we asked they'd do it next time?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> That As rock X99 ITX soooo needed to be DTX. You think if we asked they'd do it next time?


I've reached out to most all the major manufacturers. Since boards are probably designed and laid out up to a year in advance, we might finally see some around the time of the 100-series chipsets.

Wasn't Skylake supposed to have more PCIe lanes?


----------



## Duality92

Does the new-to-me motherboard coming my way count as mDTX?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Does the new-to-me motherboard coming my way count as mDTX?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


It's definitely a mini-DTX form factor (or so close as to be one).

mDTX has been around for a while, but for whatever reason the SFF enthusiast revolution totally skipped over it and went to mITX instead. We're trying to correct that wrong here.


----------



## Duality92

You could edit the first post and start listing members who are using these boards







(Name, Board, post link)


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Not just members. Why not listings on official sites too?


----------



## Allanitomwesh

I like that idea,list known boards


----------



## Duality92

List of members with what they own in DTX format, along with a list of known DTX motherboard with their product pages.

Along with renaming the thread *Mini-DTX Owners club (ITX with two PCI-E slots!!)*

That'd be awesome.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Unfortunately there's aren't any enthusiast DTX boards yet. We can count the few H61/H81 boards, but they don't even support bifurcated lanes.


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Unfortunately there's aren't any enthusiast DTX boards yet. We can count the few H61/H81 boards, but they don't even support *bifurcated lanes*.


What?? (I don't understand that term, I don't know if it's because I'm French, but I've never seen that used anywhere xD)


----------



## 2002dunx

SO little OCN spirit in this thread....

Simply butcher case to provide four PCI-E slots as per MATX to mount 2 dual slot GPUs in a different orientation....

Such as horizontally above the Mo-Bo...

dunx

P.S. Yes I do have a Fractal Array case to sacrifice..... send me that double cable NOW !


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Unfortunately there's aren't any enthusiast DTX boards yet. We can count the few H61/H81 boards, but they don't even support *bifurcated lanes*.
> 
> 
> 
> What?? (I don't understand that term, I don't know if it's because I'm French, but I've never seen that used anywhere xD)
Click to expand...

It's a uncommon word, but it's the technical term for splitting a x16 PCIe slot into two x8 slots electrically. Since the last 8 lanes from the first slot have to be moved to the second slot, it's non-trivial.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2002dunx*
> 
> SO little OCN spirit in this thread....
> 
> Simply butcher case to provide four PCI-E slots as per MATX to mount 2 dual slot GPUs in a different orientation....
> 
> Such as horizontally above the Mo-Bo...
> 
> dunx
> 
> P.S. Yes I do have a Fractal Array case to sacrifice..... send me that double cable NOW !


Yeah, but I want two video cards in a SG05!


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2002dunx*
> 
> SO little OCN spirit in this thread....
> 
> Simply butcher case to provide four PCI-E slots as per MATX to mount 2 dual slot GPUs in a different orientation....
> 
> Such as horizontally above the Mo-Bo...
> 
> dunx
> 
> P.S. Yes I do have a Fractal Array case to sacrifice..... send me that double cable NOW !


Whats the point of having 4 slots? We want 2 GPU's in 2 slots


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> It's a uncommon word, but it's the technical term for splitting a x16 PCIe slot into two x8 slots electrically. Since the last 8 lanes from the first slot have to be moved to the second slot, it's non-trivial.
> *Yeah, but I want two video cards in a SG05!*


I want a video card + sound card in my SG05


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *2002dunx*
> 
> SO little OCN spirit in this thread....
> 
> Simply butcher case to provide four PCI-E slots as per MATX to mount 2 dual slot GPUs in a different orientation....
> 
> Such as horizontally above the Mo-Bo...
> 
> dunx
> 
> P.S. Yes I do have a Fractal Array case to sacrifice..... send me that double cable NOW !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the point of having 4 slots? We want 2 GPU's in 2 slots
Click to expand...

Pssh, you pleb!







We already have that (690, 7990, 295X2). Now _four_ GPUs in two slots... That's somethin'.

And guess what? It is 100% possible.







ASUS' ARES III is a single-slot 295X2 with a built in waterblock. Get that ASRock mITX X99 board and run an M.2 to PCIe adapter from the M.2 slot to the second PCIe card. That's two GPUs sharing 16 lanes and two more sharing four lanes. And you can fit it in a 20L case.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Would the 4 lanes not hold back the 295?

I'd rather just use the 40 lanes those CPUs provide







but they refuse to add the second slot.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I know right? There'd be a bottleneck noticeable in benchmarks (I'd estimate ~10% performance hit), but unfortunately that's the best option there is. I guess you could go with a hybrid setup using a 295X2 and a 290X in the x4 slot? Quad-GPU scaling is pretty awful, even without the bottleneck.

ASRock makes enough weird boards - like EATX Z97 boards with integrated server-grade RAID cards - that I'm surprised they haven't pushed for mDTX. It'd be easy enough to market. "Introducing SLI and crossfire compatible mITX!" ASUS, Gigabyte, EVGA, or MSI could even make special-edition single-slot GPUs to go with the board.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Pssh, you pleb!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already have that (690, 7990, 295X2). Now _four_ GPUs in two slots... That's somethin'.
> 
> And guess what? It is 100% possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS' ARES III is a single-slot 295X2 with a built in waterblock. Get that ASRock mITX X99 board and run an M.2 to PCIe adapter from the M.2 slot to the second PCIe card. That's two GPUs sharing 16 lanes and two more sharing four lanes. And you can fit it in a 20L case.


I think I'd be more inclined to use the shuttle X79 board if i were to run 2 295X2's. Running a 295X2 off a 4x M.2 slot just doesn't sound like the best of ideas to me.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

It's a shame @Nickshih isn't around anymore. I'll see if they have an email address I can pester them with.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I sent another email to ASRock. I know they are big on pushing the limits of form factors, so maybe they'll see the light!


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I sent another email to ASRock. I know they are big on pushing the limits of form factors, so maybe they'll see the light!


Fingers crossed that you hear something good.
It seems that mdtx has not got any attention.


----------



## Woxys

I'd love this design but with Z97 chipset and proper heatsik and why not x16 instead of x1


----------



## Nukemaster

For my case(SG05), I quite like the layout some of the gigabyte layouts with the SATA and power on the top of the board. It reduces the air flow interruption.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I sent another email to ASRock. I know they are big on pushing the limits of form factors, so maybe they'll see the light!


At the same time, someone needs to pester GPU manufacturers to stop putting crap on the second slot half of the I/O shield, so that we can fit waterblocked video cards into a single slot and, thus actually USE the second slot of a 2 slot motherboard.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

I believe AsRock would be interested if they had a way to sell it. The easiest sell would be to fix the issues with their X99 board like the slim CPU socket instead of standard and wasted lanes mDTX would be suitable (I believe X16 X16 is actually possible on the new intel chips,that helps too).


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

"True" x16/x16 has been possible since Nehalem-EP, possibly earlier on LGA775 or 771 (can't remember







). The consumer platform has been stuck with 16 lanes from the CPU for a looooong time.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I sent another email to ASRock. I know they are big on pushing the limits of form factors, so maybe they'll see the light!
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, someone needs to pester GPU manufacturers to stop putting crap on the second slot half of the I/O shield, so that we can fit waterblocked video cards into a single slot and, thus actually USE the second slot of a 2 slot motherboard.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. Hopefully DVI will start to die off now that DP is making its way to monitors. The newest HDMI isn't bad either. Still, I'd like to see just 3 DP++ and nothing else.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> "True" x16/x16 has been possible since Nehalem-EP, possibly earlier on LGA775 or 771 (can't remember
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). The consumer platform has been stuck with 16 lanes from the CPU for a looooong time.


775 (771 was for SMP/servers) got its PCIe from the NB, right? So the socket wasn't the explicit limiting factor.

I heard back from ASRock. They said they'd pass my suggestion along and look into it. I'm very excited. I might be blinded by the light, but I can't think of any reason not to make all boards mDTX with dual x16 slots. You gain so much versatility without sacrificing anything.


----------



## fleetfeather

swing me the link to contact ASrock, ill try reinforce the suggestion


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I emailed them right at [email protected]

In hindsight, maybe I should have mentioned this thread?


----------



## iFreilicht

Jup, you should've







They have to know that there is interest in this form factor and actual use as well. I mean the M1 doesn't need to be modified in any way to make all possible mDTX advantages usable.


----------



## MaxFTW

Whats the best motherboard i can buy in M-DTX?

I have barely seen them, but i figure that as long as i have a 4 slot case this will be the best way for me, I can have a 750 Ti fanless + Sound card


----------



## ivoryg37

Asus needs to make a DTX version of the Impact motherboard. It would go perfect in a caselabs s3 case with the 3 PCIe slots


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MaxFTW*
> 
> Whats the best motherboard i can buy in M-DTX?
> 
> I have barely seen them, but i figure that as long as i have a 4 slot case this will be the best way for me, I can have a 750 Ti fanless + Sound card


Biostar H81MHV3
ECS H81H3-M4

Probably


----------



## Woxys

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MaxFTW*
> 
> Whats the best motherboard i can buy in M-DTX?
> 
> I have barely seen them, but i figure that as long as i have a 4 slot case this will be the best way for me, I can have a 750 Ti fanless + Sound card


ASRock H81M-DG4
GIGABYTE GA-H81M-S2V


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Woxys*
> 
> ASRock H81M-DG4
> GIGABYTE GA-H81M-S2V


That gigabyte board has three slots...

Google has betrayed me!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ivoryg37*
> 
> Asus needs to make a DTX version of the Impact motherboard. It would go perfect in a caselabs s3 case with the 3 PCIe slots


Or Ncase M1.

Can you imagine two 295x2's in 12.6L of case? That's 11264 SPs in something barely bigger than an SG05.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Or Ncase M1.
> 
> Can you imagine two 295x2's in 12.6L of case? That's 11264 SPs in something barely bigger than an SG05.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


You won't be able to power both video cards xD


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Or Ncase M1.
> 
> Can you imagine two 295x2's in 12.6L of case? That's 11264 SPs in something barely bigger than an SG05.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't be able to power both video cards xD
Click to expand...

Not with that attitude. I'm thinking two SX600-G's could do it.


----------



## ivoryg37

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Or Ncase M1.
> 
> Can you imagine two 295x2's in 12.6L of case? That's 11264 SPs in something barely bigger than an SG05.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


LOL I didn't know what to expect when I opened the spoiler. 2x 980 Kingpin with the singleslot bracket would probably work as well


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Not with that attitude. I'm thinking two SX600-G's could do it.


Hmm, sir, I think you might've just created a monster.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

And such insanity can only be enabled by a true mDTX board. Imagine what else the skilled builders here could come up with!


----------



## xnaas

Is there any word on manufacturers making mDTX boards? I've only seen a couple if Intel Atom based ones that are not at all what I'm looking for. I would kill to have an extra expansion slot in my mITX rig. I probably wouldn't put a second GPU in, but having a PCIe SSD or something like that would be nice. Even a dedicated sound card. Idunno.

Anyway, any news on mDTX boards?


----------



## Woxys

There are some decent mDTX boards but only with H81 chipset from Gigabyte and AsRock . No news yet


----------



## xnaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Woxys*
> 
> There are some decent mDTX boards but only with H81 chipset from Gigabyte and AsRock . No news yet


Hmm...H81 isn't *too* bad. I could probably live without an overclock for awhile if it meant getting a second expansion slot.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

H81 does satisfy some of our DTX desires (boy that sounds weird) but I still don't understand why Z-series DTX boards are unheard of.


----------



## ozlay

as a work around you can alway get an ITX board with an M.2 and convert the M.2 to pcie and you might be able to crossfire off of the m.2 4x


----------



## xnaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> H81 does satisfy some of our DTX desires (boy that sounds weird) but I still don't understand why Z-series DTX boards are unheard of.


Oh wow. Yeah. H81 has way more limitations that I thought. That's too bad. I guess if we want "real" mDTX boards...we need to be loud? I feel like case manufacturers would probably need to get on board too for say anyone hoping to SLI/CF two dual-slot GPUs.

EDIT: English.


----------



## hartofwave

I surprised there were never any FM2+ mDTX boards, seems like such a good combo


----------



## hartofwave

Gad DAMN! Since when did this exist? I got the ASUS mITX one back when it came out :'(


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> Gad DAMN! Since when did this exist? I got the ASUS mITX one back when it came out :'(


It's AM1. 4 PCI lanes.


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> It's AM1. 4 PCI lanes.


Oh I know, its just so much more versatile, and some more sata and some more gigabit Ethernet


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Merely a budget board yet again.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Merely a budget board yet again.


"Board"? It's AM1.







The motherboard's only purpose is to deliver power and to provide I/O ports. No northbridge, southbridge, and tiny VRMs compared even to H81.

But yeah, it's a budget platform. Apparently it sells really well in developing countries.


----------



## Nukemaster

Would make a good media pc if the 2 sata ports are enough.


----------



## iFreilicht

Dat AM1, tho.







Can you even buy CPUs for that socket anymore?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukemaster*
> 
> Would make a good media pc if the 2 sata ports are enough.


ASRock has an mITX board with a couple extra SATA ports, or you could slap a PCIe controller for more if you need a NAS.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Dat AM1, tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you even buy CPUs for that socket anymore?


Yup! They haven't released any Puma chips for it - I'm expecting those to be released near the next cat core launch if they are at all - but the Jaguar chips are still around. Flagship is ~$50, and each tier below saves ~$10.


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Dat AM1, tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you even buy CPUs for that socket anymore?


Am1 is a pretty new platform, it didn't come before am2.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Am1 is a pretty new platform, it didn't come before am2.










Oh, that's what he meant maybe.

Yeah, it went Socket 939 -> AM2 -> AM2+ -> AM3 -> AM3+. Some server sockets (940, F, C32) are in there too, but they're mostly minor modifications to the AM sockets. AM1 on the other hand launched last year. I have no idea why they chose that name, seeing as they're going to run out of names after AM1+.


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's what he meant maybe.
> 
> Yeah, it went Socket 939 -> AM2 -> AM2+ -> AM3 -> AM3+. Some server sockets (940, F, C32) are in there too, but they're mostly minor modifications to the AM sockets. AM1 on the other hand launched last year. I have no idea why they chose that name, seeing as they're going to run out of names after AM1+.


No love for 754









I think the AM1 is to show it is for budget/lower end systems so falling it AM4 would make it seem advanced/higher performance. Sad thing, I am sure it is still better than many of the 754 cpus(I still have a 754 system, but it is not in use any more. Was my media center for a while. Even have an old Compaq laptop with a 754 cpu in it.).


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Seems like AM1 is to FM2+ as 754 is to 939. Both were meant to be budget options compared to the full-power options.

Nope, in theory at least. Jaguar borrows heavily from the K8 design used with 754 and 939 and doesn't improve too much on CPU performance. It does, however, massively boost efficiency and I would bet the 128 GCN shaders in it are a match for the most powerful GPUs of 2003. It also comes in quad-core varieties, and that's pretty neat.


----------



## Nukemaster

Except 754 was first(and soon abandoned) and hosted everything they had outside of the 940 FX's. It kind of sucks for users who adopted 940 because it had no upgrade path. Kind of like X58 on the Intel side(it had more options, but was still short lived).


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

But you get what I mean, right? 754 evolved into a budget platform while 939 became the mainstream platform.

X58 is still awesome. Went from Nehalem-EP (kinda meh, would take a Sandy or newer i7 over this) to Westmere-EP (which is better than Haswell quads in multithreaded performance, assuming none of the post-2010 instruction sets are used). Same upgrade path as X79 and presumably X99 as well.


----------



## Nukemaster

I know what you mean for sure.

In the end they had tons of boards and Semprons for entry level systems.

My X58 system still works like the day it was built, It was just kind of overpriced as soon as the 1156 stuff came out with similar and faster performance for less.

This("obsolescence") is just normal for hardware either way.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Yeah. But if you need a CPU number cruncher, you can get twelve Westmere-EP cores at 3GHz (X5650s) and a 2P board for $200. I'm not sure you can beat that.

I wonder if full DTX is more frasible for the server socket, come to think of it. I mean, that's just full mATX with two slots. Should work. Dual 3.0 x16 and a 3.0 x4 M.2 slot would be awesome.


----------



## Nukemaster

One can dream


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Dream a happy dream of mDTX


----------



## Dyson Poindexter




----------



## hartofwave

Has someone made a list of available mDTX boards?


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Just wanted to say again, in case some manufacturer is reading, I just hope the PCB is black.


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Just wanted to say again, in case some manufacturer is reading, I just hope the PCB is black.


I would probably still buy it even if it were the odd brown









Provided it was good and all


----------



## fleetfeather

I will accept the following PCB colours:

- black
- white
- red
- cobalt blue (not "PCB blue")
- Nvidia green (not "PCB green")
- yellow


----------



## hartofwave

But...... what it was really good?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

It can be fuchsia for all I care! It's gonna get covered in two video cards, a FC motherboard+CPU block, and a PCIe 3.0 4x NVMe SSD, while I'm dreaming.


----------



## Springerr

what is the appeal of mDTX?

the way i see it is that there are not any relevant GPUs that are single slot so whats the point? the only thing i could see this being good for is having a GPU with a water block so it does not cover the other PCIE slot and using a RAID card with the bracket removed


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> I would probably still buy it even if it were the odd brown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provided it was good and all


Just crossing my fingers they don't go back to this!


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Springerr*
> 
> what is the appeal of mDTX?
> 
> the way i see it is that there are not any relevant GPUs that are single slot so whats the point? the only thing i could see this being good for is having a GPU with a water block so it does not cover the other PCIE slot and using a RAID card with the bracket removed


It's the extra options and possibilities that come with just a little more PCB, you don't need to have another 16x lane you could put a couple of M.2 slots under the GPU or something, you could move components down there like the battery and bios stuff to make extra space by the CPU for more VRM. It's the possibilities, and yea Xfire/SlI. But you could fit 2 single slot workstation GPUs in there, that would be a valid dual GPU setup.


----------



## hartofwave

I was looking at m.2 placement and found this nonsense xD


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Ya know, that's not actually that bad. The cooler ought to be a bit higher than the typical 80mm M.2 drive, and the standard allows for 110mm drives tops. I do agree that it looks ridiculous though, but it's not 100% worthless.


----------



## Nukemaster

Honestly it is kind of an interesting way to fit the drive without taking too much space.

Makes me think of the SilverStone FT03( I am not biased, I just own one )its tall, but holds longer videos cards.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Behind the motherboard works best in my books


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Springerr*
> 
> what is the appeal of mDTX?
> 
> the way i see it is that there are not any relevant GPUs that are single slot so whats the point? the only thing i could see this being good for is having a GPU with a water block so it does not cover the other PCIE slot and using a RAID card with the bracket removed


The point is, it provides versatility for those of us who can use the second slot, and it won't bother anyone who chooses not to use it.

95% of all mITX cases can handle a mDTX board just fine. It's one of those "nothing to lose everything to gain" type situations.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Yep no loss.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Only thing you have to lose is the premium you'd surely pay for a high-end board. But if it sells well, others should follow. I vote we all zerg ASRock's feedback email.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Indeed,it won't be cheap if its made


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Indeed,it won't be cheap if its made


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Only thing you have to lose is the premium you'd surely pay for a high-end board. But if it sells well, others should follow. I vote we all zerg ASRock's feedback email.


I second this, and link to this thread


----------



## fleetfeather

Sent an email to ASRock referencing this thread. Fingers crossed


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Sent an email to ASRock referencing this thread. Fingers crossed


Same, I was very enthusiastic


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> I was looking at m.2 placement and found this nonsense xD
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Of course not ideal for slim cases, but in most towers, this should actually work quite well. If you need a case that's 150mm wide for the GPU anyway, why not use that space elsewhere. But I somehow feel that this violates the ATX motherboard standard, it includes maximum heights for components that are soldered onto the board.

But when thinking about it, a m.2 slot that has the card laying on its side in parallel with the DIMMs would be pretty cool, that would save quite a bit of space as well. I'm surprised that there are no mITX boards that use the NUC approach of stacking the mSATA and mPCIe as well, there's so much potential for space saving there. Heck, with an X99 you could probably stack 2 or 3 M.2 slots on top of each other, imagine the endless possibilities! To be fair though, I don't think the parts for the latter are even manufactured by any company yet.


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Of course not ideal for slim cases, but in most towers, this should actually work quite well. If you need a case that's 150mm wide for the GPU anyway, why not use that space elsewhere. But I somehow feel that this violates the ATX motherboard standard, it includes maximum heights for components that are soldered onto the board.
> 
> But when thinking about it, a m.2 slot that has the card laying on its side in parallel with the DIMMs would be pretty cool, that would save quite a bit of space as well. I'm surprised that there are no mITX boards that use the NUC approach of stacking the mSATA and mPCIe as well, there's so much potential for space saving there. Heck, with an X99 you could probably stack 2 or 3 M.2 slots on top of each other, imagine the endless possibilities! To be fair though, I don't think the parts for the latter are even manufactured by any company yet.


All of this, or if on a bigger board the top PCIe is a 1x you run 2 or 3 like RAM at the opposite end.


----------



## hartofwave




----------



## KaffieneKing

BOOOO









EDIT: I reckon Asus would do a better job anyway







I love their Z97 ITX board if they made another one with 2 x16 PCIE slots then I'd buy it again in a heartbeat!


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaffieneKing*
> 
> BOOOO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I reckon Asus would do a better job anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love their Z97 ITX board if they made another one with 2 x16 PCIE slots then I'd buy it again in a heartbeat!


I replied asking why not, we shall see..

Asus with the VRM daughterboard would be very useful, you could probably jam enough magic in there for there to no performance difference between it and ATX


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> I replied asking why not, we shall see..
> 
> Asus with the VRM daughterboard would be very useful, you could probably jam enough magic in there for there to no performance difference between it and ATX


I'd even buy it if it had the usual red and black colour scheme they usually ship with their high end boards









At a guess its probably due to lack of interest, as custom PC building is a niche market let alone SFF people who want 2 high end GPU's who will water cool them... I can understand it from a buisness point of view as it is making a whole new board, maybe if we're lucky for the next generation we'll get mDTX instead of ITX


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*


KEEP ZERGING!

No, seriously. If they get enough emails ina short enough time, they'll know there's interest.


----------



## hartofwave

Are there any hardware reps we can talk to on OCN?


----------



## Duality92

http://www.overclock.net/t/1449035/overclocks-hardware-representative-initiative

See here


----------



## hartofwave

Which might be code for meh go away







but if others can get them to say that will pass it on we might have a chance!

Edit: I guess it would be hard to bring up a product suggestion in a meeting if only one person has asked...


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> All of this, or if on a bigger board the top PCIe is a 1x you run 2 or 3 like RAM at the opposite end.


It took me very long to understand what you meant, but it's an interesting idea. It would of course require you to decide whether you want to use the x1 slot or the two additional DIMM slots.


----------



## xnaas

Hey. I can email ASRock, ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc. but I don't know where to email them at that would be useful. If someone could make a list of email addresses for the main motherboard manufacturers, that would be super awesome.

EDIT: English.


----------



## xnaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> I was looking at m.2 placement and found this nonsense xD
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


It looks silly, but I like it. It'd be kinda cool looking (if probably impractical) to have a few of those sticking out of the motherboard.

EDIT: English. I cannot type today. Damn.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which might be code for meh go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if others can get them to say that will pass it on we might have a chance!
> 
> Edit: I guess it would be hard to bring up a product suggestion in a meeting if only one person has asked...


I got something similar from them. Fact is, ASRock loves to push the limits (x99 ITX anyone?) so I bet they are secretly working on the ultimate mDTX board!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xnaas*
> 
> Hey. I can email ASRock, ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc. but I don't know where to email them at that would be useful. If someone could make a list of email addresses for the main motherboard manufacturers, that would be super awesome.
> 
> EDIT: English.


If you have contacts inside, use those. Otherwise the general CS email should work. Just remember to be polite and don't evangelize too hard.

I sent PMs to all the vendor reps here that were active. I got responses from them all! But no confirmations of anything. Even if they were, I doubt we'll actually receive an acknowledgement.


----------



## xnaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I sent PMs to all the vendor reps here that were active. I got responses from them all! But no confirmations of anything.


I'd love to get all of the motherboard and case manufacturers (or their reps) together and get them all to work together on bringing mDTX boards and cases to the market. <3
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> If you have contacts inside, use those.


Psh. I wish.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Otherwise the general CS email should work. Just remember to be polite and don't evangelize too hard.


Of course. I just want to get mDTX on their radar or see if any of them have any info on it.


----------



## xnaas

Alright folks, I figured I'd gather contacts for motherboard manufacturers here to help everybody contact them. Some of this stuff is US specific, so if you're not from the states, sorry! I plan on adding the reps here on overclock.net you can contact (along with other info) when I update this post tomorrow.

*Motherboards*


Spoiler: ASRock



Shoot an email to [email protected] and/or [email protected]





Spoiler: ASUS



Other than phone numbers...I'm not really sure. If anybody has more info, that'd be great.





Spoiler: EVGA



Go to http://www.evga.com/support/suggestions.asp and ask about mDTX boards. You could also try http://www.evga.com/support/custsupp.asp instead. Or both.





Spoiler: Gigabyte



Looks like you have to contact them by telephone or fax... http://www.gigabyte.us/about-gigabyte/contact-us.aspx





Spoiler: MSI



Go to http://us.msi.com/about/contact-us and contact wherever you feel is appropriate.











Some of these require accounts to contact, just the heads up.

Reps on overclock to contact: EVGA RobB, EVGA JacobF, and MSI Geno. There are more reps here on overclock.net, but after looks through all of the ones for mobo makers, these are the only ones (excluding @dinos22 who is already here) who have even been online in 2015. I think the official reps need to be updated...


----------



## xnaas

Got a response from an Gigabyte rep. Hope to hear more tomorrow!

Sorry if 3 consecutive posts is against the rules or anything! (new to overclock). That's it from me for tonight anyway. See you ladies and gents in the morning.

EDIT: Gigabyte...not EVGA. lol oops. This is why I'm going to bed.


----------



## Nukemaster

Keep bugging them.

My H55N USB3 will have to be replaced some day









It has honestly held up very well.


----------



## dinos22

Interesting ideas guys (I sent them off to HQ for assessment btw). Very niche though and also a little puzzling how many people would actually build a watercooled SLI/Xfire system in MiniITX case and not just go with mATX instead?!

We actually already make a low end board (not sure it sells in all regions or that it's particularly usable for you) which fits the MiniDTX standard btw

I am interested to hear from you all what it is you are needing it for yourself, so don't be shy and let me know why this is a must for you









http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5022&kw=GA-H81M-S1.0#ov


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> Interesting ideas guys (I sent them off to HQ for assessment btw). Very niche though and also a little puzzling how many people would actually build a watercooled SLI/Xfire system in MiniITX case and not just go with mATX instead?!
> 
> We actually already make a low end board (not sure it sells in all regions or that it's particularly usable for you) which fits the MiniDTX standard btw
> 
> I am interested to hear from you all what it is you are needing it for yourself, so don't be shy and let me know why this is a must for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol is it really necessary to post screenshots of "private" messages?


If I wanted to be 100% realistic with you, I'd just like an mDTX system that contained a better chipset. Maybe get more sata3 ports and true PCIe 3.0 slots. I'd love to just have a system with more than just a GPU expansion card.

Dual x16 slots would of course be really neat and a true flagship board in the market. I can understand why it wouldn't necessarily make sense from an R&D and cost sense.


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> Interesting ideas guys (I sent them off to HQ for assessment btw). Very niche though and also a little puzzling how many people would actually build a watercooled SLI/Xfire system in MiniITX case and not just go with mATX instead?!
> 
> We actually already make a low end board (not sure it sells in all regions or that it's particularly usable for you) which fits the MiniDTX standard btw
> 
> I am interested to hear from you all what it is you are needing it for yourself, so don't be shy and let me know why this is a must for you


For me it would have to have:
-2 x16 PCIE slots
-Good VRMs
-Overclockability eg a Z97 chipset
-At least 2x sata 3 ports

For me the above board would be great if it was Z97 and both PCIE slots were x16.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> Interesting ideas guys (I sent them off to HQ for assessment btw). Very niche though and also a little puzzling how many people would actually build a watercooled SLI/Xfire system in MiniITX case and not just go with mATX instead?!


If we had more cards that could easily be single slot mounted (DIE DVI DIE), I can see plenty of people going for it even if it were to save space in an MATX case for a rad.

Of course we are a bit lacking on video cards that can be fit in smaller form factors (counting both cards without crap blocking the second I/O slot and those few ITX cards)

Some considerations, though: How much cost would the second slot and extra board width cost both in development and production? If that cost is minimal why not go for the second slot, since a great many cases are set up to allow for dual slot video cards already, so case compatibility wouldn't be a problem.I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned regarding the recent X99 mITX boards how dissapointing it is, the size of the board limits the capabilities of that chipset, mainly it can run 2 PCIe 3.0 x16 slots of the CPU, but mITX only allows for one, having to go to a MATX board to get two slots is a much larger size jump than mDTX.. The other thing to note is that some of us, rather than wanting to run dual GPU, instead want to run a GPU and something else (be it sound card or RAID card, etc.)


----------



## dinos22

can i ask, what would you actually use the PCIe slots for? One is GPU, what about the othert, 2nd GPU or something else?


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> can i ask, what would you actually use the PCIe slots for? One is GPU, what about the othert, 2nd GPU or something else?


Probably a dual GPU setup, there are quite a few GPU's which when watercooled can be converted to single slots. Another use would be people who need 10gigbit ethernet or a raid card and a workstation card. Another would be a PCIE SSD and a GPU or other card. To me space is a premium as a big computer gets in the way but I don't want to compromise my rig, its not too bad now as I live on my own but come September I'll be moving in with the girlfriend who doesn't want a massive tower taking up space in our room!

