Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BTX Future?

Last response: in Components
Share
May 13, 2006 5:57:12 AM

Hope this hasn't been discussed already. It just occured to me, while looking

at a BTX case. Since Intel is basically in the throws of doing a 180, with

Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest, what do you think will become of the BTX

standard...that Intel came up with to deal with their ever increasing thermal

output. Judging by what i've seen on XS forums, the new architecture runs

very cool. BTX seems like overkill now. Any thoughts?


PS. Not wanting this to turn into an Intel vs AMD debate, please.

More about : btx future

May 13, 2006 11:10:36 AM

Major companies like Dell HP and IBM have used BTX design and its proven to be very much sucessful when it comes to heat management. In terms of design too, its easier to handle and install devices compared to ATX.
May 13, 2006 12:51:57 PM

Its a great design just unfortunately never picked up widespread acceptance in the DIY crowd. Dunno why. I think they'll probably keep using it because it means they don't need a dedicated CPU cooling fan.
Related resources
May 13, 2006 12:57:59 PM

I have a P4 now and I would really need better cooling.

Even though Conroe don't get as hot as the P4 there is no reason why we wouldn't want better cooling. I for one wouldn't mind getting rid of a few fans if it was possible.

The question is if there are any drawbacks in useing btx; I havn't heard of any.
May 13, 2006 1:14:48 PM

AMD's never going to get into this right? Will they? The closed thing to BTX is an inverted ATX case. Not that the AMD's have cooling problems anyway :) 

I think BTX is totally cool, it might be my next upgrade when I switch to Conroe ;) 
May 13, 2006 1:57:58 PM

Intel is still backing BTX 100%. I have heard this directly from Intel. If you look, more and more of their SKUs are BTX. Yes Core 2 Duo will be MUCH cooler, but you can never get too cool! A big focus is going to be quiet PCs since they are really pushing the "digital home". No one wants a PC with loud fans running in their living room. Also, BTX makes a small form factor possible using the micro and pico BTX boards.
May 13, 2006 4:02:41 PM

i dont like BTX, the mobo is weird and the CPU is in th emiddle-iush area of th emobo, my dad got a dell optiplex for his work and it came in BTX form. not a fan
May 14, 2006 12:34:07 PM

Quote:
Intel is still backing BTX 100%. I have heard this directly from Intel. If you look, more and more of their SKUs are BTX. Yes Core 2 Duo will be MUCH cooler, but you can never get too cool! A big focus is going to be quiet PCs since they are really pushing the "digital home". No one wants a PC with loud fans running in their living room. Also, BTX makes a small form factor possible using the micro and pico BTX boards.


Are they going to continue to "Back" BTX, even though they started the

idea. Yes, you can never get too cool, but BTX cases must be more

expensive to design/build, so what's to be gained by the case Mfgrs if it's

not such a "necessity" now? I have to wonder if Intel will just sort of just

stop pushing for this. Even though it doesn't come out of their pockets, it

could still slightly raise the price of Intel systems from OEM's?
May 14, 2006 2:14:45 PM

Quote:
Intel is still backing BTX 100%. I have heard this directly from Intel. If you look, more and more of their SKUs are BTX. Yes Core 2 Duo will be MUCH cooler, but you can never get too cool! A big focus is going to be quiet PCs since they are really pushing the "digital home". No one wants a PC with loud fans running in their living room. Also, BTX makes a small form factor possible using the micro and pico BTX boards.


Are they going to continue to "Back" BTX, even though they started the

idea. Yes, you can never get too cool, but BTX cases must be more

expensive to design/build, so what's to be gained by the case Mfgrs if it's

not such a "necessity" now? I have to wonder if Intel will just sort of just

stop pushing for this. Even though it doesn't come out of their pockets, it

could still slightly raise the price of Intel systems from OEM's?

I don't think BTX cases are really more expensive to produce. Most of the cost involved is to do with retooling machines to produce BTX cases when they've been devoted to producing ATX cases for so long.

From what I've seen at work of IBM and HP BTX cases there's nothing wrong with them and they run cooler and quieter than most PC's built on the ATX standard :) 

My next PC will probably be ATX and will have a P180 case but that's because no one has yet built a case that's so cleverly designed and quiet in BTX :) 
May 15, 2006 3:49:52 AM

BTX is a new standard and like any new standard it takes time to develop. Yes it is slightly more expensive now to buy a BTX MB and processor but newer technology is always going to be a little more expensive. Intel was actually entertaining the idea of going totally BTX, but decided to take a more gradual approach. This is not something that is going away. The BTX form factor, like I said before, will make way for smaller and smaller PCs in the future. This is what Intel is pushing for.
May 15, 2006 12:19:33 PM

How will BTX keep the CPU cool?