Basically there are a lot of uses with seemingly little extra cost (please say if I'm wrong) and few if any incompatability issues for those who would normally buy itx boards, IMO mDTX is the future of SFF, it has all the size benefits of ITX with room for multi GPU or other addon cards at almost no compatibility issues.


----------



## InfraRedRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> can i ask, what would you actually use the PCIe slots for? One is GPU, what about the othert, 2nd GPU or something else?


given pcie storage looks to be the future for fast ssd storage this would be my #1 reason to move to mDTX - this will eventually allow for builds without space needed for SSD/HDD drives, which will be a large space-save in my opinion.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Well for my own use, I actually have CableCARD TV tuner card which automatically rules out mITX for my uses, but I have also built small stuff with RAID cards on them. Other uses are PCIe SSDs (or PCIe to M.2) and some crazy folks actually buy sound cards. Then, yes, there's also dual GPU setups.

The main thing is, an extra slot allows for a bit more options and customization with minimal increase in footprint.


----------



## fleetfeather

I wonder how many people are going to ask the same question in this thread


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> I wonder how many people are going to ask the same question in this thread


Let's not go dissing the Gigabyte rep now.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> can i ask, what would you actually use the PCIe slots for? One is GPU, what about the othert, 2nd GPU or something else?


Very happy to have you on board! No pun intended.

The magic of mini-DTX is the extra versatility without compromising the form factor of the case. It's certainly a "niche" product, but then again so is ITX. Many, myself included, would be interested in dual GPUs. These will likely require custom water cooling, but many are up to that task. This build thread is a paragon of what can be done with a DTX-class board and dual GPUs. Unfortunately the builder retired it as the motherboard didn't allow overclocking.

Of course, there are many other non-GPU 1-slot expansion cards that are relevant. We all know about PCIe SSDs and RAID controllers. A RAID controller and a cableCARD tuner would make an ultimate HTPC/media center. The same RAID card and a 16-channel capture card would be great for a compact home security DVR. RAID with something like a RED ROCKET card would make a great 4K video rig that can be carried out into the field. Plenty of cases, like the Node 304 are geared for this type of stylish, compact enclosure that can hold a load of hard drives.

Even with a single GPU, you gain versatility. Triple-slot cases like the NCASE M1 could fit a larger CPU cooler by moving the GPU to the lower slot. The slightly larger dimensions of the board should help with component layout and provide a few more ways to secure m.2 drives on the back of the board.

What's most exciting is the case compatibility with ITX. The ecosystem is already there. Nobody will have to run out and buy mini-DTX cases and PSUs. And the users who never plan on using the second slot will never be burdened by it, it'll just sit under the GPU blower like the wasted sliver of space in every ITX case.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> Let's not go dissing the Gigabyte rep now.


It doesn't exactly bode well that a Hardware Rep for a company who makes mobos is asking a question which has indeed been discussed multiple times in this thread already. The origins of the question were discussed as early as the first page of this thread









Surely it would be nice to see that such a Rep has has a good read through the thread and at least thought about some of the great ideas that the community has come up with thus far


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> can i ask, what would you actually use the PCIe slots for? One is GPU, what about the othert, 2nd GPU or something else?


2nd GPU if it's Z#7 (Intel LGA-115#) or A8#X (AMD FM) and dual x16 slots (or second AMD GPU if it's x16 + x4 and any other chipset), yes. There is also WiFi, aftermarket sound, extra USB ports, SATA card (or two and some laptop drives for a compact NAS), and a PCIe SSD or two. Technically there are workarounds or board-mounted equivalents for all but the SATA ports, but it isn't optimal and having the dedicated hardware available would be preferable.

My question is how much extra a board like this would cost you to produce, not necessarily the premium an end user would pay. If you aren't allowed to answer, that's fine, but please think about it. It's mITX with an extra 33mm x 170mm section at the bottom. The materials cost should not go up too much, right? In addition, there is a bit more board space to mount connectors if room needs to be made for a second x16 (@ x8) slot's traces.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> It doesn't exactly bode well that a Hardware Rep for a company who makes mobos is asking a question which has indeed been discussed multiple times in this thread already. The origins of the question were discussed as early as the first page of this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it would be nice to see that such a Rep has has a good read through the thread and at least thought about some of the great ideas that the community has come up with thus far


Beggars can't be choosers.

I'm not sure how many practical ideas we've come up with lol. There's the dual x16 Z97 board, and, um, what else? I might've missed something big myself knowing how I am.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I'm not sure how many practical ideas we've come up with lol. There's the dual x16 Z97 board, and, um, what else? I might've missed something big myself knowing how I am.


I think Dyson said close to everything there is to say. I think it would also be possible to fit 4 slots of RAM onto a mDTX board more easily than it is now with mITX, but let's not go too far, yet


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I think Dyson said close to everything there is to say. I think it would also be possible to fit 4 slots of RAM onto a mDTX board more easily than it is now with mITX, but let's not go too far, yet


DIMMs or SODIMMs?


----------



## xnaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> lol is it really necessary to post screenshots of "private" messages?


Sorry! Was very tired. 

For me, the thing I would want a second PCIe slot for most (on a high-end board so I can still overclock my CPU and what-not) would be for a PCIe SSD or PCIe to M.2 card. That said, If I ever wanted to do SLI, waterblocks will make most GPUs single-slot. I'd definitely like to have that option in a tiny form factor.

I'd also be curious to see the results of trying to fit four SODIMM (or 4 regular DIMM) slots on a mDTX board.


----------



## dinos22

I'm sorry if I am asking similar questions. I did read some of the thread but not the full thread. What I am asking is what each person individually would actually do with the spare PCIe slot so i can paint a better picture to my team as we've been talking about it already since I've brought it up.

@CynicalUnicorn, Going to a new PCB is what makes this a difficult and more expensive effort. As you can imagine once you decide to go with a new product line there are various things to consider. Some of the possible issues from creating a new product line is a new PCB design, manufacturing, selling enough quantity to justify the expense, packaging, testing compatibility with cases, updating manuals for possible issues, support, getting distributors in various regions to purchase another product line, sales and marketing needing to do training, making sure we have enough buffer stock for the duration of warranty of these products for RMA services long term etc etc etc. While a lot of miniITX cases do have dual PCI slots, it may be an issue with this format if we fully switch over because we'd still have a lot of cases with a single slot hence we'd have to make two separate product lines. The dual slot cases could also cause some problems if people tried to fit a dual slot cooler in outer slot and believe me we get all sorts of interesting technical support questions...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xnaas*
> 
> Sorry! Was very tired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the thing I would want a second PCIe slot for most (on a high-end board so I can still overclock my CPU and what-not) would be for a PCIe SSD or PCIe to M.2 card. That said, If I ever wanted to do SLI, waterblocks will make most GPUs single-slot. I'd definitely like to have that option in a tiny form factor.
> 
> I'd also be curious to see the results of trying to fit four SODIMM (or 4 regular DIMM) slots on a mDTX board.


no worries mate!

so if you got the PCIe SSD drive in the second slot, it would mean that you'd have to have a custom WC loop to be able to run a single slot cooler on GPU. I've done my fair share of builds and that requires some serious though and space management. Personally i would just make my life easier and go with the mATX router LOL


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> @CynicalUnicorn, Going to a new PCB is what makes this a difficult and more expensive effort. As you can imagine once you decide to go with a new product line there are various things to consider. Some of the possible issues from creating a new product line is a new PCB design, manufacturing, selling enough quantity to justify the expense, packaging, testing compatibility with cases, updating manuals for possible issues, support, getting distributors in various regions to purchase another product line, sales and marketing needing to do training, making sure we have enough buffer stock for the duration of warranty of these products for RMA services long term etc etc etc. While a lot of miniITX cases do have dual PCI slots, it may be an issue with this format if we fully switch over because we'd still have a lot of cases with a single slot hence we'd have to make two separate product lines. The dual slot cases could also cause some problems if people tried to fit a dual slot cooler in outer slot and believe me we get all sorts of interesting technical support questions...


The expense of creating a brand new motherboard is indeed valid. However, a quick Newegg search returns about 50 motherboards from Gigabyte on LGA1150 alone.

Not trying to downplay the technical skill required to design a motherboard, but with Mini-ITX and microATX boards being so prolific, combining qualities of the two should at least be in the realm of possibility. The design, qualification, and marketing costs of a mini-DTX size board should be in line with that of any other enthusiast board.

As for the platform/branding, it might be helpful to stick closer to the ITX name. I have used "Mini-DTX" to describe the 8 × 9.6 inch, two-slot motherboard size as that's the closest technical way to describe it. Something like "Enhanced ITX" or "Mini-ITX Plus" may be more familiar to end users. Certainly, I would think of two-slot ITX motherboard as an extension of the existing market and by no means a new segment or platform on its own.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> Personally i would just make my life easier and go with the mATX router LOL


Gigabyte already has AM1 and H81 "mATX" motherboards with only three slots. Chop off the third slot, use a Z97 chipset, and still call it mATX and everyone is happy!


----------



## xnaas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> Personally i would just make my life easier and go with the mATX router LOL


Never! I enjoy my tiny, less than 14L case. <3 I don't care about the difficulty of anything, I know that I chose a difficult path when I chose to fit a ton of processing power in a tiny space. PC building is my hobby and I'm willing to put blood, sweat, and tears into it (all 3 of which I have). 

I look forward to hearing (if it's allowed) what you and your team thinks.


----------



## jtd871

dinos,

As many SFF enthusiasts will tell you, going to mATX doesn't just mean a wider mobo (i.e., greater number of expansion slots), it means a (potentially) much larger motherboard in terms of depth (i.e., as measured perpendicular to the I/O), and requires an overall much larger (in terms of volume) case.

We are on the verge of being able to put unprecedentedly powerful systems in very small physical dimensions (e.g., recently announced X99 mITX boards). One of the main reasons for going with a X99 chipset is more native PCIe lanes = more stuff that one can attach to the CPU - if the means exists. With mITX and a single slot, all those "extra" PCIe lanes basically go to waste because theres no practical interfaces to physically exploit them. If we open up the real estate to the X99 chipset of the mDTX form factor, it's a great deal easier to exploit the "extra" lanes (extra PCIe slot, more room for headers or M.2 connections, better layout of interfaces to prevent blocking).

The same reasoning applies to other "performance" chipsets (Z-series): why make a Z97 mITX board when you are limited to 1 PCIe slot? Offer the masses the functionality they want and the opportunity to upgrade some of the normally on-board items. A good example: alot of SFF Z-series motherboards come with mediocre sound chips. The reason is that it's difficult to do a really nice sound solution on the motherboard due to the desire to keep production costs lower and have to put all the other stuff on the board. Result: mediocre codecs or electrical interference with all the power management the board is needed to do. If there is a 2nd slot, it's easier to upgrade the sound solution with a 3rd party card.

The mDTX "standard" provides a good oppotunity for board manufacturers to make a SFF board that offers flexibility to both the end user and the board manufacturer to really differentiate their product while keeping the overall case size to the minimum required.

Why should your company go to the trouble? Because you want to capture an untapped demand for a product that can make really flexible small and powerful systems possible. And don't fool yourself that the only demand is from individual enthusiasts. OEMs and boutique builders will leap to take advantage of mDTX if it becomes available because they already do custom cases and custom system integration.

If you build it, they will buy it.


----------



## dinos22

Oh i'm not against it, just saying i've gone soft and would just look at something bigger for myself. I actually sport a wall PC now, still haven't completed it. requires no case and it looks ridiculous according to my missus but i dont care, i like it


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dinos22*
> 
> Oh i'm not against it, just saying i've gone soft and would just look at something bigger for myself. I actually sport a wall PC now, still haven't completed it. requires no case and it looks ridiculous according to my missus but i dont care, i like it


Please post pictures of this system when you get it finished.


----------



## dinos22

This is the start of the build but i've since made it significantly smaller and switched over the the black/orange X99 SOC Force theme. I'll do a video buildlog when i get around to it.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Beggars can't be choosers.
> 
> I'm not sure how many practical ideas we've come up with lol. There's the dual x16 Z97 board, and, um, what else? I might've missed something big myself knowing how I am.


PLX Chip to allow at least x8/x8 operation of GPUs (needed for SLI) assuming a PCIE m.2 slot is included, which it ought to be really
PCIE backed m.2 slot
Overclocking-friendly power delivery


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Does Z97 need a PLX switch to go x16 -> x8/x8? My understanding was that the lanes were allocated when booting up. Now, something like x16/x16 would need a PLX switch since it's actively switching the lanes' endpoints.


----------



## fleetfeather

z97 only has 16 lanes total. if an m.2 slot is using either x2 or x4 of the available lanes, a PLX chip will be needed to ensure x8/x8 operation. SLI won't work with x8/x4


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Does Z97 need a PLX switch to go x16 -> x8/x8?


The terminology is hazy but you do need a (de)multiplexer to decide if the last 8 lanes on slot one go to slot two or not. Those are the little rectangular chips between slots. An example is the NXP CBTL04083B. This was done manually by a PCB in the early days of SLI. I bet the signal requirements are too tight to ever do those again. Intel's term for it is bifurcation.

As far as a full PLX switch, no I believe that is done natively unless you want to have the appearance of more lanes to each device (for getting SLI to work etc.)


----------



## fleetfeather

I suppose, now that the Z107 chipset is nearly upon us, the issue won't be as big; Z107 reportedly features 20 lanes, meaning that x8/x8 GPU configs should be possible alongside a x4 PCIE m.2 slot without any additional features


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

8/8/4 for GPU/GPU/M.2 sounds good to me!

Does anyone know if the SKL PCH's do USB 3.1 without burning any lanes? I fear that 3.1/USB C is going to be a "killer feature" on the new boards and the extra 4 lanes that would have gone to M.2 will go to 3.1 instead.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> I suppose, now that the Z107 chipset is nearly upon us, the issue won't be as big; Z107 reportedly features 20 lanes, meaning that x8/x8 GPU configs should be possible alongside a x4 PCIE m.2 slot without any additional features


20 lanes from the chipset. That doesn't count the CPU IIRC, which might be 4.0. If Skylake isn't, then Cannonlake should be.

But it is good to finally hear native tri-SLI support. Tri-#70 or #60 tier cards and an i7 makes a great gaming rig if scaling is good.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

I'd use the second slot for a TV card actually, in a HTPC. When building a HTPC you can't game AND record TV


----------



## Nukemaster

You may be able to use a USB capture card.

I would love to get a cablecard tuner(comes in USB with 2 tuners), but my provider does not support such things.

Capturing the actual stream and not having to take a digital video convert it to analog(cable box) and back to digital(capture card) would keep the best quality and save space on channels with lower bit rates.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Hmmn interesting. I have an external antenna though,would I be able to plug it into a USB card?


----------



## Nukemaster

That would depend on the card in use.

I know the HD homerun is rather popular and it seems to work with Antenna.

Now this works with digital over the air. Some places may still have analog over the air.

That product connects over your home network and can stream to all kinds of devices. This removes the need for an internal tuner or even usb tuner.

I do not have this device and still have a HD PVR + cable box. Cablecard tuners work like a bring your own cable box setup. As things change some features do not tend to work on cablecard tuners(On demand for one).

It would be best to look into different options before buying because not all of these devices are created equally.


----------



## anothersname

Surely the opportunity here is to rationalise some currently overlapping 'standards'

Mini ITX is 170mm x 170mm and has 1 x PCIe slot.

There is at least one ECS board H61H2-MV which is 196mm (backplane) x 170mm and supports 2 x PCIe slots

There are a number of boards that support 3 x PCIe slots - usually in a 226mm (backplane) x 170-180mm these seem to often be referred to as mATX or sometimes Flex-ATX.

There are shedloads of boards that support 4 x PCIe slots - usually in a 226mm (backplane) x 170-180mm these are almost always referred to as mATX.

Instead of JUST using a mDTX moniker surely it would be 'better' to generate some new 'standards' that case manufacturers can then lock into.

MITX - 170mm x 170mm - SIngle Slot PCIe

MITX2 - 190mm x 170mm - 2 Slot PCIe

MITX3 - 210mm x 170mm - 3 Slot PCIe

MITX4 - 226mm x 170mm - 4 Slot PCIe

I personally have a spare Array R2 case that I want to use as a Media Server........no overclocking.....no huge GPU's

It has 2 Slot cutouts (as per DTX) but also nearly 50mm of 'dead/unused' space on the right of the slot cutouts (as looking from the back).

As I want to mount

1 x M1015 Array Controller - PCIe x 8
1 x TBS Quad DVB-T2 - PCIe x 1
1 x TBS Quad DVB-S2 - PCIe x 1

And also have DP and Optical Spdif outs on the Mobo (Onchip Intel GPU is sufficient for my needs for this) I need a mobo with 3 PCIe slots, and as the M1015 array controller doesn't need any 'external' connections I'd be happy to use the Array R2 case with the M1015 using a slot that sits up against the case (i.e. no cutout - to the right of the 2 case slots as you look from the rear), but can I find a mobo with 3 PCIe slots and in a 210mm(ish) backplane, can I as hell as like......

Some people here might find this useful......not mine originally but feel free to add to it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuQJbc_Aru20dDdLbmJWMjZYSXJvNWNOVzJkdkJPTWc&usp=sharing#gid=26

Surely this thread is an opportunity to rationalise what's become messy, rather then just introduce a single new form factor?


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anothersname*
> 
> Surely the opportunity here is to rationalise some currently overlapping 'standards'
> 
> Mini ITX is 170mm x 170mm and has 1 x PCIe slot.
> 
> There is at least one ECS board H61H2-MV which is 196mm (backplane) x 170mm and supports 2 x PCIe slots
> 
> There are a number of boards that support 3 x PCIe slots - usually in a 226mm (backplane) x 170-180mm these seem to often be referred to as mATX or sometimes Flex-ATX.
> 
> There are shedloads of boards that support 4 x PCIe slots - usually in a 226mm (backplane) x 170-180mm these are almost always referred to as mATX.
> 
> Instead of JUST using a mDTX moniker surely it would be 'better' to generate some new 'standards' that case manufacturers can then lock into.
> 
> MITX - 170mm x 170mm - SIngle Slot PCIe
> 
> MITX2 - 190mm x 170mm - 2 Slot PCIe
> 
> MITX3 - 210mm x 170mm - 3 Slot PCIe
> 
> MITX4 - 226mm x 170mm - 4 Slot PCIe


Why would you want to create new standards if the current ones work fine? Introducing new standards would only create more of a mess, the old ones don't just disappear.

All we're asking is for an enthousiast grade M-DTX board.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

A mDTX board allows you to use the otherwise neglected second slot in an ITX case. Also gives me reason to buy a single slot card


----------



## anothersname

Because the standards currently in use are 'imprecise', for example mATX isn't one size it's a range of sizes and that's why you also get flex atx which actually overlaps mATX in lots of cases.

Specific sizes, as I suggest above, mean case manufacturers can work to better defined rules and thereby maximise their return on investment for design and subsequent production costs. How many times have people seen mATX cases that don't fit the full range of mATX boards.......


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> DIMMs or SODIMMs?


I don't think that really matters, SODIMMs would be easier to do, thought.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtd871*
> 
> dinos,
> 
> As many SFF enthusiasts will tell you, going to mATX doesn't just mean a wider mobo (i.e., greater number of expansion slots), it means a (potentially) much larger motherboard in terms of depth (i.e., as measured perpendicular to the I/O), and requires an overall much larger (in terms of volume) case.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Wall of text!
> 
> 
> 
> We are on the verge of being able to put unprecedentedly powerful systems in very small physical dimensions (e.g., recently announced X99 mITX boards). One of the main reasons for going with a X99 chipset is more native PCIe lanes = more stuff that one can attach to the CPU - if the means exists. With mITX and a single slot, all those "extra" PCIe lanes basically go to waste because theres no practical interfaces to physically exploit them. If we open up the real estate to the X99 chipset of the mDTX form factor, it's a great deal easier to exploit the "extra" lanes (extra PCIe slot, more room for headers or M.2 connections, better layout of interfaces to prevent blocking).
> 
> The same reasoning applies to other "performance" chipsets (Z-series): why make a Z97 mITX board when you are limited to 1 PCIe slot? Offer the masses the functionality they want and the opportunity to upgrade some of the normally on-board items. A good example: alot of SFF Z-series motherboards come with mediocre sound chips. The reason is that it's difficult to do a really nice sound solution on the motherboard due to the desire to keep production costs lower and have to put all the other stuff on the board. Result: mediocre codecs or electrical interference with all the power management the board is needed to do. If there is a 2nd slot, it's easier to upgrade the sound solution with a 3rd party card.
> 
> The mDTX "standard" provides a good oppotunity for board manufacturers to make a SFF board that offers flexibility to both the end user and the board manufacturer to really differentiate their product while keeping the overall case size to the minimum required.
> 
> Why should your company go to the trouble? Because you want to capture an untapped demand for a product that can make really flexible small and powerful systems possible. And don't fool yourself that the only demand is from individual enthusiasts. OEMs and boutique builders will leap to take advantage of mDTX if it becomes available because they already do custom cases and custom system integration.
> 
> 
> If you build it, they will buy it.


That was a pitch for mDTX if I ever heard one.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anothersname*
> 
> Because the standards currently in use are 'imprecise', for example mATX isn't one size it's a range of sizes and that's why you also get flex atx which actually overlaps mATX in lots of cases.
> 
> Specific sizes, as I suggest above, mean case manufacturers can work to better defined rules and thereby maximise their return on investment for design and subsequent production costs. How many times have people seen mATX cases that don't fit the full range of mATX boards.......


We all know about the "problem" of mATX, but the scope of this thread is not to change any of that. As @Gilles3000 said, we just want an enthusiast mDTX board, nothing more, nothing less. You can't just revolutionise motherboard formfactors over night, and I doubt it would even make a lot of sense in the first place. But again, this is out of scope for this thread.


----------



## epic1337

what we need now is a smaller DRAM sticks, why hadn't sodimms took over imho.
ITX platform's most space consuming part, aside from CPU, is the ram slots.

speaking of compact placements, why is it that they don't utilize the underside of the motherboards for parts placement?
certain onboard parts like NIC, sound processor, CMOS battery, BIOS chip, etc. doesn't even need cooling and they're less than 5mm high.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> what we need now is a smaller DRAM sticks, why hadn't sodimms took over imho.
> ITX platform's most space consuming part, aside from CPU, is the ram slots.
> 
> speaking of compact placements, why is it that they don't utilize the underside of the motherboards for parts placement?
> certain onboard parts like NIC, sound processor, CMOS battery, BIOS chip, etc. doesn't even need cooling and they're less than 5mm high.


There already are boards that have the M.2 slot on the underside, so there's that.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> what we need now is a smaller DRAM sticks, why hadn't sodimms took over imho.
> ITX platform's most space consuming part, aside from CPU, is the ram slots.
> 
> speaking of compact placements, why is it that they don't utilize the underside of the motherboards for parts placement?
> certain onboard parts like NIC, sound processor, CMOS battery, BIOS chip, etc. doesn't even need cooling and they're less than 5mm high.
> 
> 
> 
> There already are boards that have the M.2 slot on the underside, so there's that.
Click to expand...

yes but why hadn't they gone thoroughly and offloaded the less sensitive components to the underside >,>


----------



## BirdofPrey

Well, if we're going to gripe about things that take up too much space on the board: will we ever see larger form factors go the route of thin mini-ITX: single voltage in = tiny power connector and the rest of the voltages are converted onboard with some power out sockets for a couple drives?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> We all know about the "problem" of mATX, but the scope of this thread is not to change any of that. As @Gilles3000 said, we just want an enthusiast mDTX board, nothing more, nothing less. You can't just revolutionise motherboard formfactors over night, and I doubt it would even make a lot of sense in the first place. But again, this is out of scope for this thread.


Yep, I'm not trying to change the whole PC industry, just get a nice motherboard for my ITX case. Bite off any more than that and there's no way we'll be able to swallow it. (ew?)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Well, if we're going to gripe about things that take up too much space on the board: will we ever see larger form factors go the route of thin mini-ITX: single voltage in = tiny power connector and the rest of the voltages are converted onboard with some power out sockets for a couple drives?


I've looked into it before. Really there's no need for more than about 8 pins on that plug. Sort of like DTX, the biggest fear is compatibility. Fortunately for us, an ITX board with two slots can still fit in any ITX case worth using.

When can we get rid of the 24-pin connector?


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Well, if we're going to gripe about things that take up too much space on the board: will we ever see larger form factors go the route of thin mini-ITX: single voltage in = tiny power connector and the rest of the voltages are converted onboard with some power out sockets for a couple drives?


Probably not in the near future, for a couple good reasons.

Thin mITX is designed for use with power bricks in AIOs and uSFF enclosures. That means the basic idea of supplying power is vastly different to ATX, as in, the power supply gives one voltage that is stepped down by the motherboard.

AT did a similar thing, those PSUs only supplied 12V and 5V, but 3.3V had to be stepped down when needed.

The problem with doing that is that the maximum load of your system is determined by the board and the PSU as opposed to just the PSU. Most thin mITX boards only support CPUs with up to 65W and four SATA drives, because the regulators on the board just aren't powerful enough to support more.
If you now think about big mATX boards using the same technique, a lot of board space will be wasted for regulators, and you'll have to somehow cool those as well.

There are also implications for how you'd want to turn the PSU on and off. What about standby power?

On the other hand, having a PSU only supply 12V and letting the board step those down to 3.3 and 5 is an interesting idea because most components that put the most load on the system are powered by 12V anyway and those that are powered by 3.3V and 5V require the mainboard to be capable of supporting those. For example, if a mainboard can only offer 4 SATA ports, it would only need to support the load of 4 drives as well.

I definitely like the implications, I'm already thinking about powering a Gigabyte thin mITX board (they allow 12V input as well as 19V) with a regular PSU, that could be pretty rad









*TL;DR:*

The voltage regulators on the board would take up more space than the ATX 24pin connector does now, but a smaller cable would be nice, no doubt about that.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Well, if we're going to gripe about things that take up too much space on the board: will we ever see larger form factors go the route of thin mini-ITX: single voltage in = tiny power connector and the rest of the voltages are converted onboard with some power out sockets for a couple drives?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not in the near future, for a couple good reasons.
> 
> Thin mITX is designed for use with power bricks in AIOs and uSFF enclosures. That means the basic idea of supplying power is vastly different to ATX, as in, the power supply gives one voltage that is stepped down by the motherboard.
> 
> AT did a similar thing, those PSUs only supplied 12V and 5V, but 3.3V had to be stepped down when needed.
> 
> The problem with doing that is that the maximum load of your system is determined by the board and the PSU as opposed to just the PSU. Most thin mITX boards only support CPUs with up to 65W and four SATA drives, because the regulators on the board just aren't powerful enough to support more.
> If you now think about big mATX boards using the same technique, a lot of board space will be wasted for regulators, and you'll have to somehow cool those as well.
> 
> There are also implications for how you'd want to turn the PSU on and off. What about standby power?
> 
> On the other hand, having a PSU only supply 12V and letting the board step those down to 3.3 and 5 is an interesting idea because most components that put the most load on the system are powered by 12V anyway and those that are powered by 3.3V and 5V require the mainboard to be capable of supporting those. For example, if a mainboard can only offer 4 SATA ports, it would only need to support the load of 4 drives as well.
> 
> I definitely like the implications, I'm already thinking about powering a Gigabyte thin mITX board (they allow 12V input as well as 19V) with a regular PSU, that could be pretty rad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TL;DR:*
> 
> The voltage regulators on the board would take up more space than the ATX 24pin connector does now, but a smaller cable would be nice, no doubt about that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I agree with your analysis. The major components that require power are:

CPU, which has its own 12v connector and on-board VRMs
RAM, which uses 12v and on-board VRMs.
PCIe slots, which use 12v and VRMs (on the add-in board)
I'm not sure about the PCH, but I guarantee whatever voltage it requires (probably a bit higher than Vcore since they hang a few nodes back) is regulated by on-board VRMs. Likely 12v.

There would be a need for some 5v for USB and linear regulators for small things like the audio codec, LPCIO, and such. However, a switch mode buck converter should not take up a lot of space. Have you see how small an iPhone charger is? Additionally, having 5v stepped down from 12v on-board conveys the following advantages:

The 5v circuit can be sized exactly to the load on the board, instead of all PSUs needing to assume the worst case consumption
Ohmic losses from carrying 5+ amps on a 2+ foot wire from the PSU (a .2v drop +1 watt heat based on some quick/dirty math)
Space inside the PSU can be dedicated to 12 volt output, which we all can't get enough of.
The connector gets cleaned up
We'd still need pins for standby voltage (we can move it up to 12v while we're at it), PS_ON, and PWR_OK, and a ground for all that. (though I'd rather replace those two with a I2C bus. Whatever.) So, there's 4 pins. I think we could have 2 or 3 pairs of 12v and ground, making the connector 8 or 10 pins, and able to carry roughly 200 or 300 watts, respectively.

Yes, it's a change and it's pretty drastic, but if we go through the trouble to do all that it might as well be worth it. Sorta like a DTX board.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Just gimme X99N-WIFI with 2 x16 slots


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> *speaking of compact placements, why is it that they don't utilize the underside of the motherboards for parts placement?*
> certain onboard parts like NIC, sound processor, CMOS battery, BIOS chip, etc. doesn't even need cooling and they're less than 5mm high.


They kinda do for Nano-ITX (Intel NUC) but I suppose they don't need to for current mATX/mini-ITX. It's probably cheaper & quicker to do it all on one side for those boards.




(again, crossing fingers for black PCBs) (I don't just want dull server looking boards)


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I'm not sure if I agree with your analysis. The major components that require power are:
> 
> CPU, which has its own 12v connector and on-board VRMs
> RAM, which uses 12v and on-board VRMs.
> PCIe slots, which use 12v and VRMs (on the add-in board)
> I'm not sure about the PCH, but I guarantee whatever voltage it requires (probably a bit higher than Vcore since they hang a few nodes back) is regulated by on-board VRMs. Likely 12v.
> 
> There would be a need for some 5v for USB and linear regulators for small things like the audio codec, LPCIO, and such. However, a switch mode buck converter should not take up a lot of space. Have you see how small an iPhone charger is? Additionally, having 5v stepped down from 12v on-board conveys the following advantages:
> 
> The 5v circuit can be sized exactly to the load on the board, instead of all PSUs needing to assume the worst case consumption
> Ohmic losses from carrying 5+ amps on a 2+ foot wire from the PSU (a .2v drop +1 watt heat based on some quick/dirty math)
> Space inside the PSU can be dedicated to 12 volt output, which we all can't get enough of.
> The connector gets cleaned up
> We'd still need pins for standby voltage (we can move it up to 12v while we're at it), PS_ON, and PWR_OK, and a ground for all that. (though I'd rather replace those two with a I2C bus. Whatever.) So, there's 4 pins. I think we could have 2 or 3 pairs of 12v and ground, making the connector 8 or 10 pins, and able to carry roughly 200 or 300 watts, respectively.
> 
> Yes, it's a change and it's pretty drastic, but if we go through the trouble to do all that it might as well be worth it. Sorta like a DTX board.


I'll have to trust you on the RAM, but yeah, the PCIe and CPU run on 12V and are the most consuming parts. I thought that a lot of smaller chips used 5V, I know a lot of microcontrollers use that voltage, some even use 3.3V, but those don't put a lot of load on the system.

The question is if you'd really want the connector to be able to supply 200-300W. I think the base connector should only guarantee enough power for basic operation for all onboard components, CPU and PCIe lanes should have additional connectors, just like the CPU already does. Because if you think about it, the ATX 24pin has to allow an ATX board to supply 75W for every PCIex16 slot there is on the board. Why should an mDTX board have as many power inputs? I think a 6pin connector for the board, one or more 4pins for CPUs and 2pins for PCIe lanes would make more sense.

Another interesting idea would be to have only 2pin connectors for everything that needs 12V. A MiniFit Jr. allows 9A per pin, so with 12V and a large headroom, you could have 75W per connector.

So then, you plug in your base connector for the mobo, two into the CPU power connection, one into the PCIe lane supply and two into the GPU. But let's not get off-topic here


----------



## epic1337

other than USB ports and headers, PCI and MSATA uses either 5V or 3.3V, thats the only part that uses those voltage that i'm aware of.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

PCI comes in 5V and 3.3V varieties. PCIe contains 12V and 3.3V, while the mini version removes the 12V pins. There's also the modified Molex cable used for floppies.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> other than USB ports and headers, PCI and MSATA uses either 5V or 3.3V, thats the only part that uses those voltage that i'm aware of.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> PCI comes in 5V and 3.3V varieties. PCIe contains 12V and 3.3V, while the mini version removes the 12V pins. There's also the modified Molex cable used for floppies.


Exactly, mSATA and mPCIe, as well as regular SATA drives use those voltages, but they need way less power, and Thin mITX boards already have no problem supplying voltages for one PCIex4 slot, one mPCIe, one mSATA and 4 SATA drives, so with boards a little bit larger, I see no issue there.


----------



## epic1337

rather than mSATA, i'd go with M.2 since its much more space efficient in a sense.

there are penny-size switching regulators that can provide 25W without a heatsink, imho those are good options for providing 3.3V and 5V onboard.

from what i recall, during hibernate only the 5Vsb remains active, the rest of the ATX powersupply output is turned off.
so 5V standby input is still a must, unless you plan on not turning off the 12V input on hibernate.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I think hibernate dumps the RAM to the disk and then modifies the boot-up sequence so the session is restored, but it still shuts down. Not entirely sure on that though.


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I think hibernate dumps the RAM to the disk and then modifies the boot-up sequence so the session is restored, but it still shuts down. Not entirely sure on that though.


You are correct. Hibernation requires no actual power once the hiberfile.sys is saved to local storage. You can test this by placing a desktop in hibernate mode and then unplugging it from the wall for a while.

The 5v standby is always on for almost every system I build/used. Some boards have an LED onboard to indicate the still have power. The 5vsb is also how many of these systems can still charge USB devices when off or even have a mouse still lit up when the system is off(the cmos settings while held thanks to a battery are also many times help with this rail. For this reason some users only know the battery is dead after a power out).

How much of the system is on the 5vsb rail depends on the board and some power saving settings(ERP/EUP) will try to turn off everything.

I even remember over systems having jumpers to tell the ps2 ports or even usb ports to run from normal 5v or 5vsb.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

This board needs to support 32GB RAM


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> This board needs to support 32GB RAM


LGA1151 is supposedly capable of supporting 64GB, thats with 4x16GB DDR4 kits, so 2x16GB DDR4 = 32GB should be quite likely.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Yes that is what I meant, 16GB X2 DDR4. Rather annoying most DDR4 sticks are 8GB not 16GB actually.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Yes that is what I meant, 16GB X2 DDR4. Rather annoying most DDR4 sticks are 8GB not 16GB actually.


they haven't gotten to that part yet, its mostly on the enterprise classes that gets the Nx16GB kits due to production issues, their yield is barely enough to supply their demand.
and in which case 16GB sticks are more than just 2times or as much as 4times more in costs than 8GB sticks.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

But wasn't the whole point of DDR4 higher capacities and better power consumption? I can get high end 8GB DDR3L sticks running at a very decent 1.35 compared to the 1.2 of DDR4. I can probably get it to run at 2800Mhz at about 1.5 . It'll probably be a cheaper RAM and at a lower CAS.
Maybe am missing something,but until I start seeing 16GB DDR4 sticks I'm not moving on up.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> But wasn't the whole point of DDR4 higher capacities and better power consumption? I can get high end 8GB DDR3L sticks running at a very decent 1.35 compared to the 1.2 of DDR4. I can probably get it to run at 2800Mhz at about 1.5 . It'll probably be a cheaper RAM and at a lower CAS.
> Maybe am missing something,but until I start seeing 16GB DDR4 sticks I'm not moving on up.


manufacturing issues, its not the voltage or CAS, but the amount of actual functional chips that can go into 16GB isn't high enough to even sustain the enterprise market.

its like intel's CPUs or Nvidia's GPUs, not all of them can come out with all SMX/Cores intact.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Well yeah,but isn't 32GBx1 the "big kahuna" DDR4 stick? 16GB should be easy. Something doesn't feel right to me.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Well yeah,but isn't 32GBx1 the "big kahuna" DDR4 stick? 16GB should be easy. Something doesn't feel right to me.


you're thinking as if it doesn't cost billions of dollars to get a production to start going smoothly.
"32GB" sticks doesn't exist yet, well not outside of "engineering samples", they don't have the fabs to get "32GB" in mass production.

why is it DDR4 is more expensive than DDR3? thats to say we're talking about 2400Mhz~2800Mhz, 3000Mhz+ DDR3 is too rare.
plus why is there only a handful of DDR4 open to the consumer market? not to mention almost always out of stock.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Actually checked and the "big kahuna" stick is 128GBx1








So then if they can "production sample" that,why are 16GB sticks "too much to ask" ? If you ask me they are creating artificial shortage,to keep demand and price for DDR4 high, to clear off "old stock" DDR3 sticks, and make back the cash they used to upgrade by milking enthusiasts and corporates.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Actually checked and the "big kahuna" stick is 128GBx1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then if they can "production sample" that,why are 16GB sticks "too much to ask" ? If you ask me they are creating artificial shortage,to keep demand and price for DDR4 high, to clear off "old stock" DDR3 sticks, and make back the cash they used to upgrade by milking enthusiasts and corporates.


artificial shortage just right after a huge investment is a huge risk.
from what i see they're prioritizing the enterprise classes since they can squeeze more per sale in ECC FB dimms.
plus they buy these stuffs in bulk, think 100pcs is like their small purchases, i've seen server farms use 4GB x 256dimms DDR3.

but on our side only X99 platform supports DDR4, which only is like a small fraction of what we consumers adopt.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

And is a premium chipset with high margins. I can guarantee, they'll be sudden availability when Intel and AMD both make mainstream chipsets and processors that support DDR4. It's like a "which came first" gamble right now.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> And is a premium chipset with high margins. I can guarantee, they'll be sudden availability when Intel and AMD both make mainstream chipsets and processors that support DDR4. It's like a "which came first" gamble right now.


your point? because you completely missed mine.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

My point is they won't make the RAM unless there's numbers and the other side they won't make the chipset unless there's RAM.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> My point is they won't make the RAM unless there's numbers and the other side they won't make the chipset unless there's RAM.


Which doesn't have anything to do with the artificial shortage you described.

There is no artificial shortage there just isn't a high enough adoption of DDR4 for chipsets yet, but that will change with the next generations of processors. And once those are there, DDR4 will become cheaper and the larger sticks will be ready for bulk production, and you'll be free to upgrade your X99 mDTX board to 2xWhateverGB DIMMs.

128GB on a single stick sound pretty exciting, I wonder how long we'll have to wait for something like that


----------



## epic1337

sigh, you guys need to read up how manufacturing silicon chips works, its not a lego block building game.

their "shortage" isn't related to demand at all, its their machine not making enough due to production yield issues.
wafers takes months to make, and they _have no control_ on what comes out as a fully working unit.
e.g. wafers takes 2months to make -> finished product only has 40% functional unit -> tuning takes months to finish -> starts 2nd batch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabrication

try looking up the history of DDR3 for once, when did they first announce 8GB modules, and when it actually first came out.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

While DDR4 economics are an exciting discussion, it doesn't have much to do with mini-DTX motherboards.


----------



## fleetfeather

Just when I was about to slam epic1337's argument









So, what happened to that Gigabyte rep?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Just when I was about to slam epic1337's argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what happened to that Gigabyte rep?


lol.









taking a coffee break?

thought DTX being niche as it is ( i mean theres only a _handful_ of them ).
i'm much more interested in full DTX board, i've only seen those in shuttlePC.

flex atx seems to be much more prevalent in the budget segment.
flex atx is about as deep as a mini-board, but has 3slots in total.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Would full DTX be generally compatible with mITX? It's still the two slots, but 73mm of board would hang off the side unsupported.


----------



## Nukemaster

It would be too deep for most mITX cases. On the other hand at 9.6 I wonder if it would squeeze into the Silverstone SG05(easy enough to add 2 more standoffs).










mDTX fits in most cases however.

Some Shuttle SFF cases actually use DTX.


----------



## epic1337

i know for sure bitfenix prodigy can accommodate a full DTX.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1304413/lightbox/post/18127469/id/1052357


----------



## Allanitomwesh

The full DTX will be a hard sell over mATX,which has 4 slots and similar size otherwise.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> The full DTX will be a hard sell over mATX,which has 4 slots and similar size otherwise.


moot point imho, MATX cant fit in bitfenix prodigy itx.

most itx case with 2slot, and can fit 11" GPUs will easily fit full DTX.


----------



## Nukemaster

Very interesting mod to get it into that case.

I was more thinking of cases with the power supply in front of the board like some of Silverstone's cases. I think the SG05 may be able to take such a board as long as no parts hit the front fan.

Now we just need boards.


----------



## epic1337

yup, so long as theres minimal stuffs on the front ( no HDD or PSU directly mounted from the floor ) then it should fit.
the only issue is vertical clearance on most ITX cases, some of the drive cage or PSU are directly over the motherboard.

it might be possible to fit a high-profile HSF with the SG05 + shuttle combination, since the CPU mount is pushed towards the front.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

The Prodigy M is the exact same size, just has the extra slots. You need to mod in a DTX to fit in the ITX prodigy,but mDTX won't need a mod.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> The Prodigy M is the exact same size, just has the extra slots. You need to mod in a DTX to fit in the ITX prodigy,but mDTX won't need a mod.


prodigy M has a bad layout for adequate cooling, bottom intake with PSU bottom exhaust, top intake, _only one_ exhaust...


----------



## Allanitomwesh

still fits mATX, and it would make a DTX prodigy a hard sell, considering most people will cover the second slot with a dual slot GPU. A mDTX board adds the second slot to cases that otherwise wouldn't have it,a DTX board removes two slots from cases that otherwise would.


----------



## epic1337

how about you ask first whether people prefer the prodigy M over the prodigy ITX.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Okay then,full DTX board,and a modified Prodigy ITX released to fit it. What then for manufacturers with smaller ITX cases? They'd have to make brand new designs around prodigy size as well?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Okay then,full DTX board,and a modified Prodigy ITX released to fit it. What then for manufacturers with smaller ITX cases? They'd have to make brand new designs around prodigy size as well?


had it ever occurred to you that full DTX cases will readily accept ITX motherboards?
they don't have to adopt it if they don't want to, full DTX is simply compatible with bitfenix prodigy ITX.

SG05 is also compatible with full DTX, SG05 is smaller than prodigy ITX.
simply put, most existing cases with 2slots and supports 11" GPUs could support full DTX.
TT core V1, CM Elite 130, Corsair Obsidian 250D, etc.

i keep trying to understand you, but your logic just doesn't make sense


----------



## Allanitomwesh

My point is, mDTX supports ALL ITX cases, including the really small ones, that fit exactly an ITX board and or only short GPUs. This makes it convenient for manufacturers, the cases are already there. Full DTX is somewhat of an inbetween. It'll fit in large ITX cases yes, but they weren't exactly DESIGNED to be full DTX,they all claim mDTX compatibility. For instance the board sticking out further than ITX "might" affect features like say Rad support or maybe fan mountings etc and of course you'll have to mod in mounting holes yourself. So I guess that's my point,its fine for modders but not much else, unless cases are made with support.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> My point is, mDTX supports ALL ITX cases, including the really small ones, that fit exactly an ITX board and or only short GPUs. This makes it convenient for manufacturers, the cases are already there. Full DTX is somewhat of an inbetween. It'll fit in large ITX cases yes, but they weren't exactly DESIGNED to be full DTX,they all claim mDTX compatibility. For instance the board sticking out further than ITX "might" affect features like say Rad support or maybe fan mountings etc and of course you'll have to mod in mounting holes yourself. So I guess that's my point,its fine for modders but not much else, unless cases are made with support.


ohh i see where you're getting at, you've thought i was recommending full DTX, when all i said was i'm more interested in full DTX.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Yeah,got you like that


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> My point is, mDTX supports ALL ITX cases, including the really small ones, that fit exactly an ITX board and or only short GPUs. This makes it convenient for manufacturers, the cases are already there. Full DTX is somewhat of an inbetween. It'll fit in large ITX cases yes, but they weren't exactly DESIGNED to be full DTX,they all claim mDTX compatibility. For instance the board sticking out further than ITX "might" affect features like say Rad support or maybe fan mountings etc and of course you'll have to mod in mounting holes yourself. So I guess that's my point,its fine for modders but not much else, unless cases are made with support.


Smaaaall correction, mDTX supports all ITX cases with room for two expansion slots. Cases that use risers to achieve a lower profile may have issues with supporting mDTX, but your point is still perfectly valid.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i know for sure bitfenix prodigy can accommodate a full DTX.


Thats not full DTX tho, that's Shuttle M-DTX. A proprietary formfactor that's basically extended M-DTX.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i know for sure bitfenix prodigy can accommodate a full DTX.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not full DTX tho, that's Shuttle M-DTX. A proprietary formfactor that's basically extended M-DTX.
Click to expand...

you're right, but the length of shuttle M-DTX is almost identical to full DTX.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

@iFreilicht indeed,single slot raiser and single slot cases don't count


----------



## TornadoBUD

Hi,

im looking for a case that will fit this hardware :

mini-itx mobo. geforce gtx 750ti low profile (but dual-slot) and TFX power supply + SSD. As small as possible. 28x22x10 is the custom build i started.

I bought an aluminium base plate and cutted the threads for the standoffs and fitted the mobo. Just at the moment dont have much freetime to continue the build and would rather buy something and thats it.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TornadoBUD*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> im looking for a case that will fit this hardware :
> 
> mini-itx mobo. geforce gtx 750ti low profile (but dual-slot) and TFX power supply + SSD. As small as possible. 28x22x10 is the custom build i started.
> 
> I bought an aluminium base plate and cutted the threads for the standoffs and fitted the mobo. Just at the moment dont have much freetime to continue the build and would rather buy something and thats it.


Wrong thread, ask here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1300645/official-usff-sff-club


----------



## confusis

Well I did just buy one of these:










Ever so slightly bigger than M-DTX (210 * 180mm instead of M-DTX's 203 * 170mm) but it's close enough. Will run my FX-8350 nicely though


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *confusis*
> 
> Well I did just buy one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever so slightly bigger than M-DTX (210 * 180mm instead of M-DTX's 203 * 170mm) but it's close enough. Will run my FX-8350 nicely though


Nice, update when you get it


----------



## confusis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> Nice, update when you get it


Will do. I've been wanting one of these since I reviewed the H61H2-MV M-DTX board from ECS a year or so ago.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

@Confusis can that fit in a SG05?


----------



## confusis

It _might_ just fit, the length may be the issue. I don't have a SG05 so I can't check!

EDIT: would need someone with a SG05 to confirm if it can fit 40mm of extra motherboard (over ITX)!


----------



## confusis

That's a proper M-DTX board. looks like there's the needed 7mm extra there. would be tiiiiight though!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *confusis*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Well I did just buy one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever so slightly bigger than M-DTX (210 * 180mm instead of M-DTX's 203 * 170mm) but it's close enough. Will run my FX-8350 nicely though


Good first post, welcome to OCN!


----------



## Nukemaster

Very interesting board for sure.


----------



## epic1337

i've seen this on a local shop, its the most practical formation for a DTX leaving the PCIe 1x unobstructed by the GPU, although requiring 3 PCIe slot to accommodate most GPUs unless you can find a single-slot GPU.

on the other hand, it falls short of being a good motherboard in itself, it uses an H61 chipset, only has 4 SATA on top of being only SATAII, has no USB 3.0, and has no MSATA slot.
even the LGA1150 version of it has similar issues, even worse in some aspects, H81H3-M4 only has 3phase VRM.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i've seen this on a local shop, its the most practical formation for a DTX leaving the PCIe 1x unobstructed by the GPU, although requiring 3 PCIe slot to accommodate most GPUs unless you can find a single-slot GPU.
> 
> on the other hand, it falls short of being a good motherboard in itself, it uses an H61 chipset, only has 4 SATA on top of being only SATAII, has no USB 3.0, and has no MSATA slot.
> even the LGA1150 version of it has similar issues, even worse in some aspects, H81H3-M4 only has 3phase VRM.


Yep, we still need an enthusiast chipset on a mDTX board. It really shouldn't be this hard to get one.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Yep, we still need an enthusiast chipset on a mDTX board. It really shouldn't be this hard to get one.


mhmm, the perfect m-DTX i wish to see would be the same x16 on 2nd, using a Zx7 chipset, with 6SATAIII, M.2 or MSATA slot, USB 3.0, sinked 4phase VRM or unsinked 6phase VRM, and intel NIC.
if they could make a board like this within the $100 mark, it'd be a phenomena, perfect for HTPC, NAS, compact gaming rig, etc. what is there not to like? and if they manage to fit 4DIMM slots then it'd be beyond ideal.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Yep, we still need an enthusiast chipset on a mDTX board. It really shouldn't be this hard to get one.
> 
> 
> 
> mhmm, the perfect m-DTX i wish to see would be the same x16 on 2nd, using a Zx7 chipset, with 6SATAIII, M.2 or MSATA slot, USB 3.0, sinked 4phase VRM or unsinked 6phase VRM, and intel NIC.
> if they could make a board like this within the $100 mark, it'd be a phenomena, perfect for HTPC, NAS, compact gaming rig, etc. what is there not to like? and if they manage to fit 4DIMM slots then it'd be beyond ideal.
Click to expand...

4 DIMMs is pushing it, but everything else should be absolutely feasible.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> 4 DIMMs is pushing it, but everything else should be absolutely feasible.


yes, thats why i had it noted last, that if it were done it would've been beyond ideal.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *confusis*
> 
> Well I did just buy one of these:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever so slightly bigger than M-DTX (210 * 180mm instead of M-DTX's 203 * 170mm) but it's close enough. Will run my FX-8350 nicely though


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *confusis*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a proper M-DTX board. looks like there's the needed 7mm extra there. would be tiiiiight though!


Is it just me, or are those two completely different boards?


----------



## confusis

Yes it is different - I was using the second board as reference (not my pic! Although in saying that I did used to own an ECS H61H2-MV board identical to that )- the board i bought is 7mm longer and 10mm wider.... not quite M-DTX but close enough. My board has been sitting in Compton DHL warehouse for 4 days -_-


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *confusis*
> 
> Yes it is different - I was using the second board as reference (not my pic! Although in saying that I did used to own an ECS H61H2-MV board identical to that )- the board i bought is 7mm longer and 10mm wider.... not quite M-DTX but close enough. My board has been sitting in Compton DHL warehouse for 4 days -_-


Oh ok, got a bit confused there. Why were you choosing the board you did? What uses does the second PCIe slot even have when it's obstructed by the GPU?


----------



## confusis

Because it's the smallest board that supports my FX-8350 CPU. there are no M-ITX AM3+ boards. (the next smallest is Flex-atx sized)

I'll hopefully be using a single slot GPU.


----------



## zsolmanz

Would it be infeasible for dual 16x (in 8x-8x mode) on a dtx board? I don't know if they could fit the tracings in, and I suppose there wouldn't be room for a SLI/Crossfire chip anyway...


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zsolmanz*
> 
> Would it be infeasible for dual 16x (in 8x-8x mode) on a dtx board? I don't know if they could fit the tracings in, and I suppose there wouldn't be room for a SLI/Crossfire chip anyway...


If we can have mATX boards with quad 16x slots, there's no reason a DTX would be impossible.


----------



## hartofwave

X99 has the bandwidth, I dunno about traces but I dont see why not


----------



## Allanitomwesh

AsRock just need to do it. They just need to.


----------



## confusis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> Nice, update when you get it


Ok...


----------



## Allanitomwesh

That is ALOT of CPU cooler


----------



## confusis

Yup. Noctua NH-D15, with an extra fan from a Thermalright SBE. Not sure if I will run this cooler in the final build. It's a bit.. huge


----------



## iFreilicht

Very cool! I guess you'll WC the GPU? What will you use the PCIex1 slot for?


----------



## BirdofPrey

DEAR LORD MAN!
How much overclock are you trying to get with that monstrous cooler?


----------



## Smanci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> DEAR LORD MAN!
> How much overclock are you trying to get with that monstrous cooler?


Probably 5 Jiggahertz.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Ba Dum Tssss!


----------



## confusis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Very cool! I guess you'll WC the GPU? What will you use the PCIex1 slot for?


No - I won't be watercooling. No overclocking either (board has 125w limit). I may not end up using this cooler, I just threw it on for the lols









I may not end up using the x1 slot. I bought this board as it was the snmallest am3+ board.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *confusis*
> 
> No - I won't be watercooling. No overclocking either (board has 125w limit). I may not end up using this cooler, I just threw it on for the lols
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may not end up using the x1 slot. I bought this board as it was the snmallest am3+ board.


Ah, very well. If you wanted to use the x1 slot you'd probably have to WC, that's why I asked.


----------



## confusis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Ah, very well. If you wanted to use the x1 slot you'd probably have to WC, that's why I asked.


Or roll with a single slot card like http://www.newegg.com/global/nz/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150711&cm_re=r7-250e-_-14-150-711-_-Product


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *confusis*
> 
> Or roll with a single slot card like http://www.newegg.com/global/nz/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150711&cm_re=r7-250e-_-14-150-711-_-Product


Huh, didn't know about that one. There's also the 750Ti Razor from Galax/KFA². But that kind of limits you with performance.


----------



## confusis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Huh, didn't know about that one. There's also the 750Ti Razor from Galax/KFA². But that kind of limits you with performance.


Budget is the major limit here


----------



## Aibohphobia

Still waiting for a Z97 or Z170 in Mini-DTX with dual x16 but this is a step in the right direction









http://www.gdm.or.jp/pressrelease/2015/0622/120722


----------



## epic1337

the only issues i have with those pseudo mini-DTX board is that they mostly have only 4 SATA ports mixed II&III at that, no USB 3.0 header, 3phase VRM (meaning no pentium OC goodness) and few USB ports in all.

is there any reason why they have to put the lone PS2/USB ports on the top-most edge of the board? they could've crammed all the I/O closer together to save space imho.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Nope. If you notice, between the PS/2 and VGA ports, there's an empty space. That's where a DVI port could be installed on a different model. Plus there are standards for the height of the rear I/O, so I doubt it would make a huge difference regardless.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> the only issues i have with those pseudo mini-DTX board is that they mostly have only 4 SATA ports mixed II&III at that, no USB 3.0 header, 3phase VRM (meaning no pentium OC goodness) and few USB ports in all.
> 
> is there any reason why they have to put the lone PS2/USB ports on the top-most edge of the board? they could've crammed all the I/O closer together to save space imho.


It is missing a DVI


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> the only issues i have with those pseudo mini-DTX board is that they mostly have only 4 SATA ports mixed II&III at that, no USB 3.0 header, 3phase VRM (meaning no pentium OC goodness) and few USB ports in all.
> 
> is there any reason why they have to put the lone PS2/USB ports on the top-most edge of the board? they could've crammed all the I/O closer together to save space imho.


I think the problem is that they are supposed to be really low end mATX boards, not really high end little-bit-larger-than-mITX boards. mITX does have enough powerful boards that demonstrate this space can be used efficiently, but that's clearly not a priority here.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

You can tell by the chipset. If it starts with H and ends with 1, it's not particularly good.







Only Intel chipset to not support two DIMMs per memory channel, has the fewest SATA and USB 3 ports, forces the CPU's 16 PCIe lanes to run at Gen 2 speeds rather than Gen 3, has six rather than eight PCIe lanes from the chipset, etc.

On the other hand, the very next chipset up, B85 for LGA-1150, has everything Z87 does except the ability to split the x16 slot (and that's Z87 exclusive) and it trades a couple SATA and USB 3 ports for the second-gen equivalents. Otherwise it's identical. The unlocked multiplier isn't even Z87/97 exclusive anymore!


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I think the problem is that they are supposed to be really low end mATX boards, not really high end little-bit-larger-than-mITX boards. mITX does have enough powerful boards that demonstrate this space can be used efficiently, but that's clearly not a priority here.


thats exactly it, they could utilize the space more efficiently, but just because its a low end board doesn't mean they shouldn't make it efficient.

they could seriously make it more balanced in the layout instead though, this one looks messy.
and on a side note, VGA can be placed on top of DVI like on other $60 motherboards or vice versa.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> It is missing a DVI


thats the point, why put in a DVI spot if they aren't putting a DVI in it? waste of space.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Or we can think about it another way: why bother redesigning the rear I/O if all that changes is the presence/lack of a DVI port? It's not actually that uncommon. I first saw it comparing some AM1 boards. ASRock has one with an empty IDE connector, USB 3.0 header, two SATA ports, and a DVI port. It's clear that the contact points are ready to go and the traces go to these points, but the ports just are not available.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Or we can think about it another way: why bother redesigning the rear I/O if all that changes is the presence/lack of a DVI port? It's not actually that uncommon. I first saw it comparing some AM1 boards. ASRock has one with an empty IDE connector, USB 3.0 header, two SATA ports, and a DVI port. It's clear that the contact points are ready to go and the traces go to these points, but the ports just are not available.


thats another issue, though not necessarily a big one.

but on the other hand, they could just make their designs more efficient.
R&D might cost a bit but that doesn't mean it'd end up being wasted, they could always recycle the design when they swap sockets.


----------



## armourcore9brker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> thats another issue, though not necessarily a big one.
> 
> but on the other hand, they could just make their designs more efficient.
> R&D might cost a bit but that doesn't mean it'd end up being wasted, they could always recycle the design when they swap sockets.


I'd say a board design that contains everything, and then just removing the chips/ports for lower end hardware is the more efficient design. The board itself is not expensive. The R&D is what is the major cost.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Its cheaper to design the high end board and yank out parts for the cheaper boards, than RnD what would end up being a cheap board. Return on investment.


----------



## epic1337

you do realize that this pseudo mini-DTX isn't a "yank parts from high-end design" right?
this is a stand-alone design, they don't have any other 2slot designs aside from this model and a few other on different sockets.

they designed this, cost them R&D, yet did it half-assed.


----------



## Nukemaster

Some of the R&D may have been done for another company(OEM may have wanted boards from them for a run of systems).

If that was the case, maybe pulling off a port makes it a different board so they can use an already made design?


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Nah these funky "not exactly DTX" sizes that fit 3 expansion slots are made with leftover PCB. No RnD whatsoever goes into them,it's why they are so cheap


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Nah these funky "not exactly DTX" sizes that fit 3 expansion slots are made with leftover PCB. No RnD whatsoever goes into them,it's why they are so cheap


you can't just chop-off the excess PCB, the traces thats chopped off would make the rest of the board unusable.
plus, how many boards do you think they have that has the PCI-e x16 on the 2nd slot?

those pseudo mini-DTX boards are unique, they aren't based off some other motherboard design.
the chipset's location alone is unique to ITX designs, but none of the ITX designs have an x1 on the 1st slot.
the CPU socket in itself is also offset towards the edge of the board, this is rare outside of ITX designs.

to begin with, the R&D cost of motherboard layout design doesn't cost them much, most of the cost of the motherboard comes from the components used.
thats why the manufacturers could afford to make dozens of different variants, excluding same-layout boards, and most of those variants are on the cheaper end to boot.


----------



## jtd871

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> Still waiting for a Z97 or Z170 in Mini-DTX with dual x16 but this is a step in the right direction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gdm.or.jp/pressrelease/2015/0622/120722


Official Page: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H91M-XT%20PLUS/

Note that the original article link indicated "H81 Express", which AFAIK isn't even a thing. The AsRock page indicates H81 (which is _still_ confusing given the H91 in the model number...)

The official Intel ARK H81 sheet indicates that H81 can only support a maximum of 6 PCIe lanes ( http://ark.intel.com/products/75016/Intel-DH82H81-PCH ), so is the 16-lane slot even electrically x16?! Not that 4-lane PCIe 2 should be *much* of a cripple to a GPU... but it's probably not ideal.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

H81 is the PCH (platform controller hub) and controls I/O like SATA, USB, and PCIe. It's the same die as the Z87 PCH actually, just cut down a bit. Same number of USB and SATA ports IIRC, just mostly the earlier second revision for each rather than the more recent third revision. Two of its eight PCIe lanes are totally disabled as well; every other chipset has a full eight lanes. That still allows an mATX board an additional x4 slot and a couple x1 slots, but it's limited.

The x16 slot is full PCIe x16, don't worry. Those lanes are controlled by the CPU. H81 limits the speed to 2.0 speeds rather than 3.0 speeds however (and for H61, only if it's Ivy Bridge since Sandy is always 2.0) but otherwise does not touch the x16 slot. The only chipset that does is Z87, allowing it to split into x8/x8 and x8/x4/x4.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtd871*
> 
> Official Page: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H91M-XT%20PLUS/
> 
> Note that the original article link indicated "H81 Express", which AFAIK isn't even a thing. The AsRock page indicates H81 (which is _still_ confusing given the H91 in the model number...)
> 
> The official Intel ARK H81 sheet indicates that H81 can only support a maximum of 6 PCIe lanes ( http://ark.intel.com/products/75016/Intel-DH82H81-PCH ), so is the 16-lane slot even electrically x16?! Not that 4-lane PCIe 2 should be *much* of a cripple to a GPU... but it's probably not ideal.


chipset has nothing to do with the primary x16 slot, that slot is directly connected to CPU without going through the PCH.

PCH only provides extra lanes thats carried over by DMI link, which is why its typically limited to how much bandwidth the DMI link has.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtd871*
> 
> Official Page: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H91M-XT%20PLUS/
> 
> Note that the original article link indicated "H81 Express", which AFAIK isn't even a thing. The AsRock page indicates H81 (which is _still_ confusing given the H91 in the model number...)
> 
> The official Intel ARK H81 sheet indicates that H81 can only support a maximum of 6 PCIe lanes ( http://ark.intel.com/products/75016/Intel-DH82H81-PCH ), so is the 16-lane slot even electrically x16?! Not that 4-lane PCIe 2 should be *much* of a cripple to a GPU... but it's probably not ideal.


PCIe2.0x4 actually is quite crippling to GPU performance. When talking about this sort of stuff, this article needs to come up as quickly as possible: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling/21.html

As you can see, 2.0x4 takes a huge chunk of performance when compared to 3.0x4.

But yeah, the CPU provides quite a few lanes itself already.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

1.1 x4 = 2.0 x2 = 3.0 x1. 4.0 doubles the transfer rate again (like 1.1 to 2.0) but doesn't change the encoding (like 2.0 to 3.0). A single PCIe 3.0 x16 slot has close to the total bandwidth of 990FX's 38 lanes.


----------



## jtd871

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> chipset has nothing to do with the primary x16 slot, that slot is directly connected to CPU without going through the PCH.
> 
> PCH only provides extra lanes thats carried over by DMI link, which is why its typically limited to how much bandwidth the DMI link has.


Thanks for setting me straight. I was really wondering why they would gimp the PCIe connectivity the way I was thinking it was. OK, so it's not a horrible mobo choice for the 2 slots - it's just not the droids we're looking for...


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Even Tom's think it should've been DTX
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-x99e-itx-ac-motherboard,4127.html


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> Even Tom's think it should've been DTX
> www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-x99e-itx-ac-motherboard,4127.html


Exciting that they even mention it! With how much ASRock likes to experiment, it's only a matter of time.


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Exciting that they even mention it! With how much ASRock likes to experiment, it's only a matter of time.


Well we asked a little while back and nothing much happend, but I hope that will change!


----------



## epic1337

we need more boards with primary x16 slot is on the 2nd slot, these types of board are targeted to single-GPU setups and putting it on the 1st slot has next to no advantage.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Did somebody say ASRock and mITX? Here's another missed opportunity!









To be fair, it's for servers, so I'm not sure how "non-standard" they could get.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Did somebody say ASRock and mITX? Here's another missed opportunity!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, it's for servers, so I'm not sure how "non-standard" they could get.


Exciting that it even exists! I'm curious to see if SODIMMs overtake full size DIMMs on desktops with DDR4. Pretty much everything else has gotten smaller, and with 16GB sticks of SODIMM DDR4 there's no capacity argument either.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Exciting that it even exists! I'm curious to see if SODIMMs overtake full size DIMMs on desktops with DDR4. Pretty much everything else has gotten smaller, and with 16GB sticks of SODIMM DDR4 there's no capacity argument either.


i've been waiting for that to happen too, theres hardly any difference in performance between DIMMs and SODIMMs now a days.
vertical SODIMMs takes up much less space than DIMMs it makes one wonder why they aren't pushing it as a primary profile now.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Considering the 16 GB one does 2666 MT/s, I think it's ready for primetime:

http://www.micron.com/~/media/documents/products/data-sheet/modules/sodimm/ddr4/atf16c2gx64hz.pdf


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Frequency is the only major downfall I can think of. However, I doubt that SODIMMs _can't_ reach those frequencies. It's just that the applications - low-power embedded systems, thin mITX for AIOs, and laptops of course - trade performance for efficiency.

But quad-channel is going to be fast enough. Consumer systems have dual-channel as an option after all (servers, not so much) and adding the extra channels is already an improvement. Quad-channel DDR3-1600 matches dual-channel DDR4-3200 in bandwidth, though I think it loses in latency. In other words, Sandy Bridge-E(P) at stock frequencies should be able to tie if not beat Skylake-K with overclocked RAM in bandwidth, to say nothing of Ivy Bridge-E(P), Haswell-E(P), and the hexa-channel Skylake-E(P).


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Frequency is the only major downfall I can think of. However, I doubt that SODIMMs _can't_ reach those frequencies. It's just that the applications - low-power embedded systems, thin mITX for AIOs, and laptops of course - trade performance for efficiency.
> 
> But quad-channel is going to be fast enough. Consumer systems have dual-channel as an option after all (servers, not so much) and adding the extra channels is already an improvement. Quad-channel DDR3-1600 matches dual-channel DDR4-3200 in bandwidth, though I think it loses in latency. In other words, Sandy Bridge-E(P) at stock frequencies should be able to tie if not beat Skylake-K with overclocked RAM in bandwidth, to say nothing of Ivy Bridge-E(P), Haswell-E(P), and the hexa-channel Skylake-E(P).


they could easily split sodimms into two categories imho, LP and HiP.
both should work on either desktop or laptop, and i bet some laptop users would want HiP sodimms in their units (if they're on an APU laptop).

in any case, DDR3 1866mhz or 2400mhz is the best clock before diminishing returns kicks in, dunno about DDR4 but both shouldn't have a problem with sodimm taking up high clockspeeds.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

As long as power/heat density isn't a limiting factor, I would think that SODIMMs actually have better signal integrity and performance capability than larger DIMMs.


----------



## epic1337

heat hadn't been much of an issue with ram sticks, you could still see ddr3 2400mhz units without heatsinks attached to them.


----------



## iFreilicht

Yeah heatsinks on DIMMs are highly overrated, it's not like you really need to help them dissipate heat if there's at least the tinyest breeze inside your system. The only reasons for heatsinks on DIMMs are aesthetics and extreme overclocking, something I'd never do with RAM in the first place. Too much stability loss, too little performance gain. If you're not building an APU or HPC system, there's no reason to care about RAM speeds anyway.


----------



## Allanitomwesh

I have bare hynix sticks in my system and they are faster than the PNY XLR8 sticks before them


----------



## Gilles3000

How I would love to put 2 of these on a nice Z97/Z107/X99 M-DTX board.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

...Is that a Fury?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> How I would love to put 2 of these on a nice Z97/Z107/X99 M-DTX board.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> ...Is that a Fury?


Sure looks like it! I'd love to have two of them in an SG05 or ncase M1. Could you even imagine the power to volume ratio?

Hnngg.exe


----------



## BirdofPrey

As sweet as the Fury sounds. I am waiting to see how the Nano is. Fit that bad boy in a case only as deep as the motherboard, and make the GPU nice and thin since it should actually accommodate a 1 slot I/O bracket and water-block.
Granted, the Fury is still pretty short for a flagship GPU


----------



## iFreilicht

Think about Quad CF when using two Fury X2 cards on mDTX for a second.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Think about Quad CF when using two Fury X2 cards on mDTX for a second.


You'll need quite a massive PSU to power those though.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I'm sure it's fine. There are 600W SFX units. That's enough, right?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> As sweet as the Fury sounds. I am waiting to see how the Nano is. Fit that bad boy in a case only as deep as the motherboard, and make the GPU nice and thin since it should actually accommodate a 1 slot I/O bracket and water-block.
> Granted, the Fury is still pretty short for a flagship GPU


Nano = 290X + 200GB/s - 100W. At least if AMD's claims of doubled efficiency over Hawaii are true.

Fury is short because HBM is magic. There are four HBM dies on the package at 8Gb each. Something like a 980Ti or 390X, on the other hand, requires 12 or 16 memory packages more like 2-4Gb each spread out all over the PCB.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I'm sure it's fine. There are 600W SFX units. That's enough, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nano = 290X + 200GB/s - 100W. At least if AMD's claims of doubled efficiency over Hawaii are true.
> 
> Fury is short because HBM is magic. There are four HBM dies on the package at 8Gb each. Something like a 980Ti or 390X, on the other hand, requires 12 or 16 memory packages more like 2-4Gb each spread out all over the PCB.


Not sure whether 600W would be enough. I'd certainly hope so, though.

Both are quite strange in comparison to regular DIMMs or SO-DIMMs. They have eight chips that each store 2, 4 or 8 Gbit, so when one byte is requested, every chip contributes one bit to the whole byte, or at least that's how I learned it. But with HBM and GDDR, it seems like a single chip stores bytes instead of bits, and because GPUs need a lot of data in short time, they all alternate inside the address space.
So with HBM, when 4 bytes are requested, every chip contributes one of them. Can somebody confirm or deny that? That would be really interesting.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I'm sure it's fine. There are 600W SFX units. That's enough, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nano = 290X + 200GB/s - 100W. At least if AMD's claims of doubled efficiency over Hawaii are true.
> 
> Fury is short because HBM is magic. There are four HBM dies on the package at 8Gb each. Something like a 980Ti or 390X, on the other hand, requires 12 or 16 memory packages more like 2-4Gb each spread out all over the PCB.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure whether 600W would be enough. I'd certainly hope so, though.
> 
> Both are quite strange in comparison to regular DIMMs or SO-DIMMs. They have eight chips that each store 2, 4 or 8 Gbit, so when one byte is requested, every chip contributes one bit to the whole byte, or at least that's how I learned it. But with HBM and GDDR, it seems like a single chip stores bytes instead of bits, and because GPUs need a lot of data in short time, they all alternate inside the address space.
> So with HBM, when 4 bytes are requested, every chip contributes one of them. Can somebody confirm or deny that? That would be really interesting.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know exactly how it works(been a while since I read up on this stuff), but my understanding is that the data width is what gets requested, and it comes in parallel. So with HBM, the GPU requests a "page" of memory and 4096 bits come in, some from each die. I would imagine being able to have RAID 0-like access to data is optimistic, as sometimes all needed data resides on one chip/die. I'm sure there's a way to optimize it.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I honestly don't know exactly how it works(been a while since I read up on this stuff), but my understanding is that the data width is what gets requested, and it comes in parallel. So with HBM, the GPU requests a "page" of memory and 4096 bits come in, some from each die. I would imagine being able to have RAID 0-like access to data is optimistic, as sometimes all needed data resides on one chip/die. I'm sure there's a way to optimize it.


`

Ah, that would make sense as well. I'm not that big into shader programming, so I don't really know a lot about that, but in most cases, you want to execute a single function on a lot of data (called SIMD, which means executing the same function in parallel, modern GPUs have thousands of small cores), so it would make sense to fetch that data in parallel as well. I think with something as large as a page, it's not too far-fetched that AMD would make sure that all four dies are utilised at all times to maximise bandwidth.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I'm sure it's fine. There are 600W SFX units. That's enough, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nano = 290X + 200GB/s - 100W. At least if AMD's claims of doubled efficiency over Hawaii are true.


Theory and practice aren't always the same.
Quote:


> Fury is short because HBM is magic. There are four HBM dies on the package at 8Gb each. Something like a 980Ti or 390X, on the other hand, requires 12 or 16 memory packages more like 2-4Gb each spread out all over the PCB.


I know that already, thank you.


----------



## epic1337

i wouldn't mind seeing Fury having a longer Air Cooler than the PCB, in actual practice such a design ends up cooling better to boot.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i wouldn't mind seeing Fury having a longer Air Cooler than the PCB, in actual practice such a design ends up cooling better to boot.


Don't worry. Board partners are allowed to design their own Fury coolers, though Fury X is reference cooler only (like the 690, Titan, Titan Black, Titan X, Titan Z, and 295X2 in recent years) to my understanding.

Speaking of Fiji, turns out the R9 Nano is a fully-enabled Fiji core. 4096 shaders, 175W typical board power, and unknown frequencies ("low" is a good bet) and pricing ("high," especially if they bin top-tier dies) for the time being. Anand finally got their review out, and it's very extensive.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Don't worry. Board partners are allowed to design their own Fury coolers, though Fury X is reference cooler only (like the 690, Titan, Titan Black, Titan X, Titan Z, and 295X2 in recent years) to my understanding.
> 
> Speaking of Fiji, turns out the R9 Nano is a fully-enabled Fiji core. 4096 shaders, 175W typical board power, and unknown frequencies ("low" is a good bet) and pricing ("high," especially if they bin top-tier dies) for the time being. Anand finally got their review out, and it's very extensive.


thats good.

as for Nano, i'm betting clock is around 800Mhz with very low voltages, 0.9v or even less.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Don't worry. Board partners are allowed to design their own Fury coolers, though Fury X is reference cooler only (like the 690, Titan, Titan Black, Titan X, Titan Z, and 295X2 in recent years) to my understanding.
> 
> Speaking of Fiji, turns out the R9 Nano is a fully-enabled Fiji core. 4096 shaders, 175W typical board power, and unknown frequencies ("low" is a good bet) and pricing ("high," especially if they bin top-tier dies) for the time being. Anand finally got their review out, and it's very extensive.


Hm, not so keen on the R9 Nanos board power, that's a 20% increase in comparison to the GTX970. Hopefully it will redeem itself in some regard, else AMD will have a hard time selling that card.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Hm, not so keen on the R9 Nanos board power, that's a 20% increase in comparison to the GTX970. Hopefully it will redeem itself in some regard, else AMD will have a hard time selling that card.


well, it should be faster than 970, from what they say its faster than 390X still. in terms of perf/watt it would be better than 970.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Hm, not so keen on the R9 Nanos board power, that's a 20% increase in comparison to the GTX970. Hopefully it will redeem itself in some regard, else AMD will have a hard time selling that card.


But that's 175W with all shaders enabled. It's basically two Tonga dies duct taped together in some regards. If typical power consumption is <200W, then they're pretty close to Maxwell in performance/watt, possibly higher. As it stands, the Fury X trails a few percentage points in both power consumption and overall performance compared to the 980Ti so any efficiency boost is welcome.


----------



## BirdofPrey

AMD has had had issues with having higher power consumption than competetors for a while now


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> AMD has had had issues with having higher power consumption than competetors for a while now


its the trend of dumping more compute units as against making them more efficient instead (higher IPC in CPU speak).

reminds me of Fermi GPUs, now those caused global warming.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Fermi didn't have too many compute units IIRC. GF110 and GF100 both had 512 CUDA cores tops (though only 480 could be enabled on GF100 due to terrible yields). They were also very complex cores compared to AMD's TeraScale cores. Somewhere in-between a Xeon Phi's CPU cores and a current GPU's stream processors in some sense.


----------



## epic1337

well yeah, but on the node process it was on the brink of having too much compute units.
the issue it had was that it has complex cores which is pretty hot by themselves.

TeraScale cores though is like basic compute units with barely any logic in them, simplicity in huge quantities.

right now the issue is that, they're using a lot more complex compute units than before and still cramming lots and lots of it.
edit: if we relate it to intel's CPU i guess its that they shouldn't clock them so high, lower the voltage a tad too, that is if they're still planning on cramming even more compute units.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> well, it should be faster than 970, from what they say its faster than 390X still. in terms of perf/watt it would be better than 970.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> But that's 175W with all shaders enabled. It's basically two Tonga dies duct taped together in some regards. If typical power consumption is <200W, then they're pretty close to Maxwell in performance/watt, possibly higher. As it stands, the Fury X trails a few percentage points in both power consumption and overall performance compared to the 980Ti so any efficiency boost is welcome.


Let's hope you are right. If the Nano can outperform the 970 that would be pretty great already. If it then also had a better performance/watt ratio than the 970, then we've got ourselves a new ITX king! Not to mention the fact that it's reference design is very short already, so we'll hopefully see a lot of ITX variants of this one.

Sorry for derailing


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I wonder if we will ever see a true single-slot air cooled card again? I really liked the look of the Radeon 4850, the VRM "pins" looked cool.


Anyone know what the practical TDP limit of a single-slot cooler is?


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I wonder if we will ever see a true single-slot air cooled card again? I really liked the look of the Radeon 4850, the VRM "pins" looked cool.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know what the practical TDP limit of a single-slot cooler is?


Your wish has been granted! (No, seriously, single slot 750Ti)

So apparently, 75W is doable.


----------



## Nukemaster

The 4850 had a 100ish watt rating(110 from Techpowerup)

I think the 2 slots just became common and make less noise in most cases.

Mid level cards should be able to get single slot for sure.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukemaster*
> 
> The 4850 had a 100ish watt rating(110 from Techpowerup)
> 
> I think the 2 slots just became common and make less noise in most cases.
> 
> Mid level cards should be able to get single slot for sure.


Yeah 2 slots allow the cooler to have a lot more surface area.

I guess everything that can be made low-profile could also be made single-slot, but the demand for low-profile seems to be way higher than that for single-slot. Single-slot cards have their own challenges as well, now that they're not so commonly used anymore. Just getting a blower that thin is hard enough.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Yeah 2 slots allow the cooler to have a lot more surface area.
> 
> I guess everything that can be made low-profile could also be made single-slot, but the demand for low-profile seems to be way higher than that for single-slot. Single-slot cards have their own challenges as well, now that they're not so commonly used anymore. Just getting a blower that thin is hard enough.


you could get a reasonably thick blower if you overhang it outside the PCB, use a backplate as the mounting point for example.
the entire 1slot PCI width is ~20mm including the PCB thickness, so you can easily use a 20mm thick blower.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> you could get a reasonably thick blower if you overhang it outside the PCB, use a backplate as the mounting point for example.
> the entire 1slot PCI width is ~20mm including the PCB thickness, so you can easily use a 20mm thick blower.


Like the reference 970, but single slot?



I could see something like that working well, especially if it had intake holes on both sides of the blower, to help with SLI/CF setups.


----------



## Runamok81

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Not sure whether 600W would be enough. I'd certainly hope so, though.


If 600W isn't enough, the new Silverstone 700W SFX-L PSU has two PCIe connectors and was specifically engineered with SLI/Crossfire in mind. Once that PSU lands, we just need one of the big four motherboard manufacturers to step up to the place and produce a modern mini DTX board and we'd all have a shot at producing something that could rival Project Quantum and it's "yet be released" dual GPU Fury card for the pound-for-pound crown. ASRock, where are you? No Mini DTX love?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

How bad does the SFX-L break compatibility with most ITX cases? Most of the ones I can think of should be alright.

Still, 700W in something that size is just preposterous. Dual GPUs should be easily doable.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> How bad does the SFX-L break compatibility with most ITX cases? Most of the ones I can think of should be alright.
> 
> Still, 700W in something that size is just preposterous. Dual GPUs should be easily doable.


ehhh... dual 300W GPU is risky tho, nevermind overclocking.


----------



## Runamok81

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> ehhh... dual 300W GPU is risky tho, nevermind overclocking.


Big risk, big reward! The 980Ti's pull 250W, Fury X's pull 275W. It's doable, right? Even with a little overclocking. Just have to not go crazy with accessories and use an Atom processor. J/k


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

As long as the 700W unit is truly capable of delivering 700W, there should be no issues pulling that kind of power from it.


----------



## Aibohphobia

The SX700-LPT can do all 700W on the 12V (unless they've changed the spec between prototype and production): http://www.overclock.net/t/1557585/techpowerup-silverstone-ready-with-a-700-watt-sfx-l-power-supply/20_20#post_23984023

Under typical loads the Fury X draws a little under 300W DC, but it can go up to 430W DC running FurMark: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/29.html


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> Under typical loads the Fury X draws a little under 300W DC, but it can go up to 430W DC running FurMark: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/29.html


lol.

Furmark + crossfire Fury X + 700W PSU = summon fireball


----------



## Allanitomwesh

That 700W platinum PSU is gonna be winner.


----------



## fleetfeather

700W SFX is gonna be ugly, IMHO


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Wat? Y? You can run anything on that power. Over clocked even


----------



## Allanitomwesh

Wat? Y? You can run anything on that power. Over clocked even


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> 700W SFX is gonna be ugly, IMHO


How so?


----------



## Runamok81

He probably means good ugly.









So, PCPer just did an SLI/Crossfire scaling comparison between a pair of 980 ti's and Fury X's... and it turns out that the Fury X's scaled better! So... while a single 980Ti will edge out a single Fury X in performance, the opposite is true when running in pairs. AMD edges out nVidia. Seems that AMD has been doing some heads-down driver work. Interesting.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

AMD's most recent two GPUs seems to have generally better crossfire scaling. The problem is that crossfire is a lot less user-friendly than SLI. It breaks a bit too often.


----------



## Runamok81

Zero Point Build
MOBO: ASRock x99e-*d*tx/ac (imaginary)
PSU: Silverstone 700W Platinum SFX-L
GPU: 2x AMD R9 Nano (waterblocked)
CPU: Intel i7 5820 (waterblocked)
RAM: 2x 8GB Transcend VLP DDR4
Case: Smallest possible


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Runamok81*
> 
> Zero Point Build
> MOBO: ASRock x99e-*d*tx/ac (imaginary)
> PSU: Silverstone 700W Platinum SFX-L
> GPU: 2x AMD R9 Nano (waterblocked)
> CPU: Intel i7 5820 (waterblocked)
> RAM: 2x 8GB Transcend VLP DDR4
> Case: Smallest possible


Wouldn't that be awesome! You could even do full-on Fury X's if you had some way to power them!









But alas...


----------



## Allanitomwesh

The cluster**** that is AMD pricing needs to be fixed though. 390X should not be that expensive.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Why not? It's a new series so the price can be reset and 4GB extra is not free. Doubling VRAM on a flagship is usually $100 or so by the way. It's a reasonable price on sale.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Why not? It's a new series so the price can be reset and 4GB extra is not free. Doubling VRAM on a flagship is usually $100 or so by the way. It's a reasonable price on sale.


thats the problem, the extra 4GB costs you some, and is not needed in the least bit.
i mean for example, if they had went with 4GB 390X they could've priced it at $350~$370 depending on AIB cooler.
BUT, that doesn't mean AIB can't do 8GB variants, look at 290X.

my point = those who'd need 8GB can get the 8GB variants, most of us don't so its just a waste.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> thats the problem, the extra 4GB costs you some, and is not needed in the least bit.


Are they? I've heard AMD got a lot of flack for only having 4GB on the Fury X, I don't think 8GB aren't needed at all. Sure, it might be a bit overkill, but I think you can certainly use up ~6GB with seriously demanding games in a single GPU setup.


----------



## jooopaaa

So is there any DTX board that could be made to support dual GPU?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Are they? I've heard AMD got a lot of flack for only having 4GB on the Fury X, I don't think 8GB aren't needed at all. Sure, it might be a bit overkill, but I think you can certainly use up ~6GB with seriously demanding games in a single GPU setup.


but it really isn't, the 290X or 390X isn't fast enough to be of use at 4K that exceeds 4GB VRAM, unless you're very fine with 30FPS.
and to make another point, GTX970 (though excluding the fiasco), GTX980, both 290 and 290X all had 4GB, yet ran fine with what they have.


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jooopaaa*
> 
> So is there any DTX board that could be made to support dual GPU?


If you cut open the back of the 1x slot then any, but the bios may get unhappy with that so maybe bios hack too....


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> If you cut open the back of the 1x slot then any, but the bios may get unhappy with that so maybe bios hack too....


the one from shuttle has two x16, fully supports dual GPU.

there was a build here using that, and a bitfenix prodigy ITX case.


----------



## jooopaaa

That one i've seen, but its too big and ugly, alo too expensive to build in..


----------



## Allanitomwesh

@cynicalunicorn because 8GB 290X overvoltaged is literally the same stuff for $150 less


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jooopaaa*
> 
> That one i've seen, but its too big and ugly, alo too expensive to build in..


Link for anyone who didn't see it yet: http://www.overclock.net/t/1304413/build-log-of-unobtainable-x79-and-crossfire-in-a-white-bitfenix-prodigy

Yeah the prodigy is too damn huge, but you could probably fit the board into other cases if you wanted to. Something in the vein of the SG13, maybe a bit longer, might work. The problem is that the board is pretty old now and it was already determined that it has practically no overclocking capabilities. I wouldn't care too much about that, but it might matter to you.

Also, if you were to go for a smaller case, I don't know how you'd make the WC loop work.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Also, if you were to go for a smaller case, I don't know how you'd make the WC loop work.


my thoughts too, sub 20L case might not be capable of two 240mm rads, probably 120+240mm but its still quite a bit hard to imagine.
2 x GPU + CPU OC on a custom loop won't work well with only a single 240mm rad.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> my thoughts too, sub 20L case might not be capable of two 240mm rads, probably 120+240mm but its still quite a bit hard to imagine.
> 2 x GPU + CPU OC on a custom loop won't work well with only a single 240mm rad.


I think you could do it by aircooling the CPU and using a low-TDP variant. That way you'd be able to sufficiently cool the two GPUs with a 240mm rad. Maybe.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allanitomwesh*
> 
> @cynicalunicorn because 8GB 290X overvoltaged is literally the same stuff for $150 less


$150 less? You can get an 8GB 290X for $280?

That's pretty great if true, but I'm a bit skeptical. I shall check.

Anyway, other reason for the new cards. Same reason the R7 370 is so expensive: the demand is there. I got my first 7850 for $155 after rebate IIRC and my second for $110. That was summer and fall, respectively, of 2013. That GPU was rebranded as the R7 265 and again as the R7 370. The 370's MSRP is $150. That's stupidly high for a three year old GPU. It's a solid card but should not be that expensive. Granted, it comes in 2GB and 4GB varieties now instead of 1GB and 2GB, but still, it's more expensive than it should be.

Let's see, what else? Customers are generally idiots. More VRAM = better GPU. Technically yes, this is true assuming all else is equal, but there's no point to spend extra when it won't be used. RAM is a case of having enough and then seeing zero returns for extra. Enter the GTX 880M. This was in effect a 680/770 with twice the VRAM of its predecessor, the 780M, which itself doubled the 680MX's 2GB. That's right, Nvidia slapped 8GB on a laptop 680 of all things. I have to assume that kind of logic was part of AMD's motive.

And honestly, compared to a lot of doubled-VRAM-version-flagships, Grenada's +4GB seems really reasonable compared to what has happened in the past. Also remember that there haven't been any super awesome sales or price cuts.

I think I had a point to make there. :/ Eh, whatever, go interpret your own.


----------



## gintama7888

FYI you can already run SLI/CF on normal ITX mobo(with M.2) using this method, http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1865546
So maybe you can run triple SLI/CF on mini DTX using same method.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gintama7888*
> 
> FYI you can already run SLI/CF on normal ITX mobo(with M.2) using this method, http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1865546
> So maybe you can run triple SLI/CF on mini DTX using same method.










That is fantastic. What kind of M.2 slots does it work with? My board converts two SATA ports into two PCIe lanes - they aren't directly from the chipset nor the CPU - and the manual claims it won't support anything but SSDs. It looks like the board in the link has dedicated PCIe lanes. Still, it might be worth trying to grab an adapter for the WiFi card. 2.0 x2 is a bit cramped for a GPU after all and it won't fit under the x1 or x4 slots blocked by the current and future GPUs, respectively.

EDIT: Oh yeah, that's crossfire only. Nvidia won't allow SLI with anything short of eight lanes. So it seems AMD and HBM as well as fewer lanes for crossfire make it optimal for uSFF and multiple GPUs.

Oh gawd, imagine a couple dual Furies in there!


----------



## Runamok81

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gintama7888*
> 
> FYI you can already run SLI/CF on normal ITX mobo(with M.2) using this method, http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1865546
> So maybe you can run triple SLI/CF on mini DTX using same method.


Thank you for this!







Very interesting.

The ASRock x99e-itx/ac is one of the few boards that has a Gen3 x4 M.2 slot. So, it looks like this build is possible... maybe

Zero Point Build
MOBO: ASRock x99e-*i*tx/ac (imaginary)
PSU: Silverstone 700W Platinum SFX-L
GPU: 1x AMD R9 Nano (waterblocked) to PCIe 16x slot. 1 x AMD R9 Nano (waterblocked) to M.2 PCIe via wormholev2 method
CPU: Intel i7 5820 (waterblocked)
RAM: 2x 8GB Transcend VLP DDR4
Case: Smallest possible

But is it toooo crazy?


----------



## iFreilicht

Nothings crazy if you execute it well enough







If you can get the funds together, go for it!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

That x4 3.0 M.2 slot just might be the ticket. It would take some hacking but I don't think there would be much of a performance hit.


----------



## fleetfeather

Crossfire lol....


----------



## Runamok81

Some folks in this thread on [H] suggested looking into Bifurcation. And in hindsight, it looks like it was mentioned earlier at the start of this thread. So, is there a reason why no one has tried this? Do we have any successful examples of an mITX board bifurcating a single PCIe x16 into two x8 slots? .

Bifurcation explanation
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/intelligent-systems/maho-bay/core-i7-pcie-slot-bifurcation-demo.html

Example adapter 1 - Supermicro RSC-R2UF-2E8GR 2U



Example adapter 2 - ARC1-PELY423-C7



Intel's Chipset Datasheets show both the Z87 (page 52 here) , and the Z97 (page 52 here) support Bifurcation. I believe the X99 does too, but am trying to confirm. I am Really interested in which mITX board support Bifurcation, anyone have any ideas?

Maybe Bifurcation is more feasible than waiting on a new Mini-DTX board? Heck, it'd be even smaller really.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Z87, Z97, and LGA-2011 do, yes. They all support x8/x8 and x8/x4/x4. I'm not sure if x4/x4/x4/x4 is also an option however.

This doesn't seem any different than what my motherboard is doing now - I've got GPUs in both x16 slots and they're each running at x8 speeds.


----------



## Runamok81

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Z87, Z97, and LGA-2011 do, yes. They all support x8/x8 and x8/x4/x4. I'm not sure if x4/x4/x4/x4 is also an option however.
> 
> This doesn't seem any different than what my motherboard is doing now - I've got GPUs in both x16 slots and they're each running at x8 speeds.


Got it. Understand that it is possible on some boards. My question is which *mITX boards* support this. I haven't seen any examples yet. Any ideas?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Oh, I see. Well, I have no idea, but the Z#7 chipsets, any server chipset (for example C224 or C226 on LGA-1150), or any LGA-2011 board would be a good place to start. I have to assume that, as long as the chipset supports it, bifurcation should work with additional hardware. I have no way of proving this however.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

IIRC there's an electrical requirement to enable the bifurcated lanes. We postulated that ITX boards wouldn't have that signal/trace used so the PCIe lanes would be brought up at 16x only. I don't think anyone ever tested it though.

Something like a PLX lane switch could handle it seamlessly though.


----------



## hartofwave

I have an asus AM1-I it's not 16x but if the adapters are cheap i could wack one in as see if it goes


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

That's probably not going to work. AM1 has a total of I think eight PCIe lanes? Maybe six? They're shared among almost everything - USB 3.0 ports, third SATA port onwards, integrated WiFi, etc. I doubt you'll have any luck on that. Now, if you have an FM2 or FM2+ APU and the A85X or A88X chipset, you might have a shot (I'm not sure if bifurcation is possible at all on A75/A78 and below).


----------



## armourcore9brker

In Intel documentation they state it needs to be implemented in the BIOS. It's not necessarily a hardware thing.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Don't some mITX boards share BIOSes with larger equivalents? Might be something to look into.


----------



## QinX

I've actually been doing some research into PCIe bifurcation for a system I'm looking into building.
What is comes down to is a couple of things.

1) Software support
The BIOS needs to detect to present PCIe device in a valid setup in order to assign the correct addresses to them, this is motherboard manufacturer specific and as some mentioned, should really be that big of a deal seeing as most mATX and larger boards already have it implemented

2) Hardware support
a) CPU Support
The CPU needs to support PCIe bifurcation, eg. it has to be able to assign different PCIe lanes this is implemented on all current Core processors, I'm not sure if AMD support it, but let's be honest it isn't really that interesting on the AMD platorm

b) Motherboard support/Daughterboard support
1 important fact is that each PCIe device needs a reference clocks signal, this signal cannot be split without a dedicated splitter, other than that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot that needs to be done except for routing the 16x lanes to 8x/8x

To check this out I had ordered a SuperMicro "Passive PCie splitter PCB to measure all the PCIe finger a map them vs the official PCIe mapping.
Measurements where taken from SuperMicro RSC-R2UG-2E4E8









I found out that they deviated from the standard in order to get all the signals in, they added extra power as well but other then that there is nothing special to it, the only thing that you are dependent on is BIOS support.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Evidence to suggest AMD APUs support bifurcation:


Exhibit A: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130755&cm_re=a88x-_-13-130-755-_-Product
Exhibit B: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132255&cm_re=a88x-_-13-132-255-_-Product
Exhibit C: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132056&cm_re=a88x-_-13-132-056-_-Product
I'll save you the clicks - all of those have dual 3.0 x16 @ x8 slots. Because only 16 lanes from the CPU (or maybe northbridge?) are PCIe revision 3.0, that means that they must support bifurcation. This is also true of 990FX motherboards, since many of them can run at x16/x0/x16/x0, x16/x0/x8/x8, or x8/x8/x8/x8. The 990FX northbridge controls 38 lanes, while the SB950 southbridge controls just four; there are no lanes controlled by the CPU to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Evidence to suggest AMD APUs support bifurcation:
> 
> 
> Exhibit A: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130755&cm_re=a88x-_-13-130-755-_-Product
> Exhibit B: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132255&cm_re=a88x-_-13-132-255-_-Product
> Exhibit C: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132056&cm_re=a88x-_-13-132-056-_-Product
> I'll save you the clicks - all of those have dual 3.0 x16 @ x8 slots. Because only 16 lanes from the CPU (or maybe northbridge?) are PCIe revision 3.0, that means that they must support bifurcation. This is also true of 990FX motherboards, since many of them can run at x16/x0/x16/x0, x16/x0/x8/x8, or x8/x8/x8/x8. The 990FX northbridge controls 38 lanes, while the SB950 southbridge controls just four; there are no lanes controlled by the CPU to the best of my knowledge.


All modern chips support it, but the issue is with the bios and instructing the CPU to divide the x16 lane into two x8 lanes etc. It was theorized that a mITX board would have this functionality disabled.


----------



## QinX

Getting a motherboard manufacturer on board to release a beta bios for this "feature" might be more feasible then a actual mDTX board. It should be fairly copy paste like for the code. only thing that needs to be done is a PCIe riser splitter with onboard reference clock multiplexer.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

I can't remember if mentioned already but is where a support page we can all sign for this? Something we can sign to show manufactures that there is a want for it?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I figured this thread would be enough, I don't normally see the point in petitions or the like.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I figured this thread would be enough, I don't normally see the point in petitions or the like.


I think it would help to have something less attached to overclock.net, so other forums and places even like Reddit can put their name/interest onto it. Post count doesn't give the best visualization of how many people are actually willing to buy something like this. Petitions do have a lot of power, in fact, on Reddit a petition with 100,000 signings made the CEO leave.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Maybe it's a good idea! I don't have a Reddit account though, would something like change.org make any sense?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> I think it would help to have something less attached to overclock.net, so other forums and places even like Reddit can put their name/interest onto it. Post count doesn't give the best visualization of how many people are actually willing to buy something like this. Petitions do have a lot of power, in fact, on Reddit a petition with 100,000 signings made the CEO leave.


She was an interim CEO. She was already going to leave at some point. That whole situation was a mess on both sides and I'm not sure there's anything about that that was remotely unbiased. Thanks, Internet.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Maybe it's a good idea! I don't have a Reddit account though, would something like change.org make any sense?


Online petitions don't often work well. You'd be better off getting /r/pcmasterrace to bombard some poor company - ASRock or ECS seem like good options - with requests to release a board like this.

Hmm, perhaps ASUS or MSI or any other company with a big gaming label would like to have the first SLI-capable "mITX" board. Play them off against each other, lol.


----------



## jtd871

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Hmm, perhaps ASUS or MSI or any other company with a big gaming label would like to have the first SLI-capable "mITX" board. Play them off against each other, lol.


If that doesn't get a ROG "bifurcated" mITX or dual x8 mDTX started at ASUS, I don't know what will.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> She was an interim CEO. She was already going to leave at some point. That whole situation was a mess on both sides and I'm not sure there's anything about that that was remotely unbiased. Thanks, Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Online petitions don't often work well. You'd be better off getting /r/pcmasterrace to bombard some poor company - ASRock or ECS seem like good options - with requests to release a board like this.
> 
> Hmm, perhaps ASUS or MSI or any other company with a big gaming label would like to have the first SLI-capable "mITX" board. Play them off against each other, lol.


Why not try though? Why would OCN be the only place to talk about it and hope someone notices? Why not go broader if it's something we really want. What do we lose if we make a petition like on change.org? Get what I'm saying? Worth a shot.


----------



## Runamok81

For news, Ozymandias on [H] did confirm that his ASRock X99 mITX board DID HAVE a bifurcation option. He also pointed out that an ASRock tech rep corroborated bifurcation support for only the X99 board here.

So, I don't think any Z97 BIOSes have that option yet, and I agree. The view count of this thread probably won't motivate the ASRock BIOS engineers to get out of bed. But not sure a change.org petition is the right forum either. I think CrystalUnicorn actually had the best idea by convincing Reddit's /r/PCMasterRace to brigade ASRock.


*Reserved Shia


----------



## armourcore9brker

I like that... CrystalUnicorn.









Anyone want to go out and buy the ASRock mITX X99 to be a guinea pig? I'd be willing to pitch in for science purposes!


----------



## epic1337

full DTX can support 4dimms too, probably 8dimms if you squeeze things tight.

but none the less, these boards can be made cheaper than flex-ATX (shorter version of matx).
so form factors like these should be standardized as the cheapest option, while also catering to enthusiast via 2 x16 slots and so on.
i just hope they'd put the x16 on the 2nd slot, and an x1 on the first slot to give more room.



intel seriously needs to integrate a NIC in their chipsets, well at least on their mainstream and high-end chipsets (e.g. H97,Z97,Q97,etc. so that excludes B85 and H81).
this would get rid of the add-on NICs to save more PCB space, plus we'd get an intel NIC instead of a realtek NIC.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Actually, with Skylake, it hardly matters. PCIe 3.0 x16 from the CPU is your main slot. PCIe 3.0 x8 from the chipset is the second slot. And that leaves 12 lanes for, say, M.2 SSDs or USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt or gigabit Ethernet... Basically, Z170 offers almost five times the PCIe bandwidth that Z87/97 does, discounting the CPU entirely.


----------



## timerwin63

Did anyone ever find out if those PCIe splitters worked? (The one mentioned in *this* post.)

I'd love to get one of these and design my scratch build around it, I think it could be a really interesting experiment.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Actually, with Skylake, it hardly matters. PCIe 3.0 x16 from the CPU is your main slot. PCIe 3.0 x8 from the chipset is the second slot. And that leaves 12 lanes for, say, M.2 SSDs or USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt or gigabit Ethernet... Basically, Z170 offers almost five times the PCIe bandwidth that Z87/97 does, discounting the CPU entirely.


i don't think that applies to the lower end chipsets though, they have less lanes from what i see.

still, an x1 (or x8 with open back, if those exists) on the 1st slot, and an x16 (CPU lanes) on the 2nd slot makes for the best space saving configuration.
you can easily put the chipset right behind the 1st slot directly on top of the x16, with the chipset being adjacent to the CPU it gets a mild breeze from the CPU HSF.
on that note, i wonder if placing the chipset closer to CPU helps in latency in some way, thats something worth looking into...

plus an integrated NIC on the chipset still does save some PCB space, they could do it in SoCs, so why can't they do it in desktop chipsets?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I thought Skylake had 20 lanes on the CPU?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Still 16 best I can tell. All about dat chipset yo, for a nice 36 lanes total. Tom's had a thing on it, let me find it.

EDIT: Okay, cool. So unlike previous gens where it was eight on everything (except H81, which is terrible), they've actually switched it up a bit here:










H110 is _still_ absolute garbage in that regard, but H170 and up will allow for 3-way SLI in theory. Z170, Q170, and the server chipsets of course that offer bifurcation will allow _4-way_ SLI. I recommend you pair a Celeron with four Titan Xes since the option is now there!









This is actually a really nice set of features and I/O. Biggest improvement in a long time.

EDIT 2: Am dumb, forgot link.


----------



## Aibohphobia

What's the bandwidth of the link between the chipset and the CPU?

The X99 chipset has more available connections than it has bandwidth to the CPU so not all of them could be used at once.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Skylake is using DMI 3.0 - Direct Media Interface - meaning 8GT/s (giga-transfers per second). I'm not entirely clear on what the actual bandwidth is however. DMI 1.0 ran at 10Gb/s bidirectional using "an x4 link," and I am not sure what that means. DMI 2.0 ran at double the speed, again, an x4 link but this time at twice the transfer rate. DMI 3.0 I would assume doubles it a second time for 40Gb/s, but I honestly do not know. I'm looking into it, but northbridge-southbridge interfaces don't seem to need too much bandwidth. AMD's 990FX platform runs at 20Gb/s using four PCIe 2.0 links to compare.

EDIT: Ah yesh. Looks like I'm right:

Quote:


> Details on the chipset's CPU interconnect are conspicuously absent from the slides, but that component is surely due for an upgrade, as well. The DMI 2.0 link in 9-series chipsets is based on four PCIe Gen2 lanes with just 20 Gbps of bandwidth. I'd expect at least a Gen3 boost-if not additional lanes-to service the upgraded I/O in 100-series chipsets.


(Source)

So that basically confirms it's an interconnect using quad PCIe lanes. Quick explanation for how that works. There's a transfer rate, and there's an encoding. PCIe 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 are 2.5GT/s, 5GT/s, 8GT/s, and 16GT/s, respectively, yet each double bandwidth each time. That's due to encoding. 1.1 to 2.0 and 3.0 to 4.0 are simple: double the transfer rate. But 2.0 to 3.0 is a bit different.

They use different encoding when sending data across a link. For 1.1 and 2.0, it was 8b/10b, meaning 10b are sent for every usable byte, and 20% of the bandwidth is "wasted." My best guess is that it's sort of like RAID 5 or 6, where you have parity, so if one bit is corrupted, you still get a packet successfully sent. Finding the bandwidth is pretty easy. 2.5GT/s * 8b/10b * 1B/8b = 0.25GB/s = 250MB/s. Double it for 2.0 (2.5GT/s -> 5GT/s) to 500MB/s. PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 on the other hand use 128b/130b encoding, meaning for every 16 *bytes* sent, only 2 bits are "wasted." Calculation for that is 8GT/s * 128b/130b * 1B/8b = 0.985GB/s = 985MB/s. It's not quite double PCIe 2.0, but it's close enough for most purposes.

So because DMI 2.0 is based on a PCIe 2.0 x4 connection, and because Skylake's chipset is 1) upgraded to PCIe 3.0 and 2) its DMI link runs at the same 8GT/s, I have to assume that the DMI 3.0 link is simply a PCIe 3.0 x4 connection running at 3940MB/s = 3.94GB/s = 39.4Gb/s.


----------



## Runamok81

Looks like one of the ASRock BIOS engineers got out of bed.
*New X99 Beta BIOS here*.















http://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=525&title=pcie-bifurcation-support-on-x99eitx


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Runamok81*
> 
> Looks like one of the ASRock BIOS engineers got out of bed.
> *New X99 Beta BIOS here*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=525&title=pcie-bifurcation-support-on-x99eitx


Oh wow, very exciting!


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

It's happening!









For those keeping score at home, that means three GPUs if you use the M.2 slot as well.

Not sure if there's a 3-slot mITX case ot there, but hey.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> It's happening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those keeping score at home, that means three GPUs if you use the M.2 slot as well.
> 
> Not sure if there's a 3-slot mITX case ot there, but hey.


The M1, Nova X2M, and some others (don't have a huge list) have 3 slots. The Nova is huge, so that doesn't really count, though.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timerwin63*
> 
> The M1, Nova X2M, and some others (don't have a huge list) have 3 slots. The Nova is huge, so that doesn't really count, though.


The M1 is too small for a dual GPU system though, not enough radiator space.

Edit: Maybe if you air cool the CPU and only use a dual rad with slim fans for the GPU's it might be possible. But then you're limited to a max. 700W SFX PSU which would kill overclocking potential with high end hardware.


----------



## Aibohphobia

But if you go too much larger than the M1 then you might as well go microATX.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> But if you go too much larger than the M1 then you might as well go microATX.


I disagree. There are several reasons to go with a somewhat larger ITX box. Watercooling, ease of use/maintenance, aesthetics (it's hard to put a pleasing window on something the size of the M1 without some serious modding). Not everything has to be pure function over form.


----------



## Runamok81

Bifurcation confirmed!.

Congratulation to chemist_slime on [H], here.
Late last night, he tested the new X99 beta BIOS provided by ASRock and he became the first known example of an individual running bifurcated GPU on an mITX board.

Thank you ASRock! Thank you chemist_slime!

I believe this will usher in a new round of creative dual GPU mITX builds!


----------



## Allanitomwesh

NOVA is technically an mATX chassis. I would love something < 30L that has 5 slots. The nova is a bit too, what's the word here, enthusiasty?


----------



## hartofwave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Runamok81*
> 
> Bifurcation confirmed!.
> 
> Congratulation to chemist_slime on [H], here.
> Late last night, he tested the new X99 beta BIOS provided by ASRock and he became the first known example of an individual running bifurcated GPU on an mITX board.
> 
> Thank you ASRock! Thank you chemist_slime!
> 
> I believe this will usher in a new round of creative dual GPU mITX builds!


HYPE!


----------



## Allanitomwesh

The Z170 ITX/ac looks like more of the same.


----------



## armourcore9brker

The only thing I am excited for in Z170 are the USB 3.1 Gen2 Type-C connectors. All the boards this generation are meh and most have a laughable amount of USB ports on the back.


----------



## hartofwave

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13288
Single slot itx GPU, now you just need the poxy board to put 2 in


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> The only thing I am excited for in Z170 are the USB 3.1 Gen2 Type-C connectors. All the boards this generation are meh and most have a laughable amount of USB ports on the back.


You fill up every single USB port?


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> You fill up every single USB port?


I thought everyone did










Even had to bring 2 more to the back, but that is because this board only has 6 on the back. I also have a hub with the mouse/keyboard/card reader/wireless keyboard(not that it gets used much, but having its receiver away from the computer has to be good.)


----------



## epic1337

you have way too much USB suffs...


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Printer
UPS
Keyboard
Mouse
Passthough cable
Passthough cable
Speakers
PS4 controller
That's all eight. My printer is at home and I ditched the speakers, so I have two whole ports free now in the back.


----------



## Aibohphobia

For me it's usually 6 on the back:

Mouse
Trackball
Keyboard
Numpad (keyboard is 10-keyless)
USB DAC
UPS (for status monitoring)

and sometimes a 3D mouse and other peripherals, so I've occasionally run out of ports.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hartofwave*
> 
> http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13288
> Single slot itx GPU, now you just need the poxy board to put 2 in


Hnngg.exe


----------



## BirdofPrey

Hideous.
How long till EK has a waterblock for the nano (regardless, don't get a Nano to save on GPU length, only get it to save on power, and possibly save space on a smaller PSU)


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Hideous.
> How long till EK has a waterblock for the nano (regardless, don't get a Nano to save on GPU length, only get it to save on power, and possibly save space on a smaller PSU)


Um, why not? If I only wanted good power to performance rate, I could buy a 970 as well. Heck if I only wanted to save on GPU length, I could buy a 970.
The only reason to get a Nano is if you need/want an ITX card but the 970 isn't strong enough for you.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Um, why not? If I only wanted good power to performance rate, I could buy a 970 as well. Heck if I only wanted to save on GPU length, I could buy a 970.
> The only reason to get a Nano is if you need/want an ITX card but the 970 isn't strong enough for you.


i still find GTX980 better for that purpose, some GTX980 aren't much longer than ITX length (170mm).
even Fury might look much more promising.

Nano is only efficient if you let it stay at stock clocks, overclock it and you'd end up the same as Fury X.
binned for their less leaky parts also means they aren't good overclockers.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Um, why not? If I only wanted good power to performance rate, I could buy a 970 as well. Heck if I only wanted to save on GPU length, I could buy a 970.
> The only reason to get a Nano is if you need/want an ITX card but the 970 isn't strong enough for you.


Because, if your system can handle the additional power draw, you might as well get the more powerful part since its only an inch and a half longer and costs the same.

The Fury X overhangs an ITX board by less than an inch, which is extremely minor, so I don't see the point of getting the actual ITX size based on the size of the PCB.
The additional heat production and power draw (which could, potentially limit your choices of small, but powerful PSUs) and the bulk of the AIO and fact it takes up one of what is likely to be a limited number of fan slots is much more relevant.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Because, if your system can handle the additional power draw, you might as well get the more powerful part since its only an inch and a half longer and costs the same.
> 
> The Fury X overhangs an ITX board by less than an inch, which is extremely minor, so I don't see the point of getting the actual ITX size based on the size of the PCB.
> The additional heat production and power draw (which could, potentially limit your choices of small, but powerful PSUs) and the bulk of the AIO and fact it takes up one of what is likely to be a limited number of fan slots is much more relevant.


Maybe strange to say anywhere else but on OCN, including me, a lot of people care about aesthetics (you can imagine). Having the GPU overhang the ITX board is ugly, IMO.


----------



## m_jones_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Maybe strange to say anywhere else but on OCN, including me, a lot of people care about aesthetics (you can imagine). Having the GPU overhang the ITX board is ugly, IMO.


Having the pci-e power come out of the back is way more ugly.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m_jones_*
> 
> Having the pci-e power come out of the back is way more ugly.


You mean front? I love that, wish more cards did it that way actually. Plus I can hide the cable easier than hiding the size of a larger card. Too each his own I suppose.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i still find GTX980 better for that purpose, some GTX980 aren't much longer than ITX length (170mm).
> even Fury might look much more promising.
> 
> Nano is only efficient if you let it stay at stock clocks, overclock it and you'd end up the same as Fury X.
> binned for their less leaky parts also means they aren't good overclockers.


I would like to see those 980s. There are quite a few cases that don't allow for GPUs longer than 180mm where the Nano is the fastest card you can fit in.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> Because, if your system can handle the additional power draw, you might as well get the more powerful part since its only an inch and a half longer and costs the same.
> 
> The Fury X overhangs an ITX board by less than an inch, which is extremely minor, so I don't see the point of getting the actual ITX size based on the size of the PCB.
> The additional heat production and power draw (which could, potentially limit your choices of small, but powerful PSUs) and the bulk of the AIO and fact it takes up one of what is likely to be a limited number of fan slots is much more relevant.


Well but it also has a 120mm closed loop rad attached that one might not have space for. And the Nano is actually shorter and has its power connector on the front, which has additional spatial benefits.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> You mean front? I love that, wish more cards did it that way actually. Plus I can hide the cable easier than hiding the size of a larger card. Too each his own I suppose.


I think it's an awesome feature as well. Because the Nano is even shorter than an ITX board, it allows it can be used in cases that don't have space for the power connectors on the top of the card. You can save a good inch of height there.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I would like to see those 980s. There are quite a few cases that don't allow for GPUs longer than 180mm where the Nano is the fastest card you can fit in.


no sadly the shortest 980 PCB is still 10inch in length. they do fit inside the majority of ITX cases though.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I still want to see a "chopped" SG05 where the case is only as deep as required by the mDTX board. Something like 7" x 8" x 5"


----------



## armourcore9brker

Isn't that was a CM 110 is?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *armourcore9brker*
> 
> Isn't that was a CM 110 is?


Kinda, but it's still too big.


----------



## Gilles3000

Actually,
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I still want to see a "chopped" SG05 where the case is only as deep as required by the mDTX board. Something like 7" x 8" x 5"


A dremel and some J-B Weld should do the trick.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Actually,
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I still want to see a "chopped" SG05 where the case is only as deep as required by the mDTX board. Something like 7" x 8" x 5"
> 
> 
> 
> A dremel and some J-B Weld should do the trick.
Click to expand...

The case itself would be easy, but I couldn't do the outer cover without it looking like hell.

I'm thinking about giving SketchUp a try, I want to visualize an SG05 as deep as the board and as tall as the PCIe slot bracket. Literally as small as the PCBs will allow. Looking at tiny cases is just about the only thing that can give me satisfaction in life, yes I have a problem.


----------



## MiiX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> The case itself would be easy, but I couldn't do the outer cover without it looking like hell.
> 
> I'm thinking about giving SketchUp a try, I want to visualize an SG05 as deep as the board and as tall as the PCIe slot bracket. Literally as small as the PCBs will allow. Looking at tiny cases is just about the only thing that can give me satisfaction in life, yes I have a problem.


Like this? Did something half-assed a while ago...



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Yeah! If you're willing to constrain yourself on certain aspects of the build (like requiring an AIO or a super low profile HSF) it's easy to solve out the wasted space. Move that SFX PSU as far down and to the left on that render, and I bet a 140mm rad could fit up top. Something like a modded AIO loop with two Fury Nanos side-by-side in that case would be epic.


----------



## phantommaggot

This could be nice if set up right.
Ribbon cables to run 2 r9 fury x or Nanos in crossfire with a DanA4 case style setup... (GPUs mounted vertically against the back of the motherboard tray.)
That would be SWEET. Just saying.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







I wasn't aware of this DAN case. Very interesting. Right off the bat, I can see stretching the width to allow for a top-mount 240mm rad. That would be enough rad for two cards. The CPU can stay air cooled without much fuss. Thinking of the fury (nano) cards, there's plenty of room for a pump+res in the front of the case opposite the PSU.

A "bifurcation card" in place of the riser will be a much better chance than a true DTX board at this point....


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of this DAN case. Very interesting. Right off the bat, I can see stretching the width to allow for a top-mount 240mm rad. That would be enough rad for two cards. The CPU can stay air cooled without much fuss. Thinking of the fury (nano) cards, there's plenty of room for a pump+res in the front of the case opposite the PSU.
> 
> A "bifurcation card" in place of the riser will be a much better chance than a true DTX board at this point....


I'm suprised you didn't know about the A4-SFX, it's probably the most anticipated SFF case right now.

There's no space for a top-mount rad if you don't make the case taller as well.
Yeah that's certainly true. I've played with the idea of designing a case that allows such a configuration, maybe via an add-on, but I should finish my current one before doing that sort of thing


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of this DAN case. Very interesting. Right off the bat, I can see stretching the width to allow for a top-mount 240mm rad. That would be enough rad for two cards. The CPU can stay air cooled without much fuss. Thinking of the fury (nano) cards, there's plenty of room for a pump+res in the front of the case opposite the PSU.
> 
> A "bifurcation card" in place of the riser will be a much better chance than a true DTX board at this point....


Came across it a few weeks ago, its a pretty interesting case indeed.
Wonder how much it'll sell for.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I'm suprised you didn't know about the A4-SFX, it's probably the most anticipated SFF case right now.
> 
> There's no space for a top-mount rad if you don't make the case taller as well.
> Yeah that's certainly true. I've played with the idea of designing a case that allows such a configuration, maybe via an add-on, but I should finish my current one before doing that sort of thing


I could see the one in the pictures being the primary one, and a "watercooling edition" with the slight increases in width and height. Very excited to see some builds in it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Came across it a few weeks ago, its a pretty interesting case indeed.
> Wonder how much it'll sell for.


I'm hoping they can hit a reasonable price point. As much as I love it, I can't justify spending more than ~$100 for a case.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I'm suprised you didn't know about the A4-SFX, it's probably the most anticipated SFF case right now.
> 
> There's no space for a top-mount rad if you don't make the case taller as well.
> Yeah that's certainly true. I've played with the idea of designing a case that allows such a configuration, maybe via an add-on, but I should finish my current one before doing that sort of thing


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> I'm suprised you didn't know about the A4-SFX, it's probably the most anticipated SFF case right now.
> 
> There's no space for a top-mount rad if you don't make the case taller as well.
> Yeah that's certainly true. I've played with the idea of designing a case that allows such a configuration, maybe via an add-on, but I should finish my current one before doing that sort of thing


The A4 has completely abandoned the CPU overclocking crowd. It's a SFF case with performance compromises in many areas.


----------



## akromatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> The A4 has completely abandoned the CPU overclocking crowd. It's a SFF case with performance compromises in many areas.


wouldnt call it a compromise, CPU overclocking is over rated anyway. since when once you have a i5/i7 that you need more CPU for gaming.

if anything its still a GPU bottleneck world for games and its not like you can SLI with an ITX system. CPU from 5 years ago are still plenty competent for gaming that performance difference is minimal to current gen.

i like the A4's philosophy being maximize performance at minimal volume. only thing that bugs me is the aspect ratio of the case as it strays from ITX dimensions. i prefer a case that stays within the 20x20cm of the ITX board while not being overly thick and remain visually appealing as it teases the components.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

There's plenty of short coolers than can handle an overclocked CPU. Shoot, I had a 4 GHz i5 cooled fine with this cooler: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835200057

I also ran a 4GHz i7 920 _fanless_ without issues. The obsession over temperatures is not warranted. Anything below Tjmax is 100% fine even for 24/7 use.

Oh yeah, that same i5 also ran without a heatsink at all. The intel thermal monitor is pretty much bulletproof.


----------



## phantommaggot

i7 or no, overclocking is still good for future proofing.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I'm sure an extra 20% CPU power will help delay obsolescense when the platform itself doesn't support current I/O or the CPU can't run current instruction sets.









Overclocking can make hardware faster but it can only do so much to avoid becoming obsolete.


----------



## akromatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phantommaggot*
> 
> i7 or no, overclocking is still good for future proofing.


you buy the right socket for future proofing.

get that x99 itx if you want future proof, you can upgrade the CPU from a 6 core i7 to a 18 core xeon. x58 is proof enough

get matx if you care about IO future proofing, wont have native support but but still give you IO upgrades and potential SLI/CF.

extra 20% OC wont do squat, cpu clock speed is barely the bottleneck. if anything core count becomes increasingly relevant as you do more thing simultaneously


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

While I see what you're saying, I'm not sure I agree. In five years we've gone from 8-core Nehalem-EX (or 4-core on LGA-1366 with an upgrade path to 6 using a node-shrunken Westmere-E(P) chip) to 18-core Haswell-EP/EX on a totally new socket. Five years later, who knows? Intel already has a 72-core Atom, in effect, prepped to launch next year. That's Knights Landing, kind of a hybrid of a GPGPU and a CPU (it _is_ binary-compatible with Haswell after all, but also hits 3TFLOPS in floating-point). You'll still have outdated instruction sets and horribly inefficient, comparatively speaking, architectures five years later.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> The A4 has completely abandoned the CPU overclocking crowd. It's a SFF case with performance compromises in many areas.


And I believe that's a good thing. Too many cases compromise on size to support overclocking, watercooling and larger aircoolers. If you want to overclock, there are tons and tons of good SFF cases for you already. If you don't, you'll have to live with something much larger than you need.
Even in the future, SFF cases by large companies will always fit a lot of hardware and cooling gear. That's where indie case designers come in: They can design cases for a niche audience, they can make compromises that large firms can not. You can't make everyone happy anyway, so you might as well fulfil a few peoples wettest dreams.


----------



## fleetfeather

Overclocking CPU is overrated? You must not play anything in the MMO or RTS genre. Have fun at sub-30fps with your stock 4770k

@iFreilicht, obviously people are free to buy whatever case they want for whatever purpose they want. I'm just saying the A4 is definitely not going to be for everybody in the SFF scene (and for good reason).


----------



## akromatic

MMO and RTS is my primary poison and i dont find that i need more CPU for it, i've 2x i7 3770 and a i5 3570 on all 3 of my asrock z77-e.

MMO benefits more from an SSD and a fast internet connection


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *akromatic*
> 
> MMO and RTS is my primary poison and i dont find that i need more CPU for it, i've 2x i7 3770 and a i5 3570 on all 3 of my asrock z77-e.
> 
> MMO benefits more from an SSD and a fast internet connection


MMO's in particular are well known to benefit from a higher CPU frequency in large scale environments (i.e., end game content), to the point that an overclocked G3258 does better than a locked 4770 for minimum framerate...

Sorry, I'll keep my 4.7ghz in a SG13 over stock in a A4.

Edit: an SSD for framerate!? Absurd. You must be talking about load times


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Claiming that overclocking is _impossible_ because you only have 48mm to fit a CPU cooler is a little bit obtuse. Especially for gaming loads where you're not going to see 100% load on all 4 cores.

With a short GPU, I bet you could fit an AIO rad opposite the PSU. Still, it's a compromise case. I still like my idea of stretching it to allow a 240mm rad up top. If a 3x92mm rad existed, one would fit without anything more than making the case taller, while having similar area to a 240mm. Still, the magic of the case is how small it is, not how big we need to make it to do everything.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Claiming that overclocking is _impossible_ because you only have 48mm to fit a CPU cooler is a little bit obtuse. Especially for gaming loads where you're not going to see 100% load on all 4 cores.
> 
> With a short GPU, I bet you could fit an AIO rad opposite the PSU. Still, it's a compromise case. I still like my idea of stretching it to allow a 240mm rad up top. If a 3x92mm rad existed, one would fit without anything more than making the case taller, while having similar area to a 240mm. Still, the magic of the case is how small it is, not how big we need to make it to do everything.


maybe not 3x92mm, but 2x92mm exists.

one does not need an equivalent surface area to a 240mm rad for a moderate overclock.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I use the R9 295x2 as a good baseline for how much rad area is really needed. If they can move 300-500 watts from an aluminum radiator, it should be easy to do a CPU+GPU on a good copper one.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Keep in mind that the 295X2 also has a fan. Fury X is better. 120mm rad cools a 250W GPU. So that's more than enough for any reasonable CPU. Half that should work, so an 80mm rad, for a quad-core.


----------



## epic1337

120mm rad can handle ~300W load, certain FX-8 users had managed to cool their chips like that.

its not really a wise idea to cram all that power on such a tiny footprint though, since its not only the CPU and GPU that radiates heat.
the chipset, VRMs, DRAMs, M.2 SSDs, and probably the other little tidbits that relies on some airflow would end up overheating.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I use the R9 295x2 as a good baseline for how much rad area is really needed. If they can move 300-500 watts from an aluminum radiator, it should be easy to do a CPU+GPU on a good copper one.


You have used the 290X2 analogy various times in the past, and people have repeatedly told you that it does not translate in the way that you think it does...

I'm not the right person to explain the thermodynamics behind it, but IIRC WiSK previously told you that your thinking is too simplicitic

Also, sorry, I'm not subjecting my chip to load temps in the 80's or 90's just because of intel's tjmax... Heat impacts stability and, over time, transitors


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Keep in mind that the 295X2 also has a fan. Fury X is better. 120mm rad cools a 250W GPU. So that's more than enough for any reasonable CPU. Half that should work, so an 80mm rad, for a quad-core.


Assuming heat transfers well out of an 80mm rad... Which it doesn't due to fin density. And assuming there was a thin 80mm rad on the market, which there isn't


----------



## epic1337

why not just have a 140mm thin rad on top of the CPU socket though? side-exhaust or side-intake.
with a low profile motherboard, you can literally fit it quite well since theres like ~50mm of clearance there.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I use the R9 295x2 as a good baseline for how much rad area is really needed. If they can move 300-500 watts from an aluminum radiator, it should be easy to do a CPU+GPU on a good copper one.
> 
> 
> 
> You have used the 290X2 analogy various times in the past, and people have repeatedly told you that it does not translate in the way that you think it does...
> 
> I'm not the right person to explain the thermodynamics behind it, but IIRC WiSK previously told you that your thinking is too simplicitic
Click to expand...

So the 120mm radiator is for show, and that dinky 90x15mm VRM fan is what moves the 450 watts of heat off the card? The 90 mm fan keeps both cores below 70 C under load? I must really be missing something here. Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but watercooling video cards seems like a waste of money if they're not even going to remove that much heat.


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> You have used the 290X2 analogy various times in the past, and people have repeatedly told you that it does not translate in the way that you think it does...
> 
> I'm not the right person to explain the thermodynamics behind it, but IIRC WiSK previously told you that your thinking is too simplicitic


There are many people with working systems that disagree with you. (a 120mm is enough for a system)

I personally prefer a 240mm rad for my ITX system (290X and OC'ed haswell i5) but that is so I can keep the fans to a minimum as they are right on my desk next to my monitor.

Anyway, a triple 92mm would be enough for a OCed system as a 240mm rad has a surface area of 288cm squared and a triple 92mm 254cm squared - definitely enough


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> @iFreilicht, obviously people are free to buy whatever case they want for whatever purpose they want. I'm just saying the A4 is definitely not going to be for everybody in the SFF scene (and for good reason).


Just like any other thing ever made in the history of everything. Nothing is for everybody.


----------



## iFreilicht

So EdZ from [H] just posted this lovely picture:


Quote:


> Just received a (working, finally) ASrock Z170 Gaming ITX. There is what appears to be an option for PCIe bifurcation in the out-of-the-box (1.0) BIOS.


As you can clearly see, the board allows to natively switch the PCIe lanes on the PCIex16 slot to a x8/x8 configuration, allowing passive riser cards with two PCIex16 slots to be used for SLI or CF.
Now I want to see builds with it


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Very exciting! While I'm not a fan of riser builds (they tend to make cases have a VCR form factor) the ability is absolutely promising for what can be done. Now, did we ever find a bifurcated riser?


----------



## ccRicers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Very exciting! While I'm not a fan of riser builds (they tend to make cases have a VCR form factor) the ability is absolutely promising for what can be done. Now, did we ever find a bifurcated riser?


You mean one like this?


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccRicers*
> 
> You mean one like this?


I was personally thinking of a rigid one, but I can't speak for Dyson there. Electrically, though, that seems to be the exact thing you'd need.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I was imagining a rigid one, for vcr-form-factor cases, but flexible is fine too. Fitting dual GPUs in something like the DAN-A4 would be unsane.


----------



## MunneY

Well... This is a very interesting development....

Now to get the board and the bios.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MunneY*
> 
> Well... This is a very interesting development....
> 
> Now to get the board and the bios.


Yep. The first person to connect two video cards to an ITX board in 8x/8x wins the prize.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Wait, we're offering prizes now?


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Wait, we're offering prizes now?


Yep, the prize!


----------



## armourcore9brker

While looking for a dual-slot spacing passive riser I came across this:



Think it'll work with general systems? I don't know how old it is but this is the first time I've seen it. Might be nice for an AIO system since it offsets the GPUs and makes it so the monitor cable can still fit back there.


----------



## MunneY

If I'm looking at that right it'd be mounted upside down.... so the cards would be hanging downwards


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

You'd likely have issues with mounting them though. It's clearly a server thing. Case mods are doable, but that could get bulky.


----------



## Nukemaster

An activate adapter looks pretty cool.

Not sure how much power it can provide.


----------



## shdd

bumping to show interest.

mDTX will fit in all mITX cases with 2 expansion slots. wtb 2x water cooled r9 nano in my hadron air


----------



## Aibohphobia

LinusTechTips built a crazy system with 7 Nano's and EK made them a custom terminal so the cards could all sit next to each other with single-slot blocks installed:






So now they just to make a 2-way version of that terminal and we'll be all set for Mini-DTX dual-GPU setups.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> So now they just to make a 2-way version of that terminal and we'll be all set for Mini-DTX dual-GPU setups.


No need, you can just use these

http://www.watercoolinguk.co.uk/p/Alphacool-SLI-connection-1-Slot-Black_33420.html


----------



## willemdoom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> No need, you can just use these
> 
> http://www.watercoolinguk.co.uk/p/Alphacool-SLI-connection-1-Slot-Black_33420.html


And a 2 slot sli bridge, that would look so much beter then those big flexible ones


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willemdoom*
> 
> And a 2 slot sli bridge, that would look so much beter then those big flexible ones


Like this one?

http://www.avadirect.com/SLI-Bridge-Single-Slot-20mm/Product/6713995


----------



## willemdoom

nice


----------



## MunneY

Maybe if we tag @EVGA-JacobF over and over.. we can convince them to try it.


----------



## Aibohphobia

They really should. There's almost no reason for anyone to buy the Z170 Stinger considering what they're asking for it. No wireless card (though there is a slot), no M.2 slot, no USB 3.1, no Type-C, etc.

But extend the board a bit, add a second slot and suddenly it'll be very desirable


----------



## Gilles3000

Indeed, it could really give them an edge.

I wonder why every rep we contacted about it seems so hesitant, M-DTX seems like a no-brainer to me.


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Indeed, it could really give them an edge.
> 
> I wonder why every rep we contacted about it seems so hesitant, M-DTX seems like a no-brainer to me.


Because they can't just use the same mobo with a different chipset/socket and occasionally a different colour scheme every year


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MunneY*
> 
> Maybe if we tag @EVGA-JacobF over and over.. we can convince them to try it.


I mentioned it to him a while back, and he said it would be looked into. Honestly, any company that releases an ITX mobo should have no problems with a mDTX one. The extra slot is a selling point with no negatives.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> As cool as it would be I just don't see that happening. Both Asus and EVGA have said that while it should technically be possible it would be cost-prohibitive considering how small a market that would be and the amount of work that would be needed to develop it.
> 
> Socket 2011 is huge and wouldn't leave much room on the board for everything else, even on mini-DTX. Here's a mockup I made a while ago that really shows this.


It would be possible to put the RAM slots on the other side of the motherboard using the laptop style sticks. That would allow to still use quad channel memory in such a small from factor. Downside would be ofc that it's practically impossible to access these slots without taking the whole system apart. But it's not unheard ofc - if I remember correct select few motherboards have used M2 SSD slots "under" the motherboard. It would fit as in vast majority of cases the motherboard standoffs are at least 6 mm.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> It would be possible to put the RAM slots on the other side of the motherboard using the laptop style sticks. That would allow to still use quad channel memory in such a small from factor. Downside would be ofc that it's practically impossible to access these slots without taking the whole system apart. But it's not unheard ofc - if I remember correct select few motherboards have used M2 SSD slots "under" the motherboard. It would fit as in vast majority of cases the motherboard standoffs are at least 6 mm.


Or just use the Narrow ILM mount like asrock did, they even got a full size m.2 on top.


----------



## KaffieneKing

I'd use laptop RAM if it meant I could have quad channel, and m.2. Slot on the back is probably better than the front as it can often be accessed by the CPU cutout hole.

Also with support using EK supremacy and corsair AIOs I'd say that narrow mounting was okay if it was necessary.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Or just use the Narrow ILM mount like asrock did, they even got a full size m.2 on top.


On the front side seems silly. No reason it can't be on the back like a lot of 9-series boards.

It should be feasible with a smaller chipset heatsink. Or rather, a taller heatsink. Or something with fans. It's a 6.5W TDP processor, meaning it's not that hard to cool. With SODIMMs, it might just be possible to have quad-channel memory, but man does it look difficult. ASRock's mITX board is more silver solder than black PCB.


----------



## Carniflex

To be fair, however, size wise a small mATX case is approximately same size as larger ITX cases. So the niche for DTX LGA2011 motherboard is rather small probably. Meaning rather harsh price tag because of low volume and combine that with the hard compromises needed to "make it work" and all the sudden it's a lot of risk for any company to put out. Perhaps an enthusiast oriented dual socket LGA 2011 capable of over-clocking Xeons (SR-2 refresh) might have a better probability of breaking even the development costs, at least it would be unique.

With DTX LGA2011 one would be looking in something like 300+ $ board vs ~200$ and only approx 50 mm larger in the mATX boards.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Perhaps. But ASRock's mITX board is only like $250. That's actually a pretty good price. Add in another PCIe slot, run some traces, maybe even relocate some components now that there's more space. It shouldn't be that difficult in practice.


----------



## jtd871

I've been away for awhile, but has anybody compiled a list of mDTX-like mobos (i.e., 2 slots)?

I've run across a new Shuttle H170 mobo with PCIe 3.0 [email protected] and [email protected] - the FH170 in the SH170R6. Details here and here.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I almost reported your post instead of hitting the rep button.







Nice find! Unfortunately it's full size DTX (9.6" wide) and not mini DTX (6.7"). Still, I'm sure it can be used in some of the larger mITX cases out there with minimal modification.

Wait... Doesn't AMD support crossfire across x4 slots? I smell a 2x Fury X2!


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I almost reported your post instead of hitting the rep button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice find! Unfortunately it's full size DTX (9.6" wide) and not mini DTX (6.7"). Still, I'm sure it can be used in some of the larger mITX cases out there with minimal modification.
> 
> Wait... Doesn't AMD support crossfire across x4 slots? I smell a 2x Fury X2!


yep, still the shuttle form factor, unfortunate that they still haven't released a X99 version.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

That's an impressive amount of I/O though. M.2 (presumably the SATA and PCIe x2 hybrid variant), mini PCIe, and PCIe x16 and x4.

Power is the opposite however. Only 20-pin ATX and 4-pin CPU power make it look like it's only intended for low-power CPUs. I suppose that's fine. A 6700K running at stock is under 100W, right? I can't imagine that _not_ working. That would be a little more than 4A per wire from the CPU cable.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

The 4-pin MiniFit Jr should be able to handle 200W and stay in spec (not sure what ATX says the max draw is, but remember 4 pin ones were used with Penitum 4's







)


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> The 4-pin MiniFit Jr should be able to handle 200W and stay in spec (not sure what ATX says the max draw is, but remember 4 pin ones were used with Penitum 4's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Yeah, if it could handle a P4 and its 300W TDP, I'm sure Skylake being far less than 400W is fine. I mean, we don't see 500W CPUs anymore, so sticking to 600W or below is easy enough.









The wire gauge they use is AWG 18 or 16, or however it's formatted, and can churn out double digit amps completely safely. With two +12V wires and two GND wires, that's at least 20A running at 12V, or at least 240W of power without exceeding the wires' specs. That's enough for a stock FX-9590! Can't say the same for the plug or socket tolerances (but that's because I'm simply not familiar with them), but you're not making liquid copper this way.


----------



## ejohnson

So while looking at the asrock z99 2011v3 boards, I found this page. It shows that the board has a pcie x4 slot already mounted to the board... All it needs is a flexible cable and you could do sound card and you with it.
https://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/ASRock/X99E-ITX_AC/5.html
7th picture in shows the slot, says mini pcie, bit it looks more like a normal pcie port.... Anyone know?


----------



## MunneY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> So while looking at the asrock z99 2011v3 boards, I found this page. It shows that the board has a pcie x4 slot already mounted to the board... All it needs is a flexible cable and you could do sound card and you with it.
> https://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/ASRock/X99E-ITX_AC/5.html
> 7th picture in shows the slot, says mini pcie, bit it looks more like a normal pcie port.... Anyone know?


Thats mini PCIE.. its not the same as X4 or even x1 AFAIK


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

It's uncommon, but you do see the occasional mini PCIe slot like that. Electrically, it's a PCIe x1 slot minus the 12V pins. A dumb adapter plus a 12V power source are all you need to use standard PCIe cards with it.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> It would be possible to put the RAM slots on the other side of the motherboard using the laptop style sticks. That would allow to still use quad channel memory in such a small from factor. Downside would be ofc that it's practically impossible to access these slots without taking the whole system apart. But it's not unheard ofc - if I remember correct select few motherboards have used M2 SSD slots "under" the motherboard. It would fit as in vast majority of cases the motherboard standoffs are at least 6 mm.


The problem is that SO-DIMMs are stacked in most instances, and even single slots are thicker than the M.2 slots, too thick for the ATX specifications. I believe that temperatures could also be an issue.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> LinusTechTips built a crazy system with 7 Nano's and EK made them a custom terminal so the cards could all sit next to each other with single-slot blocks installed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now they just to make a 2-way version of that terminal and we'll be all set for Mini-DTX dual-GPU setups.


Apparently they will.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> The problem is that SO-DIMMs are stacked in most instances, and even single slots are thicker than the M.2 slots, too thick for the ATX specifications. I believe that temperatures could also be an issue.


I dont remember from top of my head if ATX specification actually specified how long should be the motherboard standoffs be, probably not as one can see distances from about 3 mm (those little bumps and thread tapped straight into motherboard tray) all the way to ~10mm with average somewhere around 6 mm or so for the motherboard standoffs. There is probably something in the ATX standard noting the max height of components "under" the mobo ofc. However, in a case with 6mm standoff a single SO-DIMM would fit. Heat might be indeed an issue though as you noted. Although the "laptop" ram should be pretty tolerant in that regard. A few mm thermal pad between motherboard tray and SO-DIMM perhaps ...

Then again the niche, as noted already in the thread few times, might be a bit on the small side to motivate any manufacturer actually doing one of these motherboards for LGA 2011. I mean between ITX and mATX.


----------



## Aibohphobia

ATX 2.2 Spec:
Quote:


> *
> 3.4.2 Secondary (Bottom/Solder) Side Height Constraints*
> 
> Required secondary (bottom) side motherboard height constraints for all areas (A-C, as shown in Figure 7)
> are defined as follows (measured from the bottom planar surface of the motherboard PCB):
> 
> 
> ≤0.010" - Mounting hole standoff areas - no components. Restriction applies within 0.400" square area centered on each required mounting hole location defined in Section 3.2. Nominal allowance is provided only to accommodate slight reflow solder excess.
> ≤0.098" - All board circuit components (including leads) that are electrically conductive and intolerant of direct connection to chassis ground (e.g., through-hole leads, surface mount resistors).
> ≤0.120" - Board components that are non-conductive or otherwise tolerant of direct connection to chassis ground (e.g., connector guide/stake pins).
> ≤0.200" - Devices attached to the motherboard for the sole purpose of structural retention or stiffening.
> A chassis and its related elements (e.g., stiffening ribs, base pan, structural supports fasteners, etc.) must allow ≥ 0.250" clearance to the bottom planar surface of the motherboard PCB. This does not including mounting hole standoffs, which may extend to and contact the PCB at the mounting holes within the prescribed 0.400"-square areas.


6.35mm is the minimum between the chassis and the bottom plane of the motherboard and that's the typical standoff height.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> I still think having the second pcie slot on a "rail system" that allows it to be adjusted from 2 slot cases to 3 slot cases would be the best universal solution. A ribbon cable that goes from the back of the mother board to the pci slot to allow for the slot to move back and forth.
> 
> This would give 100% better flexabilty in terms of itx vs dtx cases... got a itx case and just need a single card? cool, just unplug the second slot and unscrew the slider to remove it, now you have a standard itx motherboard.
> Need a x1 slot and not a full x16 slots? ok, you can buy a x1 slot.
> 
> It has the best of both itx and dtx and allows the manufaturer alot of flexabilty and not locking them into a making 2 form factors. They can just make a single form factor that has expansion slot to add more.
> 
> To make it even better, you can have the slot be a m.2 form factor, that way you have even more selling points, you can plug in your m.2 ssd, or you can plug in the adapter and dtx rails and add another pcie slot, or you can leave it empty.
> 
> Its like how some monitors had sound bar mounts on them. Both parts sold individually, You can have one or not, its up to you, but the extra plastic clip to hold the sound bar on didnt add anything to the overall cost of the monitor. Adding 4 holes and a m.2 slot to the back of a motherboard wouldnt add too much to the cost, you could sell the adapters for 30 bucks and make even more money.


Going back to this idea here and how I really think this would be a great way to make mdtx without committing to another form factor.
I found this while looking at pcie riser boards.
http://xyzinformatica.com.br/produtos/placa-mae-industrial/miniitx-cr100-crm/


As you can see, its a itx motherboard, but it has plugs on the bottom of the board that allow a daughter board to be plugged in to provide more pci slots. This could be made now, but having a few board options... offer a x1 slot version and a x16 version.


----------



## KaffieneKing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> Going back to this idea here and how I really think this would be a great way to make mdtx without committing to another form factor.
> I found this while looking at pcie riser boards.
> http://xyzinformatica.com.br/produtos/placa-mae-industrial/miniitx-cr100-crm/
> 
> 
> As you can see, its a itx motherboard, but it has plugs on the bottom of the board that allow a daughter board to be plugged in to provide more pci slots. This could be made now, but having a few board options... offer a x1 slot version and a x16 version.


Might as well just make it a m-DTW board IMO just as much R&D I would imagine


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

That's actually really cool. Takes a socketed laptop processor (Sandy or Ivy) and runs the QM77 chipset. It's for embedded systems and workstations I think, at least judging by the chipset and the ports.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaffieneKing*
> 
> Might as well just make it a m-DTW board IMO just as much R&D I would imagine


I don't think it would, they would just need to split off 8x from the main pci slot and include a bios option to turn it on.
Asrock already has the bios option to split the x16 into dual x8 via a riser card. I think this would be way cheaper than making a mdtx board and a mitx board (from a manufacturing standpoint)

The mdtx market is small, very very small. The mitx market is big and there is no reason to make a mdtx board... but making a convertible board would have all the mdtx people, and if it would double as your mitx board... so you capture 2 sections of the market with a single product.


----------



## KaffieneKing

I didnt think about it from a manufacturing point of view, you are probably right it would be cheaper!


----------



## ejohnson

I really think some manufacturers need to look at something like this as a option. So many 2 and 3 slot itx cases out there that go un-optimized.

With this they could even cut out some of the smaller matx boards. Just offer a mitx with a expansion port on the bottom. Then allow you to add daughter boards to fit your needs. Got a 4 slot matx case and you want a gpu, sound card and tv tuner... perfect, here is a daughterboard that gives you a pair of x1 slots for your sound and tv.

I know asus had the "expander" this is a picture of 3 expander boards daisy chained.. The idea was there, but the design was poor . It required special case just to work.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

BIOS? Just use a jumper - that's even easier!


----------



## ejohnson

More info on that expandable mitx board....

http://www.dfi.com.tw/Upload/PressHeader/2148/Html/CM100-C_AMD_R-series_A70M_Mini-ITX_eComal2.html


----------



## Nukemaster

That is pretty cool(even if it is only x1 per slot[so not SLI/Xfire friendly]). Even more so if a user needs PCI for older hardware.

Looks like bridge chips are onboard the expansion boards.

They still may be too wide for many mDTX cases.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Any kind of riser breaks compatibility with just about all cases. Keeping the first slot and having an 8x slot off to the side is viable, but a lot of work to keep inside the mITX form factor when extending the board to the second slot would be so much easier and cheaper.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Any kind of riser breaks compatibility with just about all cases. Keeping the first slot and having an 8x slot off to the side is viable, but a lot of work to keep inside the mITX form factor when extending the board to the second slot would be so much easier and cheaper.


See this post, its been done before, someone just needs to do it again.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> More info on that expandable mitx board....
> 
> http://www.dfi.com.tw/Upload/PressHeader/2148/Html/CM100-C_AMD_R-series_A70M_Mini-ITX_eComal2.html


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> See this post, its been done before, someone just needs to do it again.


If I had to guess, I'd say Dyson saw your previous post but was basically saying "It's not really worth it as just running another 1/2 of PCB would be cheaper and easier."

The reason the board you linked works at all is because the two 1x "expansion" slots are on either side of the 16x slot, which is space that already exists in the mITX standard. Fitting an 8x lane would be very difficult. Actually, the only way I think it'd work is by adding some kind of very thin and probably very fragile proprietary connector on the back of the board. If you go that route, fitting said connector in the 6mm defined in the mITX standard (for standoff length) would be rather difficult. Even then, you don't guarantee compatibility, as some manufacturers use shorter standoffs (I have a handful of 4 and 5mm standoffs I got out of cases. From a design perspective, it'd be immensely easier (and probably notably cheaper) just to produce a slightly larger PCB and run the traces for the extra slots.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timerwin63*
> 
> If I had to guess, I'd say Dyson saw your previous post but was basically saying "It's not really worth it as just running another 1/2 of PCB would be cheaper and easier."
> 
> The reason the board you linked works at all is because the two 1x "expansion" slots are on either side of the 16x slot, which is space that already exists in the mITX standard. Fitting an 8x lane would be very difficult. Actually, the only way I think it'd work is by adding some kind of very thin and probably very fragile proprietary connector on the back of the board. If you go that route, fitting said connector in the 6mm defined in the mITX standard (for standoff length) would be rather difficult. Even then, you don't guarantee compatibility, as some manufacturers use shorter standoffs (I have a handful of 4 and 5mm standoffs I got out of cases. From a design perspective, it'd be immensely easier (and probably notably cheaper) just to produce a slightly larger PCB and run the traces for the extra slots.


Im thinking they could do it via cables instead of the "sli" style plugs on the bottom. If they put a single plug and a include a cable they could totally get it done.

Checkout the asrock btc kit


hey use a pair of sata cables to provide data from one board to another. I actually almost got one of these today because it was only 4 bucks at microcenter.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> Im thinking they could do it via cables instead of the "sli" style plugs on the bottom. If they put a single plug and a include a cable they could totally get it done.
> 
> Checkout the asrock btc kit
> 
> hey use a pair of sata cables to provide data from one board to another. I actually almost got one of these today because it was only 4 bucks at microcenter.


Why use a cable when the slot I want to use is going to be a few mm away that I'd then have to carefully route around the cramped interior of my case? Why not just some traces and a bit more PCB (which would also give some component spacem by the way)?

On top of that, you're still going to need to find the space for the connector, which won't be particularly small. We're talking about an 8x slot, not a 1x or even a 4. It'll also have to be on the edge to ease cable management as alluded to earlier. There's not a whole lot of "spare" space on ITX boards as it is, at least not the ones you'd want to run SLI on.


----------



## iFreilicht

Why use a cable or slot that makes everything hard? They could just use a FPC/PCB hybrid assembly that plugs into a connector on the bottom of the board, just like you described. Those are really, really thin and they would allow you to not expand your board to fit single-slot ITX cases or expand it to anything with a total of 16 PCIe lanes, maybe even more.
That assembly could even have detector contacts that close certain circuits on the board so the riser would be pretty much plug and play.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Why use a cable or slot that makes everything hard? *They could just use a FPC/PCB hybrid assembly that plugs into a connector on the bottom of the board, just like you described.* Those are really, really thin and they would allow you to not expand your board to fit single-slot ITX cases or expand it to anything with a total of 16 PCIe lanes, maybe even more.
> That assembly could even have detector contacts that close certain circuits on the board so the riser would be pretty much plug and play.


That's obviously the best and most versatile solution. Someone call ASRock, I need one of these on their next 2011 board.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Okay, so a question about this. If you got a very, very high-frequency multiplexer, could you send 16 PCIe lanes over the equivalent of just one? For PCIe 2.0, it'd have to run at 40GHz, but... Could it be done?


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timerwin63*
> 
> That's obviously the best and most versatile solution. Someone call ASRock, I need one of these on their next 2011 board.


This actually kinda brings up a point.... Who would of wanted a socket 2011 itx, then asrock made it and people want it. I think if asrock makes this, it will sell.


----------



## ccRicers

Asrock made a budget board specially for BTC mining, then they made the first consumer X99 mini ITX board- I think they experiment with new markets more than what most people give them credit more.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Okay, so a question about this. If you got a very, very high-frequency multiplexer, could you send 16 PCIe lanes over the equivalent of just one? For PCIe 2.0, it'd have to run at 40GHz, but... Could it be done?


I suppose it'd be possible in theory. The speeds you'd need would be insane (*graphene save us*), and there's a pretty good chance you wouldn't be able to use the data immediately so it'd need to be "stored" until the next 16x-equivalent clock would go. I'd be willing to bet this would need to be done because of the way the standards have been written and the way the data is used. It'd be very interesting to see, for sure.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccRicers*
> 
> Asrock made a budget board specially for BTC mining, then they made the first consumer X99 mini ITX board- I think they experiment with new markets more than what most people give them credit more.


Well, I think as a group we should write a letter to send to asrock, link this thread and see what we can get. They really do seem like the best company to do this. Plus I like their boards


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> Well, I think as a group we should write a letter to send to asrock, link this thread and see what we can get. They really do seem like the best company to do this. Plus I like their boards


There's a pretty good chance they have a product rep who patrols the forums, you could try looking for them and sending them a PM linking them here asking them to show it around and probe around for some internal interest before anyone asks ASRock to start some serious R&D.

Edit: Apparently the ASRock rep is @Nickshih, although according to their profile, they've been inactive since July of '14, so that's bound to be a dead end.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Whoever releases the first mDTX motherboard will receive eternal glory once Linus gets a hold of it. That motherboard will dominate every single high-end build in an ITX case. Just imagine all the possibilities!


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Okay, so a question about this. If you got a very, very high-frequency multiplexer, could you send 16 PCIe lanes over the equivalent of just one? For PCIe 2.0, it'd have to run at 40GHz, but... Could it be done?


The generations of PCIe only ever increase that frequency and specify how to design a board that can reach it. So at PCIe 4.0, you could probably do something like that and make it work, but the electrical components aren't really up to snuff at the moment.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Not just frequency. Also encoding. 1 and 2 used 8b/10b, meaning 8/10 bits sent were usable data. 3 and 4 use 128b/130b, meaning only two bits of 130 sent are useless. Transfer rate went from 2.5GT/s to 5, then 8 with better encoding and 16 is planned next. Bandwidth about doubles each time though.


----------



## Runamok81

CES had some interesting motherboards coming to market. Not sure on the form factor... larger than mITX.. but with two PCIe slots. One on each end. One traditional, and a new integrated right-angle PCIe slot.


Besides Asus, other manufacturers were showcasing this new mobo option. Presumably these are for AIOs. Now, we just need a case. Discussion on SFF here.


----------



## ozlay

Can always convert m.2 to pcie 4x


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Runamok81*
> 
> CES had some interesting motherboards coming to market. Not sure on the form factor... larger than mITX.. but with two PCIe slots. One on each end. One traditional, and a new integrated right-angle PCIe slot.
> 
> 
> Besides Asus, other manufacturers were showcasing this new mobo option. Presumably these are for AIOs. Now, we just need a case. Discussion on SFF here.


Very neat, but also very limited in cases.

Best use would be a ribbon cable to route that pci slot to the bottom.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Either that, or have a very wide but flat case. PCIe brackets, I/O shield, and more PCIe brackets all along a line.

It would look silly, but it could probably fit in a 1U without too much custom work.


----------



## epic1337

i just wish they'd design an expansion port like the thunderbolt port, 12V power delivery with 8x PCIe lanes, that would allow external units or internal expansion boards.

in any case, we need more boards like this:


i mean come on, this is like the cheapest design they could dig into, small board foot print, minimal components and good layout.
its such a fantastic board design i'm doubting whether their marketing side have working brains, why aren't they mass producing this type of board?

they could even make this type of board into a higher tier board.
they've got high-end ITX boards so i can't even imagine them not being able to do it on a DTX board, this isn't even classified as a DTX board, rather a custom MATX.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i just wish they'd design an expansion port like the thunderbolt port, 12V power delivery with 8x PCIe lanes, that would allow external units or internal expansion boards.
> 
> in any case, we need more boards like this:
> i mean come on, this is like the cheapest design they could dig into, small board foot print, minimal components and good layout.
> its such a fantastic board design i'm doubting whether their marketing side have working brains, why aren't they mass producing this type of board?
> 
> they could even make this type of board into a higher tier board.
> they've got high-end ITX boards so i can't even imagine them not being able to do it on a DTX board, this isn't even classified as a DTX board, rather a custom MATX.


Hell, they could copy/paste the circuitry on their existing ITX boards and drop a second slot on their. Routing the extra traces wouldn't be too difficult, as there'd be a touch more PCB to work with. It's more likely that their design team hasn't thought that people would want or buy a board like that. Most would probably figure they've covered the bases between ITX, mATX, and the board you pictured. There are very few CF/SLI-compatible single-slot cards on the market before you take watercooling into account. After you do that, you have more card options, but your target demographic is reduced even more because of the number of people who watercool.

When you really dig, I'm sure you'd find a reason why a company wouldn't want to produce a board like this. It sucks, but it's true.


----------



## epic1337

well theres those reasons, but 1x first slot and 16x 2nd slot is a good idea none the less.
most users would stick a sound-card or wifi-card on that 1st slot, and place the GPU on the 2nd slot.
heck even MATX users that doesn't go SLI/CF would stick a sound-card on the 3rd or 4th slot, and GPU on the first slot.

these types of boards are compatible with most dual-slot ITX cases (if using single-slot GPUs), or triple-slot ITX cases and MATX cases.
and such a smaller design could save them some money on mass production, smaller board, less components and a universal design.

on a side note, the only reason why ITX isn't that much of a popular choice is because its quite a bit more expensive than entry MATX boards.
and the reason why ITX is expensive is probably because they've only targeted the high-end market with their ITX boards.
since high-end ITX boards have more components, this also means they're using a PCB with more layers, which is a lot more expensive.

if they could release ITX boards at the price thats equal to entry MATX boards ($60~$80) then quite a bit of users would switch towards those boards.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> well theres those reasons, but 1x first slot and 16x 2nd slot is a good idea none the less.
> most users would stick a sound-card or wifi-card on that 1st slot, and place the GPU on the 2nd slot.
> heck even MATX users that doesn't go SLI/CF would stick a sound-card on the 3rd or 4th slot, and GPU on the first slot.
> 
> these types of boards are compatible with most dual-slot ITX cases (if using single-slot GPUs), or triple-slot ITX cases and MATX cases.
> and such a smaller design could save them some money on mass production, smaller board, less components and a universal design.
> 
> on a side note, the only reason why ITX isn't that much of a popular choice is because its quite a bit more expensive than entry MATX boards.
> and the reason why ITX is expensive is probably because they've only targeted the high-end market with their ITX boards.
> since high-end ITX boards have more components, this also means they're using a PCB with more layers, which is a lot more expensive.
> 
> if they could release ITX boards at the price thats equal to entry MATX boards ($60~$80) then quite a bit of users would switch towards those boards.


The egg and the chicken problem. For ITX to be cheaper they would have to sell more of these, to sell more of these they would need to have it cheaper.

Ofc the reality is a bit more complex than just the economics of scale. One possibility why ITX is more expensive can be that some manufacturers use more layers in the PCB for ITX board for getting everything done that needs to be done. PCB cost goes up a lot faster with more layers than with more surface area. Miniaturization itself is more expensive than materials saved after a certain point - I have no glue if the ITX is above that point or not - in principle it should not be because they are basically using exactly the same components as on mATX boards as far as I can tell.

Main reason why DTX is not done in any significant numbers is probably, as stated, that the companies consider the niche so small that its not worth it to target it. I mean it sits between ITX and mATX and vast majority of people probably do not care a lot about that 60 mm difference between these form factors. Who need to go small go for ITX, who need to go for bang for buck go for mATX and then what you have left over is tiny tiny niche of people who want to have it small but also want to have a second PCI-e slot. Out of that small niche there is some sub-segment who would be willing to pay a significant premium over ITX or mATX to have that second PCIe slot in that from-factor-size. Under such conditions one would be selling perhaps few thousand such motherboards per year.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> well theres those reasons, but 1x first slot and 16x 2nd slot is a good idea none the less.
> most users would stick a sound-card or wifi-card on that 1st slot, and place the GPU on the 2nd slot.
> heck even MATX users that doesn't go SLI/CF would stick a sound-card on the 3rd or 4th slot, and GPU on the first slot.
> 
> these types of boards are compatible with most dual-slot ITX cases (if using single-slot GPUs), or triple-slot ITX cases and MATX cases.
> and such a smaller design could save them some money on mass production, smaller board, less components and a universal design.
> 
> on a side note, the only reason why ITX isn't that much of a popular choice is because its quite a bit more expensive than entry MATX boards.
> and the reason why ITX is expensive is probably because they've only targeted the high-end market with their ITX boards.
> since high-end ITX boards have more components, this also means they're using a PCB with more layers, which is a lot more expensive.
> 
> if they could release ITX boards at the price thats equal to entry MATX boards ($60~$80) then quite a bit of users would switch towards those boards.


You know what's funny? The cheapest mATX boards have pretty much a perfect DTX form factor.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> You know what's funny? The cheapest mATX boards have pretty much a perfect DTX form factor.


exactly my point, they just need to mass produce said design.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Or, just buy a mATX board and saw the bottom two slots off!


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Or, just buy a mATX board and saw the bottom two slots off!


as if that could work.









seriously though, isn't this thread supposed to encourage DTX demand?


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> seriously though, isn't this thread supposed to encourage DTX demand?


Not much we can do at this point, think the reps that could've been contacted have been. We could keep bugging them, but I don't think that would make a difference.

Guess we just have to wait for an engineer to see the light.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i just wish they'd design an expansion port like the thunderbolt port, 12V power delivery with 8x PCIe lanes, that would allow external units or internal expansion boards.


Well there already IS Thunderbolt and OCuLink is on the way as a native x4 PCIe 3.0 connector both internal and external. They just need to actually be better utilized, and it might also help if they supported connection ganging so you could actually have 8 or 16 lanes.


----------



## phantommaggot

I'm now on this boat.
What sold me was seeing how well single slot cards could be watercooled when next to each other. Then I got this idea in my head...
Mini dtx x99
lots of ram
2 fury x or nano.

Linux as the main OS
Windows virtual machine with hardware

2 machines, each with 3-4 HT cores and its own GPU.


----------



## ejohnson

I can see that motherboard being used in the
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phantommaggot*
> 
> I'm now on this boat.
> What sold me was seeing how well single slot cards could be watercooled when next to each other. Then I got this idea in my head...
> Mini dtx x99
> lots of ram
> 2 fury x or nano.
> 
> Linux as the main OS
> Windows virtual machine with hardware
> 
> 2 machines, each with 3-4 HT cores and its own GPU.


Now imagine that system in a lean li tu100 or tu200. Fully portable dual system lan party machine!


----------



## KaffieneKing

Well someone is too impatient to wait for mDTX release...









@BoloisBolo you might find some useful information for your build here!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Needless to say I will be watching that build log religiously!

If it takes bifurcated risers to be the trojan horse for mDTX, I'm all for it! Sadly a bifurcated build (using perpendicular GPUs at least) will never be as compact as a mDTX can be. The first slot on the case will be wasted by the riser. Either have to go over a slot or go up an inch or so.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Needless to say I will be watching that build log religiously!
> 
> If it takes bifurcated risers to be the trojan horse for mDTX, I'm all for it! Sadly a bifurcated build (using perpendicular GPUs at least) will never be as compact as a mDTX can be. The first slot on the case will be wasted by the riser. Either have to go over a slot or go up an inch or so.


One thing that can be done with that first slot is a low profile sound card and a mpcie to pcie x1 adapter. Then you have all 3 slots used.

I too will be watching to see what goes down and how it works.
Sli 950s would be my road since cooling them both with a single 120 would be easy.


----------



## KaffieneKing

You can easily cool any 2 GPU cores using a 120 rad as the 295x2 proves


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

The 295X2 is a hybrid cooler though, isn't it? It's not exclusively water?


----------



## ejohnson

Looks like the 295x2 has a fan, but it's only cooling the memory.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Correct, the onboard fan on the 295x2 is just cooling the memory and VRMs.

If a 120 mm aluminum ran can keep 400+ watts of GPU cool, there's no reason a 120 mm copper rad can't keep any two GPUs today cool.

Right this minute I'm folding on a 4.5 GHz 2500k, *and* 1000 MHz R9 290, using a 240 mm *aluminum* rad on a *modded AIO cooler* and my temps are insanely good:



A decent 120 copper rad on a real loop could keep two GPUs and a CPU reasonable I'm sure.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Alrighty then, wow. My entire system could work off, like, an 80mm rad then.

I've probably asked this same question before and forgotten.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I'm just tired of the argument that you have to have massive radiator area to keep a system cool. There's a lower limit, yes, but people don't understand that once you have enough area to remove the heat load, anything else is just a waste. 120mm is probably on the small side, but I think it would be adequate. We _know_ that 240 mm will work all day long (unless you think the 295x2 and a Corsair H80 would suddenly blow up if you combined their radiators)


----------



## ejohnson

If you search my started threads, you will actually find where I ran a 3570k off a dual 40mm radiator







. I know you can keep alot cool with a single 120.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Hah! That's awesome. I ran an i5 3470 without a heatsink for a few days. It was 100% stable, but of course throttled quite a bit. Point being, it doesn't take a lot of cooling to have a usable system.

I know it's blasphemous to talk about having a CPU at 60, 70 or even 80C, but the fact of the matter is that there's nothing technically wrong with it. Intel was perfectly happy to ship 4770k's that ran at over 90C stock. Intel knows more about the effects of heat on CPUs than we do, and they decided it was fine. Sacrificing cooling for space is one of the tradeoffs we make for having super-sff systems.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I've wanted to try mounting a 40mm fan directly to an IHS - something like a Celeron or AM1 - and see how well it does.







There isn't much of a need for big heatsinks with low-power chips, and for that matter even standard 100W ones.


----------



## Nukemaster

100 watts is still plenty of heat for a 40mm fan without any heatsink.

Think of how hot a 100 watt bulb gets. Imagine that in the size of a cpu die. I am not even sure a leaf blower could cool a heartsickless cpu









On the plus side thermal shutdown will save the cpu if you try this idea









Those old days when AMD cpus had a good old melt down. I can not believe how many users uploaded this video.


----------



## phantommaggot

I was working on an old amd system back in 2000 or so. Burnt myself with the die. Had a nice rectangle and AMD on my thumb for a week haha.
Good times.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukemaster*
> 
> 100 watts is still plenty of heat for a 40mm fan without any heatsink.
> 
> Think of how hot a 100 watt bulb gets. Imagine that in the size of a cpu die. I am not even sure a leaf blower could cool a heartsickless cpu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the plus side thermal shutdown will save the cpu if you try this idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those old days when AMD cpus had a good old melt down. I can not believe how many users uploaded this video.


Oh yeah, 100W is way too hot. I mean something small, smaller than the stock cooler even, should be enough. But nothing at all is a stupid idea.

Heatsink-free could probably work for something like AM1 or a low-power Celeron, however, with nothing more than a fan pointing at the IHS. No guarantees though.


----------



## Duality92

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/TESTED-DELL-Inspiron-660s-Vostro-270s-Motherboard-478VN-/222043044069?hash=item33b2cbf8e5:g:EEAAAOSwv9hW2dRY

Someone here might be interested


----------



## TheBloodEagle

We should just have some kind of petition up on a major site voting site so the numbers add up for manufacturers to see and that people can easily link.


----------



## Deimosian

I really hope someone makes a high end AM4 mini-DTX board for me to use in my Mercury S3 if Zen is as good as it looks like it's going to be.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Me too! I'm hoping AMD can take back the crown, it's been like 10 years haha


----------



## MsNikita

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aibohphobia*
> 
> As cool as it would be I just don't see that happening. Both Asus and EVGA have said that while it should technically be possible it would be cost-prohibitive considering how small a market that would be and the amount of work that would be needed to develop it.
> 
> Socket 2011 is huge and wouldn't leave much room on the board for everything else, even on mini-DTX. Here's a mockup I made a while ago that really shows this.


Then Asrock goes and does this..



Product: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/


----------



## Deimosian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UltraNEO*
> 
> Then Asrock goes and does this..
> 
> 
> 
> Product: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/


Yeah, I think a lot of people forget there's a narrow version of the 2011 socket that makes it easier to fit on a small board. Or fit two on a normal board...


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UltraNEO*
> 
> Then Asrock goes and does this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Product: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/


A pretty good layout, but I still like the old gigabyte layout with nothing on the side of the board. Works better with my case.


----------



## epic1337

could've been better, like a single-block heatsink for both chipset and VRMs, although this would increase chipset temps, it would at least decrease VRM temps.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

The X99E-ITX kinda sorta blows out all the arguments against technical feasibility for bifurcated mDTX 115x boards. And again, if a mATX board can do it, why can't a mDTX?

Socket R3 on ITX with all 4 channels would have been a slam dunk, but nobody has even done that with the H sockets.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> The X99E-ITX kinda sorta blows out all the arguments against technical feasibility for bifurcated mDTX 115x boards. And again, if a mATX board can do it, why can't a mDTX?
> 
> Socket R3 on ITX with all 4 channels would have been a slam dunk, but nobody has even done that with the H sockets.


I can't decide if that would be more difficult or not thanks to the socket keep-out zone. It looks like the narrow LGA-2011-3 variant doesn't really have one of those. Only times I've seen four RAM slots on mITX are either A) SO-DIMMs or B) using SoCs or other soldered CPUs unfortunately.


----------



## epic1337

its possible if they use the I/O for parts, e.g. remove the onboard audio ports and put the chipset there.
asus can easily do this by bundling a Xonar U5, making the onboard audio entirely redundant and pointless.


----------



## Marc Wolfe

I have an old ASUS board from an HP Slim Line.
Of course its one PCI and one PCIe.... and old so you can't modern high end CPUs for it.....


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marc Wolfe*
> 
> I have an old ASUS board from an HP Slim Line.
> Of course its one PCI and one PCIe.... and old so you can't modern high end CPUs for it.....


That's probably about as close to the dream as we'll ever see, unfortunately.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> its possible if they use the I/O for parts, e.g. remove the onboard audio ports and put the chipset there.
> asus can easily do this by bundling a Xonar U5, making the onboard audio entirely redundant and pointless.


But that would put the idea of mDTX to absurdity. Why have two PCIe slots if you need one just to get audio?


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> But that would put the idea of mDTX to absurdity. Why have two PCIe slots if you need one just to get audio?


USB dacs? Most are superior to similarly priced pcie soundcards anyway.

But I agree that entirely removing onboard audio is probably a bad idea, but there shouldn't be more than very basic onboard audio present either, imo.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> But that would put the idea of mDTX to absurdity. Why have two PCIe slots if you need one just to get audio?


Xonar U5 is a USB DAC, i don't get what you're implying.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> But I agree that entirely removing onboard audio is probably a bad idea, but there shouldn't be more than very basic onboard audio present either, imo.


a bundled USB DAC makes the onboard redundant though, i haven't heard of users using both an onboard and an add-on audio simultaneously.
which means, they could make do without the onboard audio, and even promote their xonar soundcards while at it, not to mention their USB DACs are quite a bit more superior than onboard audio.

although doing so, the results would be a somewhat more expensive board since the USB DAC costs roughly $60 while onboard audio can costs a mere $5.
but since these boards already costs $200+ i don't see the problem in this.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> Xonar U5 is a USB DAC, i don't get what you're implying.
> a bundled USB DAC makes the onboard redundant though, i haven't heard of users using both an onboard and an add-on audio simultaneously.
> which means, they could make do without the onboard audio, and even promote their xonar soundcards while at it, not to mention their USB DACs are quite a bit more superior than onboard audio.
> 
> although doing so, the results would be a somewhat more expensive board since the USB DAC costs roughly $60 while onboard audio can costs a mere $5.
> but since these boards already costs $200+ i don't see the problem in this.


USB DACs are _super_ inconvenient, though, _especially_ if it's required. The beauty of something like Asus' Supreme FX Impact is that it takes all complex circuitry off the board and replaces it with a pinout and a set of traces. The "sound card" doesn't take up a PCIe slot, it uses the standard spot on the I/O shield. This means PCB space is cleared up for things like traces for another PCIe slot. This, IMO, makes Asus the most equipped manufacturer to handle mDTX (although I said that about 2011 ITX, too, so _*prove me wrong, ASRock*_.

Plus, another $60 on top of a $200 board isn't that big of a deal? That's a *30%* price increase. Definitely not something to simply blow off. I think that extra $60 would be completely unjustified unless it was a 2011 board, at which point we can start talking about $250-300.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> One step closer!!!!
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/B150M-PIO/
> 
> I can see this being used to allot for a half height mpcie sound card (or other card) to be used in the first slot, then a full sized gpu in the second slot.


I mean, kinda, but not really. There's only one PCIe slot on that board, and putting it where they did actually makes it _less_ versatile. All this does is fill a niche pretty much no one was asking for, which is thinner computers. If they *did* put two PCIe slots on it, *then* I would be impressed or excited.


----------



## ejohnson

One step closer!!!!
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/B150M-PIO/

I can see this being used to allot for a half height mpcie sound card (or other card) to be used in the first slot, then a full sized gpu in the second slot.

EDIT: so from the looks of this motherboard, the pcie slot is actually on the top of the motherboard!

So, with this, I think if this would support dual x8 risers, we have a much closer solution to a dtx board.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timerwin63*
> 
> I mean, kinda, but not really. There's only one PCIe slot on that board, and putting it where they did actually makes it _less_ versatile. All this does is fill a niche pretty much no one was asking for, which is thinner computers. If they *did* put two PCIe slots on it, *then* I would be impressed or excited.


Its just such a strange board. it has 2 mounting options (more holes) the pci slot is on the other side of where it normally is. and it has only 2 sata ports.

I see that its designed for AIO monitor computers, but the fact that they made somethign like this gives a pretty good idea that asrock may actually build a dtx board we can use.

Though, I am interested in the board to build a pretty sweet thin tower


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timerwin63*
> 
> USB DACs are _super_ inconvenient, though, _especially_ if it's required. The beauty of something like Asus' Supreme FX Impact is that it takes all complex circuitry off the board and replaces it with a pinout and a set of traces. The "sound card" doesn't take up a PCIe slot, it uses the standard spot on the I/O shield. This means PCB space is cleared up for things like traces for another PCIe slot. This, IMO, makes Asus the most equipped manufacturer to handle mDTX (although I said that about 2011 ITX, too, so _*prove me wrong, ASRock*_.
> 
> Plus, another $60 on top of a $200 board isn't that big of a deal? That's a *30%* price increase. Definitely not something to simply blow off. I think that extra $60 would be completely unjustified unless it was a 2011 board, at which point we can start talking about $250-300.


i was talking about 2011 boards, mainstream boards doesn't have that much of a drastic space restrictions like the 2011 so its much easier to fit all the parts needed, including onboard audio.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> Xonar U5 is a USB DAC


Whoops, didn't know that. Xonar immediately brought their PCIe cards to mind.


----------



## Marc Wolfe

Asrock did it. Its a skylake/1151 socket motherboard too.

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H110M-DGSD3/


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marc Wolfe*
> 
> Asrock did it. Its a skylake/1151 socket motherboard too.
> 
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H110M-DGSD3/


We know, but have a good look at that top pcie slot, its 2x, and to make matters worse, its a closed back slot. So its basically useless.

The absolute minimum would need be an open 4x slot.


----------



## Marc Wolfe

Its 1x open back. Why 4x? You trying to use 2 graphics cards?


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marc Wolfe*
> 
> Its 1x open back. Why 4x? You trying to use 2 graphics cards?


My bad, and that makes it even worse, pcie 2.0 1x has a measly bandwidth of 500MB/s, and its clearly closed as you can see in the pictures.
I can't think of any pcie device I would want to run that wouldn't be massively bottlenecked by that.

Currently there are only a few ways to have a decent mDTX like formfactor:
-Convert the m.2 slot on a Z170 board to pcie and use a riser to add a pcie slot to the location you require. (Pretty ghetto looking)
-Salvage a Shuttle X79 board(Severely limited in use and doesn't fit in most cases.
-Using a bifurcated riser. (You lose the original slot and only supported by a handful of ITX boards)

Obviously none of those are ideal, but its what we've got to work with until someone decided to make a decent mDTX board.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Unfortunately the super-stripped-down micro ATX boards don't help us out much. That said, it should be only the slightest bit more effort to:

Upgrade to a Z-series chipset and
Make the first slot x16 and the second x8


----------



## Nukemaster

It is also slightly deeper than normal mITX. My case(SG05) would fit it I think.

I would just drop my old X-fi into the one slot and any old single slit video card into the front









I could use more USB.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Unfortunately the super-stripped-down micro ATX boards don't help us out much. That said, it should be only the slightest bit more effort to:
> 
> Upgrade to a Z-series chipset and
> Make the first slot x16 and the second x8


They're still great if you just want to use the third slot in an NCase M1 for something like the AVerMedia Live Gamer HD or a dedicated soundcard. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukemaster*
> 
> It is also slightly deeper than normal mITX. My case(SG05) would fit it I think.
> 
> I would just drop my old X-fi into the one slot and any old single slit video card into the front
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could use more USB.


More USB ports or an upgrade to USB C-Type are a good use, too.

The specs say 17.0cm, why do you think it's deeper than that?


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> More USB ports or an upgrade to USB C-Type are a good use, too.
> 
> The specs say 17.0cm, why do you think it's deeper than that?


My bad, I was looking at the non D3 one
www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H110M-DGS/

It is still not ideal for many users here, but I think the idea is pretty cool.
Here is the larger image.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/photo/H110M-DGS%28L2%29.jpg


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> They're still great if you just want to use the third slot in an NCase M1 for something like the AVerMedia Live Gamer HD or a dedicated soundcard. Nothing more, nothing less.


I can't think of any gen 2.0 1x pcie device that doesn't has an external alternative. The only reason why I would see anyone considering this board is if they were in the market for a low end H110 ITX board, and have a triple slot ITX case, they might as well get this. Otherwise, its completely useless imo.


----------



## Nukemaster

If you like X-fi[or similar] audio enhancements(I know it is coloring the sound and all), most(some have hardware DSPs) of the USB based cards do not perform them when bypassing the Windows mixer with OpenAL or Asio.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> I can't think of any gen 2.0 1x pcie device that doesn't has an external alternative. The only reason why I would see anyone considering this board is if they were in the market for a low end H110 ITX board, and have a triple slot ITX case, they might as well get this. Otherwise, its completely useless imo.


Sorry I don't see that as a valid argument. Internalising components is one of the crucial parts of PC building for many. Just because there is an external alternative doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. If you're frequently transporting your case, which is more likely the smaller you build, you'll want as little external stuff attached to your PC as possible, it's just inconvenient.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it's enough for everyone, but it isn't "completely useless" either.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Sorry I don't see that as a valid argument. Internalising components is one of the crucial parts of PC building for many. Just because there is an external alternative doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. If you're frequently transporting your case, which is more likely the smaller you build, you'll want as little external stuff attached to your PC as possible, it's just inconvenient.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean that it's enough for everyone, but it isn't "completely useless" either.


Lets be real here, would you go for this board, instead of a proper full fledged Z170 one just because of that dinky 2.0 1x slot?

And the sound card argument is complete moot anyway, as if you're using this as a portable rig, you're very likely to use headphones anyway. And if that's the case you might as well get a Schiit Fulla or AudioQuest DragonFly, which are tiny enough to just keep on your headphones, and better than the vast majority of soundcards, for headphones.

As for the capture card, there are M.2 models in the works too(you can already get ones that are pulled from laptops), so... whats left?
Edit: Mini pci-e models seem to be even more readily available.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Lets be real here, would you go for this board, instead of a proper full fledged Z170 one just because of that dinky 2.0 1x slot?
> 
> And the sound card argument is complete moot anyway, as if you're using this as a portable rig, you're very likely to use headphones anyway. And if that's the case you might as well get a Schiit Fulla or AudioQuest DragonFly, which are tiny enough to just keep on your headphones, and better than the vast majority of soundcards, for headphones.
> 
> As for the capture card, there are M.2 models in the works too(you can already get ones that are pulled from laptops), so... whats left?
> Edit: Mini pci-e models seem to be even more readily available.


If I needed the PCIe slot, yes. I don't care about overclocking anyway, my current board is using a B85 chipset and I don't feel the need to get a better one at all.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iFreilicht*
> 
> Sorry I don't see that as a valid argument. Internalising components is one of the crucial parts of PC building for many. Just because there is an external alternative doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so. If you're frequently transporting your case, which is more likely the smaller you build, you'll want as little external stuff attached to your PC as possible, it's just inconvenient.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean that it's enough for everyone, but it isn't "completely useless" either.


One reason the new Mac Pro design is so stupid. It's a desktop - a small one - but more specifically a workstation. There is no excuse to not have a big case for any drives, additional _well cooled_ GPUs, multiple sockets, etc. Relying on Thunderbolt for external connections is completely asinine.

That's not to say small systems are bad. I quite like them. But the problem is when they're so small they sacrifice functionality or cleanliness. I don't want to see cables; they should be crammed in the box as much as possible.


----------



## jtd871

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> One reason the new Mac Pro design is so stupid. It's a desktop - a small one - but more specifically a workstation. There is no excuse to not have a big case for any drives, additional _well cooled_ GPUs, multiple sockets, etc. Relying on Thunderbolt for external connections is completely asinine.
> 
> That's not to say small systems are bad. I quite like them. But the problem is when they're so small they sacrifice functionality or cleanliness. I don't want to see cables; they should be crammed in the box as much as possible.


Well, there are actually no meaningful expansion or upgrade paths for the Mac Pro without using external connectors and/or peripherals. IIRC, the mobo is a custom form factor, and the GPUs are custom PCBs and use nonstandard physical interfaces for PCIe devices.

In a sense, it is a very pure expression of the Apple product philosophy - clean industrial design that "just works", and few or no customization options for a premium price.

The MSI Vortex and the AMD custom SFF build, "Quantum", check several of the same boxes: More a limited-run "halo" proof-of-concept product (and a tangible example of their engineering prowess and/or vanity) than one they intend to actually (directly) make money on.

While these last few products are functionally limited *by design* (for several reasons, not the least of which is the available cooling capacity), there are likely many full-ATX systems that have only 0-1 expansion cards (including a discrete GPU) by the choice of the system builder/owner (I'm looking at you, internet cafe PC and average business PC). I'd wager that a relatively large proportion of these *never* get internal functionality expansions.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Cool things can happen with riser cards for sure. The AMD Quantum is pretty awesome, but how did they flip the GPU around so that the die faces the CPU? Intel chips support lane reversal, but that's signaled via a pin on the LGA.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Cool things can happen with riser cards for sure. The AMD Quantum is pretty awesome, but how did they flip the GPU around so that the die faces the CPU? Intel chips support lane reversal, but that's signaled via a pin on the LGA.


I'd be willing to bet they did some really fancy multi-layer PCB work to get the runs they needed. The riser in the Quantum looks crazy:



Edit: I wish I had a better picture of the riser itself. I'd really like to know the answer to your question as well. As it stands, speculation looks like the only real option.


----------



## iFreilicht

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *timerwin63*
> 
> I'd be willing to bed they did some really fancy multi-layer PCB work to get the runs they needed. The riser in the Quantum looks crazy:
> 
> ----SNIP!----
> 
> Edit: I wish I had a better picture of the riser itself. I'd really like to know the answer to your question as well. As it stands, speculation looks like the only real option.


I'm pretty sure you're absolutely right there, it's a purely physical thing from what I can tell. I just tried to lay it out in simplified manner, and you don't even need fancy multi-layer stuff, a regular double-sided board is absolutely sufficient:



As you can see, the traces pretty much represent a cable being twisted by 180°. I'm pretty sure that's how they did it.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Not coming from an EE background or anything, but wouldn't the crosstalk and skew be insane on something like that?


----------



## Zeus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UltraNEO*
> 
> Then Asrock goes and does this..
> 
> 
> 
> Product: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/


Thats the board I'm running in my ITX system (see signature)


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Not coming from an EE background or anything, but wouldn't the crosstalk and skew be insane on something like that?


Probably, but PCIe uses differential signalling so it's not, like, 100% awful.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> Not coming from an EE background or anything, but wouldn't the crosstalk and skew be insane on something like that?


nope, crosstalk is worse on a straight parallel path, "twisting" the lines actually shields them from crosstalk from external signals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twisted_pair
Quote:


> Twisted pair cabling is a type of wiring in which two conductors of a single circuit are twisted together for the purposes of canceling out electromagnetic interference (EMI) from external sources; for instance, electromagnetic radiation from unshielded twisted pair (UTP) cables, and crosstalk between neighboring pairs. It was invented by Alexander Graham Bell.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Right, but that's not a twisted pair. It's weaving all traces together such that they switch order. If individual pairs were twisted, fine, but if every single trace overlaps I can't imagine the result will be good.


----------



## Nukemaster

I guess a layer of copper between may be helpful here. It is not going a long distance so I can not see it being worse than those cheap risers(not counting those fancy twisted shielded and better than the board they are connected to ones







) people use.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Well, if 180-degree risers do work alright, they open up a lot of builds. I've been thinking that a Mac Pro-style unified heatsink will be great for smaller builds. Not super relevant to DTX though, unless you get into GTX 295 "sandwich card" territory, which would be a neat POC but I don't see those taking off.


----------



## dyrdevil

Is the board pictured on this page - announced at Computex 2016 - a mini dtx board from ASRock?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asrock-hyper-oc-motherboard-launch,31960.html


----------



## Nukemaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dyrdevil*
> 
> Is the board pictured on this page - announced at Computex 2016 - a mini dtx board from ASRock?
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asrock-hyper-oc-motherboard-launch,31960.html


Unfortunately nothing on that page is mDTX. The closest looks to be a smaller(less deep) mATX.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukemaster*
> 
> Unfortunately nothing on that page is mDTX. The closest looks to be a smaller(less deep) mATX.


that one is still mATX, but can also be considered as FlexATX by ATX standards.
FlexATX has a dimension no larger than 229mm × 191mm and has no more than 3 expansion slots.

on a side note, that board can fit on some ITX cases like the bitfenix Prodigy.


----------



## Nukemaster

I would be interested to see how much longer the board is, part of it is covered.


----------



## Gilles3000

Not that it would be interesting even if it was mDTX, its yet another 16x + 1x board, pretty useless.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Not that it would be interesting even if it was mDTX, its yet another 16x + 1x board, pretty useless.


1+16 is fine if placed right, i could use that 1x slot for soundcard.
i seriously wish they start putting 1x on 1st slot and GPU on 2nd slot, so that i can have my soundcard on 1st slot.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> 1+16 is fine if placed right, i could use that 1x slot for soundcard.
> i seriously wish they start putting 1x on 1st slot and GPU on 2nd slot, so that i can have my soundcard on 1st slot.


I've said this before, but imo, there isn't a single 1x PCIe device that has a place inside a SFF build, all of them have similar or superior external alternatives.


----------



## Nukemaster

Both valid points.

I would rather have an internal sound card personally, but I can see wanting a nice USB dac for some users.


----------



## ejohnson

I have the older version of that board, I used it in my wife's computer.

The bottom slot was useless though. All the usb, and power/reset were right below the slot so if you put anything in there you couldn't use those plugs.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> I've said this before, but imo, there isn't a single 1x PCIe device that has a place inside a SFF build, all of them have similar or superior external alternatives.


would work if used with a raiser, its not unusual to see a GPU with a raiser on an SFF, why not soundcard as well?
for that matter, its even possible to use M.2->PCI-E adapter instead, saves some troubles as even ITX could do it, but you lose a perfect SSD slot instead.

if all you can think of DTX is dual GPUs, then thats just so wrong, not creative enough, and not everything can benefit from dual GPUs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukemaster*
> 
> Both valid points.
> 
> I would rather have an internal sound card personally, but I can see wanting a nice USB dac for some users.


sadly i'm short on things i can choose from, the only ones available are Xonar cards, already bought DX.
and the only available USB Xonar is U5 and U7 which are both inferior to Xonar DX.


----------



## Nukemaster

Of all things, I would just want to reuse my old X-fi titanium in such a board(by passing the Windows mixer with OpenAL is just something I like.).


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> I've said this before, but imo, there isn't a single 1x PCIe device that has a place inside a SFF build, all of them have similar or superior external alternatives.


I contend that having extraneous junk outside your case IS inferior and serves to undermine the claim of being a small system in the first place.

if you can put a DAC inside a set of speakers (or better yet, headphones), great, but a random box on your desk next to your computer isn't as good as a card inside your computer.
I similarly don't care for power bricks which only serve to get in the way and add one more piece of extra junk to worry about.


----------



## Deimosian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> that one is still mATX, but can also be considered as FlexATX by ATX standards.
> FlexATX has a dimension no larger than 229mm × 191mm and has no more than 3 expansion slots.
> 
> on a side note, that board can fit on some ITX cases like the bitfenix Prodigy.


A three slot board can fit in a CaseLabs Mercury S3 too


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> if all you can think of DTX is dual GPUs, then thats just so wrong, not creative enough, and not everything can benefit from dual GPUs.
> sadly i'm short on things i can choose from, the only ones available are Xonar cards, already bought DX.
> and the only available USB Xonar is U5 and U7 which are both inferior to Xonar DX.


Hardly, I would be happy seeing an extra 4x slot already, 1x is just completely useless. 4x gen3 has so many more applications, like PCIe SSD's, high end capture cards, RAID controllers, etc.
And are those really the only dac/amp's you managed to find?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*
> 
> I contend that having extraneous junk outside your case IS inferior and serves to undermine the claim of being a small system in the first place.
> 
> if you can put a DAC inside a set of speakers (or better yet, headphones), great, but a random box on your desk next to your computer isn't as good as a card inside your computer.
> I similarly don't care for power bricks which only serve to get in the way and add one more piece of extra junk to worry about.


Hmmm lets see here:

Cons:
Takes a tiny bit of extra space on your desk(can be put on top of the monitor stand most of the time)
Add 1 or 2 cables depending on whether it needs additional power.

Pros:
Available with superior amps and/or dacs
Enables swapping your entire audio between different devices with a single USB.
Some can be used on the go.

I'll take my O2 Dac+Amp over any soundcard any day, as the pros seriously outweigh the cons for me. As I have properly cable managed my desk so the extra cables aren't noticeable and its just sits on my monitor stand so doesn't actually take any extra desk space. And there isn't a soundcard that could properly drive my headphones with acceptable sound quality.

If you really care that much about saving a few square centimeters of space, sure go get a soundcard, but I prefer a proper setup.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

For me it's dual x16 or bust. Dual x16 also precludes the use of low end chipsets that don't support overclocking.

Something like this would be cool:


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Hardly, I would be happy seeing an extra 4x slot already, 1x is just completely useless. 4x gen3 has so many more applications, like PCIe SSD's, high end capture cards, RAID controllers, etc.
> And are those really the only dac/amp's you managed to find?


i can agree to that, an open back 8x could also support for most of those enthusiast cravings.
although it wont be 2x16 dual GPUs, it can do 8+8 or 8+16.

there was an Asus Essense STU for roughly $600 before, but i guess it couldn't sell well enough so they took it off their shelves.
though even if its still available, i couldn't justify spending _that much_ on a whimsical craving for just a bit more audio quality.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i can agree to that, an open back 8x could also support for most of those enthusiast cravings.
> although it wont be 2x16 dual GPUs, it can do 8+8 or 8+16.
> 
> there was an Asus Essense STU for roughly $600 before, but i guess it couldn't sell well enough so they took it off their shelves.
> though even if its still available, i couldn't justify spending _that much_ on a whimsical craving for just a bit more audio quality.


An open back 8x would be great indeed.

Back on topic of the dac/amps, you know ASUS isn't the only one making them right? They're hardly even a big player when it comes to external dacs.

There are tons of them, some with just headphone amplifiers, some with speaker amplifiers, some with both. some with just stereo outputs, some with 2.1 outputs, etc.

5.1 and 7.1 surround are more commonly found on recievers, and arguably , if you have the room for that many speakers, you'll probably have space for a receiver too.


----------



## epic1337

there aren't any other brand of DACs to choose from, so i didn't really have a choice.
the stores here are mostly Asus fans, so far their inventories are like 70% Asus and 30% other brands.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> there aren't any other brand of DACs to choose from, so i didn't really have a choice.
> the stores here are mostly Asus fans, so far their inventories are like 70% Asus and 30% other brands.


Have you tried looking at actual audio stores, no option of buying from other countries?

Most of my online purchases are from abroad, because prices here aren't great and shipping isn't that expensive these days.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilles3000*
> 
> Have you tried looking at actual audio stores, no option of buying from other countries?
> 
> Most of my online purchases are from abroad, because prices here aren't great and shipping isn't that expensive these days.


actual audio stores have those big AV Receivers that costs $300~$2000.








though i don't think they have USB input, they do have digital input.

can't import, aside from not having a credit card or paypal account, its also a hassle due to customs.


----------



## Deimosian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> although it wont be 2x16 dual GPUs, it can do 8+8 or 8+16.


It might be possible with Zen...


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deimosian*
> 
> It might be possible with Zen...


what do you mean? electrically an 8x slot can only provide 8lanes maximum, simply because theres only enough pins for 8x.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> what do you mean? electrically an 8x slot can only provide 8lanes maximum, simply because theres only enough pins for 8x.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: pic


I think he means that zen might offer 32 or more lanes on an their 'mainstream' CPU's. And thus might be able to provide dual 16x Gen.3 slots on mDTX boards.


----------



## epic1337

well it wouldn't matter even if theres a lot of PCIE lanes available, an 8x or 4x slot wouldn't be able to use it.
however it would be advantageous to M.2 slots, one can place two M.2 4x PCIE each underneath the board.
8x + 16x + 4x + 4x for a total of 32x lanes.

on a side note, can they implement a DTX board that are midway between mini DTX and full DTX? similar to Flex ATX.
mini ITX = 170mm x 170mm
mini DTX = 203mm x 170mm
full DTX = 203mm x 244mm
*Flex DTX? = 203mm x 191mm*
Flex ATX = 229mm x 191mm
micro ATX = 244mm x 244mm

the advantage of this is that it would be able to fit on most ITX chassis as its only barely deeper than your typical mini DTX or mini ITX.
and with the extra PCB space, you have enough room to fit 4x DIMM, and more SATA slots or M.2 slots if necessary.

some comparative shots of (left image) full MATX to an (right image) unusual Flex ATX, the board is *Kontron KTQ87/FLEX*.
take note of the mounting hole and it's overall dimension, full MATX is a perfect square.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Problem: AM4 APUs launching in 2016 are, I believe, the 12-lane Carrizo V2 versions, Bristol and Stoney Ridges. Either A) AM4 motherboards will have some serious issues allocating lanes (think 5820K but even worse) or B) there will be a separate northbridge on the motherboard and not the APU die. B) seems unlikely since these are complete SoCs, needing only RAM, a PSU, and ports to plug things in to be a complete system. This is a pretty stark contrast to the existing 990FX, with separate chips for both the northbridge and the southbridge on the motherboard.


----------



## Deimosian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> well it wouldn't matter even if theres a lot of PCIE lanes available, an 8x or 4x slot wouldn't be able to use it.
> however it would be advantageous to M.2 slots, one can place two M.2 4x PCIE each underneath the board.
> 8x + 16x + 4x + 4x for a total of 32x lanes.
> 
> on a side note, can they implement a DTX board that are midway between mini DTX and full DTX? similar to Flex ATX.
> mini ITX = 170mm x 170mm
> mini DTX = 203mm x 170mm
> full DTX = 203mm x 244mm
> *Flex DTX? = 203mm x 191mm*
> Flex ATX = 229mm x 191mm
> micro ATX = 244mm x 244mm
> 
> the advantage of this is that it would be able to fit on most ITX chassis as its only barely deeper than your typical mini DTX or mini ITX.
> and with the extra PCB space, you have enough room to fit 4x DIMM, and more SATA slots or M.2 slots if necessary.
> 
> some comparative shots of (left image) full MATX to an (right image) unusual Flex ATX, the board is *Kontron KTQ87/FLEX*.
> take note of the mounting hole and it's overall dimension, full MATX is a perfect square.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Well I was thinking about the image above with the two x16 slots side by side. And even if the slot is only getting 8 lanes, for GPUs I'd like the full size slot for support. Plenty of GPUs that can be single slot with a waterblock.

I think my ideal setup would be 8 lanes dedicated to two underboard m.2s like you said, maybe some for high end wifi or 10gbe, but the rest to a PLX for the GPUs.


----------



## Deimosian

Damn phone, double posted.


----------



## Creator

I'd be happy if there was an x1 / x16 setup, let alone a full x16 / x16. I'd love to be able to use my ZXR in a SFF build. That's the only thing that's been keeping me from going one yet.


----------



## hartofwave

Close so close

Edit
Now with more heatsink


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Getting close! Now to stretch out that first PCIe slot to at least 8x...


----------



## Simmons572

I would have been happy with an open-ended 1x slot tbh

Moving in the right direction though!


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Simmons572*
> 
> I would have been happy with an open-ended 1x slot tbh
> 
> Moving in the right direction though!


You could just cut it open if you really wanted. It would probably void your warranty, but its a pretty cheap board, so might be worth the risk if its something you really need/want?


----------



## epic1337

why H110... H170 would be perfect, hell even B150 would be better.
H110 by the way doesn't have M.2 slot support, so its really is a bad choice.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

M.2 support is trivial to add. It's a PCIe x4 slot with a fancy connector, and in fact some 990FX motherboards have them.

If you mean the "flex I/O" that allows it to switch between PCIe and SATA modes, I wouldn't doubt it. But the slot itself is nothing fancy and doesn't take too much work to add.


----------



## epic1337

yes i meant the flex i/o, PCI-e SSDs meant for M.2 are still rare or expensive, they're still mostly SATA based.

M.2 simply saves a lot of space its logical to have at least one of it on every board, specially on ITX/DTX boards.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Actually, flex I/O is pretty stupid. They could just use a jumper to switch modes. Flex I/O takes up two SATA ports for one drive, which is fine for PCIe but idiotic for SATA. Then again anybody using mDTX probably doesn't have too many drives lol.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

SATA is old world technology these days. Yes, it's still massively in use, but it's not the future. PCIe is the future.


----------



## epic1337

is implementing SAS ports on consumer products still more expensive than SATA?
i think SAS should take over, despite being quite old itself.

SAS protocol is backwards compatible with SATA, so theres no issues in regards to compatibility either.
the advantages however are numerous, most of which are targeted to reliability and performance.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Well it does generally cost a bit less to produce something as the volume goes up, so if SAS were available in consumer systems, it would be a bit cheaper to implement, but it is still likely to cost more due to the fact that SAS is more complex. Consumer systems don't need the additional reliability, and the potential additional throughput is already diminished by the presence of NVMe and PCIe connections to drives, whatever format that takes.

That said, when it comes to cramming stuff onto small boards, I wish they'd start using mini-SAS HD connectors instead of a slew of SATA and SATA Express connectors. Not only is the latter DoA anyways, but you could fit 4 ports into the space of 2-3 SATA ports (though a mini-SAS to SATA breakout cable), and could also use it for PCIe drives, saving on redundancy (since motherboards have already started seeing those connectors for U.2 drives)


----------



## epic1337

a simple 2 port SAS controller built into the chipset can support 8 SATA drives, this alone simplifies the layout on the PCB.

as for the U.2 port, its not exactly a SAS port, a modified SAS port to be exact?
the original SAS ports doesn't support PCIe passthrough.

edit: according to what i've read, U.2 isn't a mini-SAS HD port.
*U.2* ( SFF-8639 ) is a flat connector derived from SFF-8680 SAS port.



the mini-SAS HD port we see is actually a different port.
i don't even know how they ended up with U.2 becoming a mini-SAS HD port.


----------



## BirdofPrey

It's because the miniSAS HD port was specifically called for as the host connector since it has agreeable signal characteristics, and both ends were already used for multilink SAS, so all that needed to be done was map PCIe lanes instead of SAS links over the same signal paths.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

SAS is cool and all, but why not just PCIe all around? It would make everything that much more versatile.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> SAS is cool and all, but why not just PCIe all around? It would make everything that much more versatile.


not backwards compatible, specially the port, or slot in this case.

M.2 and U.2 ports support both SATA and PCIe x4, its the closest thing we've got to a universal port.
but we still have SATA ports and devices, so it'll take a very long while for PCIe to become mainstream.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Really great mockup on the SFF Network forum by Aibohphobia.

*Mini-DTX Z270 Strix
*


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Really great mockup on the SFF Network forum by Aibohphobia.
> *Mini-DTX Z270 Strix
> *
> 
> 
> Spoiler: pic


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I need that! Thanks for keeping the hype going!

If you rob banks for a living, you can fit two dual-GPU cards in something as small as an SG13!!!


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I need that! Thanks for keeping the hype going!
> 
> If you rob banks for a living, you can fit two dual-GPU cards in something as small as an SG13!!!


only if a single 140mm rad can cool two high-end GPUs, and thats whether to exclude the CPU as well.

the best case to use a DTX board with dual GPUs is NCASE M1, which easily supports a 240mm radiator, or two 240mm if one is passive.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> only if a single 140mm rad can cool two high-end GPUs, and thats whether to exclude the CPU as well.
> 
> the best case to use a DTX board with dual GPUs is NCASE M1, which easily supports a 240mm radiator, or two 240mm if one is passive.


I can second this, Im running a gtx1080 and a 6600k in my ncase m1 on a single 240 radiator. Water temp stays at 28c, cpu never above 45c and gpu never above 56c.
fans max out at 1300rpm too, so if I bumped the fan speeds I could run sli im sure.

My only issue would be that since I run a alphacool nexxxus gpu water block, I cant do single spaced gpus









but I could run a extender cable from the bottom pci slot to move it down another slot.

I do still think that my original idea from awhile back would be best for mitx/mdtx options.

mitx motherboard that just has a daughterboard that plugs into the motherboard. the daughterboard has a power (molex?) and a pcie x16 slot.
using flexible cables, you can move the pcie slot to single slot gpu, dual slot gpu, or even put it somewhere else in the case.
if you utilize the mounting holes from a mdtx or 3 slot matx (like the ncase m1 has already) you could then just screw the daughter card to those posts for support.

This would allow people who want mitx to buy the board, then people who want mdtx can get the mitx board and the separate daughter card for 2 slots.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I need that! Thanks for keeping the hype going!
> 
> If you rob banks for a living, you can fit two dual-GPU cards in something as small as an SG13!!!
> 
> 
> 
> only if a single 140mm rad can cool two high-end GPUs, and thats whether to exclude the CPU as well.
> 
> the best case to use a DTX board with dual GPUs is NCASE M1, which easily supports a 240mm radiator, or two 240mm if one is passive.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it had to be practical! But you are correct. A single 240mm should probably be the bare minimum to cool that many GPUs. Dual single-die GPUs might be more practical for such a small case.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> mitx motherboard that just has a daughterboard that plugs into the motherboard. the daughterboard has a power (molex?) and a pcie x16 slot.
> using flexible cables, you can move the pcie slot to single slot gpu, dual slot gpu, or even put it somewhere else in the case.
> if you utilize the mounting holes from a mdtx or 3 slot matx (like the ncase m1 has already) you could then just screw the daughter card to those posts for support.
> 
> This would allow people who want mitx to buy the board, then people who want mdtx can get the mitx board and the separate daughter card for 2 slots.


While this is definitely more versatile, it adds a lot of complexity and just about kills any plug-and-play support. To me, having to fab a support for a second GPU will turn off 80% of your "casual enthusiasts." The future of this endeavor might be something along the lines of the DAN A4 which requires (and provides) a flexible riser.


----------



## kevinf

Or you could use a mini-ITX and get a bi-furcation compatible riser (and bifurcation enabled BIOS).

https://hardforum.com/threads/pcie-bifurcation.1870298/page-11 hard forum has a GREAT thread on this subject. I have been following closely.

I have a Gigabyte Xeon board w/ a riser... currently evaluating it under Linux with a Quadro card and NVMe storage


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevinf*
> 
> Or you could use a mini-ITX and get a bi-furcation compatible riser (and bifurcation enabled BIOS).
> 
> https://hardforum.com/threads/pcie-bifurcation.1870298/page-11 hard forum has a GREAT thread on this subject. I have been following closely.
> 
> I have a Gigabyte Xeon board w/ a riser... currently evaluating it under Linux with a Quadro card and NVMe storage


There have been a few people on this forum that have had succes with it too, its a pretty cool solution. But it only really works in custom cases or ITX cases designed with riser use in mind.


----------



## Creator

Pretty annoyed that boards like this are not made for the higher end market. Why the low end only?


----------



## zsolmanz

So AMD's Zen uses AM4, which comes with multiple chipset options. The X300 chipset is aimed specifically at SFF uses (itx is thrown around in relation to it).

However, it also has support for dual 16x PCIE slots, as per the AMD release...
https://www.dvhardware.net/news/2017/amd_ryzen_chipsets.jpg

Are we seeing the beginnings of some mainstream m-dtx love? Or will this only feature on m-atx? We can hope for the former!

EDIT: I may have been overexcited for no reason, since that release *doesn't specify 16x slots*, and specifically omits crossfire/SLI support








Guess I'm not worthy of my tin-foil hat.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Dual 8x slots are always an option. I think bifurcation cards may need to be an intermediate step before the interest in DTX class boards is realized.


----------



## stall0wnage

A x99 dtx board with 2 pcie 16x would be sick, now that theres a gtx 1070 single slot card on the way from galax


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I hope single slot cards make a comeback. If not for anything else but to get rid of the double-stack DVI ports.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I hope single slot cards make a comeback. If not for anything else but to get rid of the double-stack DVI ports.


This is probably a large reason why I no longer build desktops that often. It makes me long for the Fermi days and thats saying something considering how hot those cards were...


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I hope single slot cards make a comeback. If not for anything else but to get rid of the double-stack DVI ports.


It would be nice to have a bit more single slot cards indeed. Would not need even to drop the number of ports as you can put 6x mDP on a single slot just fine. I have 6770 Eyefinity 5 with 5x mDP (single slot) and 7870 Eyefinity 6 (2 slot card, however, 6x mDP in single row and can be made single slot by sawing off the grill from the bracket and using GPU water cooling block).

So in my opinion it would be ideal to have a single slot top end GPU with 6x mDP - if needed could have a water block on it even and throw in there 120mm rad/pump combo as an optional accessory for people who dont care to do a proper loop.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Even a dual-slot cooler on a single-slot card would be alright. At least then it would be simple enough to put a waterblock on there.


----------



## Deimosian

I'm really hoping for an X370 DTX board.

EK included a single slot rear bracket with my 7990 waterblock, was sexy.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

It looks like even ITX boards for AM4 are rare at launch. We will keep hyping!


----------



## hartofwave

All aboard the AM4 choo choo


----------



## timerwin63

I'm surprised to see a lack of people freaking out about a particular new GPU's chosen outputs. I wouldn't be surprised if EK decides to throw in single-slot brackets with the blocks for these the way they did with AMD's 7XXX series cards back in the day.

A couple single-slot 1080Tis with no modifications to the cards? Yes please. (Coming from the guy who chopped DVI ports off his 670 and 690 to get that single-slot fix).


----------



## aberrero

Single slot just doesnt' mean much without DTX. AM4 isn't even supporting SLI on microATX for the most part, never mind ITX.


----------



## Gilles3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aberrero*
> 
> Single slot just doesnt' mean much without DTX. AM4 isn't even supporting SLI on microATX for the most part, never mind ITX.


Well, no, there already have been mATX and ITX boards announced with X370 chipsets, and thus support SLI.

They're not out yet, but at least it proves it can be done.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Still, some boards support bifurcation, and that is something. Two watercooled GPUs right next to each other are sweet on any platform.


----------



## EpicOtis13

Single slot is nice for someone like me that could run 3 way SLI/Crossfire in a mATX case. My two 290's are getting to be too slow and I want to upgrade soon to something beefy as heck.


----------



## kevinf

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amds-zen-goes-mainstream-with-ryzen-5-4-cores-8-threads-from-169/

the last slide shows (2) 8x PCIe support

PCIe Bi-Furcation support


http://imgur.com/FGkBF


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Nice to see them explicitly mention it! I just hope that ITX boards will allow a bifurcation riser.


----------



## Deimosian

Bifurcation would be a nice consolation prize for no DTX... but I still just want DTX.


----------



## drtweak

Ok looks as if I'm not the only one on this Hype train as of late.

Looking for a DTX with Dual x16 (or at least x8s). Need to look for a replacement for my server which is a Embedded board with a 1.8Ghz Celeron Dual core. Would have to fit this case

https://www.amazon.com/SilverStone-Technology-Mini-ITX-Computer-DS380B/product-reviews/B00IAELTAI/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews

IDC if its a 5 year old board that I have to get on ebay or but i can not find anything like that and not sure if I will but hey a guy can hope right?

Reason for it is I want to add a 10/40G NIC card to the guy.


----------



## timerwin63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drtweak*
> 
> Ok looks as if I'm not the only one on this Hype train as of late.
> 
> Looking for a DTX with Dual x16 (or at least x8s). Need to look for a replacement for my server which is a Embedded board with a 1.8Ghz Celeron Dual core. Would have to fit this case
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/SilverStone-Technology-Mini-ITX-Computer-DS380B/product-reviews/B00IAELTAI/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews
> 
> IDC if its a 5 year old board that I have to get on ebay or but i can not find anything like that and not sure if I will but hey a guy can hope right?
> 
> Reason for it is I want to add a 10/40G NIC card to the guy.


The only way to do it now is to buy that one obscure Shuttle barebone and put a compatible X79 chip in it, I think. I'm not even sure you can buy them anymore.

Edit: Yeah, it's listed as an EOL product on their website. Here's a link if you want it.


----------



## timerwin63

Edit: lol never mind. Please disregard.


----------



## drtweak

Yea that is WAY too big and over kill for my personal media server XD. I just want to be able to toss in like a Pentium/i3 in there and be able to have my RAID card plus a 10/40GBE card that is directly connected to my main PC which is not even 3 feet away. I"m always saturating out my 1GBE connection when i go and convert a ton of video and move it over to my server so my clients can access it since i don't keep my beast on since it alone consumed 3 times as much power as my Server with its dinky dual core celeron and 8 HDD's.


----------



## kevinf

this is my HTPC case, http://www.coolermaster.com/case/mini-itx/elite-120-advanced/ it has (2) PCIe brackets already, and enough room next to the motherboard for a second card.. im sure a DTX board would fit.


----------



## compalalaska

http://galaxstore.net/GALAX-GeForce-GTX-1070-KATANA_p_130.html

Tempting.


----------



## 2002dunx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevinf*
> 
> Or you could use a mini-ITX and get a bi-furcation compatible riser (and bifurcation enabled BIOS).
> 
> https://hardforum.com/threads/pcie-bifurcation.1870298/page-11 hard forum has a GREAT thread on this subject. I have been following closely.
> 
> I have a Gigabyte Xeon board w/ a riser... currently evaluating it under Linux with a Quadro card and NVMe storage


+REP !

I enjoyed the read..... but why SLi two GTX 1070s when there are GTX 1080Ti and greater performing cards out there... (?)

dunx


----------



## TheArkratos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2002dunx*
> 
> +REP !
> 
> I enjoyed the read..... but why SLi two GTX 1070s when there are GTX 1080Ti and greater performing cards out there... (?)
> 
> dunx


You don't have to use the GPUs for games, could be general GPU acceleration, virtual machines, etc.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

The important part is that those who want dual PCIe devices have the freedom, and those who do not are not inconvenienced. mDTX boards would work in nearly all ITX cases that support a dual-slot GPU.


----------



## Simmons572

Gonna necro this thread as I am pretty excited for this 










https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-Crosshair-VIII-Impact/
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1441...us-rog-crosshair-viii-impact-mini-dtx-wi-fi-6

Still no dual PCIe, but it something at least.


----------



## MiiX

That is just gorgeous....


----------



## skupples

Lass3 said:


> SLI / CF? That would require single slot GPUs?
> 
> I don't see the point.


watercooling, with specially picked cards that have single slot 3rd party I/O

OR!!!!!

Extreme NVMe solution. 4X NVMe via PCIe...

you'd have 1x top of the line card running @ 16x, while you have 4 NVMe (via asus hyper m.2) humming @ 4x each. 

boom, SFF performance redefined.


----------