Please list some of the benefits or give links to the benefits of BTX

Will a BTX case beat a lian li pc V 1000?
May 16, 2006 4:45:00 AM

BTX doesn't necessarily improve cooling, rather, it simply forces companies to put a CPU cooling tunnel from the front to the rear of the case. This can be done in ATX, but it's mandatory for BTX.

Intel didn't need to flip the board around, they simply did that to prevent compatibility. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater they used to call this. Maybe they should have come out with a new ATX case revision instead, mandating the cooling tunnel to comply with "rev x.x", but instead they decided it was time to screw around with the industry.
May 16, 2006 6:00:59 AM

Quote:
BTX doesn't necessarily improve cooling, rather, it simply forces companies to put a CPU cooling tunnel from the front to the rear of the case. This can be done in ATX, but it's mandatory for BTX.

Intel didn't need to flip the board around, they simply did that to prevent compatibility. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater they used to call this. Maybe they should have come out with a new ATX case revision instead, mandating the cooling tunnel to comply with "rev x.x", but instead they decided it was time to screw around with the industry.


Not really. The reason why it's been done like this is so that the first thing fresh air does when it gets into the case is cool the CPU. If it didn't have this you'd have to have a longer tunnel or a more powerful CPU fan to provide the same level of cooling and this is the most quiet and efficient way to do it :) 
May 16, 2006 8:18:44 AM

What I said is 100% correct, you can have a straight tunnel go from the front of the case, over the CPU, and out the back, with ATX. It's been done.

Intel could have simply mandated the tunnel for a new ATX case revision, and produced ATX x.x boards with the same requirement.
May 16, 2006 8:47:26 AM

Not really. Yes it has been done but it's just a bandaid solution. the truth is ATX doesn't handle modern CPU's and GPU's as well as BTX can :) 

Most cases don't have anywhere on the front of the case for air to be piped straight from you've also got the memory in the way and a lot of things like hard drives depending on the case you have.

Best off to optimise the layout for cooling and give it a different name and make it a brand new standard rather than having people buying stuff and asking why it doesn't work when both the products they're trying to put together are both ATX. For instance if your PSU dies and you want to replace the whole case because a PSU costs more than a case you aren't going to go out and buy a BTX case for an ATX system are you? And if you do the retailer can just tell you to go and take a hike rather easily.

Is it not good sometimes to just start afresh and not be left with any of the problems or liabilities of an old standard? :) 
May 16, 2006 8:48:08 AM

I don't it would matter in future since hardwares is going to be smaller and smaller and produces less heat. So it wouldn't matter what kind of design to implement heat dissipation. Maybe 5 years from now everything would cooled using just a heatsink, it would be dead quite and and less heat and very effecient rig.

But talking about BTX, yes it's a great design. My other PC Gateway 845GM is an Intel BTX and believe it or not it uses only 2 120mm fans. One in front cool the hd and the giant cpu heatsink while the other exhaust the heat at the back. It's sports a Pentium D 820 which runs hot buy the way, but with it, it's fairly cool and very quite as well. It has 350watts psu but I got a soundcard and 7800GT on it and runs very stable with no problem. So I'm very impressed with the BTX design, but one thing is that it is very limited to upgrades.
May 16, 2006 8:54:57 AM

No, I'm being totally real here. "Most Cases" doesn't apply to this, since a new case revision would mean all the "ATX x.x" cases would have the tunnel.

What this would mean is thus: You wouldn't be locked in. You could use the ATX x.x board with an old case and old-style cooler, or you could use the ATX x.x board with a new case and a new style cooler. Also, you could use an ATX x.x case with an old board and and old style cooler, or you could use the ATX x.x case with the new board and either type of cooler.

Cross-compatibility. It means the only part being restricted would be the new cooler, everything would be compatible with everything.

You seem stuck in a track laid by Intel, let me open your mind to a world of possibilities.
May 16, 2006 9:13:35 AM

Quote:
You seem stuck in a track laid by Intel, let me open your mind to a world of possibilities.


Sounds like marketing speak to me :p 

Ok I'm more than willing to listen :)  It's just that from the BTX systems I've seen at work they just look better than the ATX systems I've seen with windtunnels. Some HP workstations and low end servers have a sort of windtunnel that works well but is rather noisy even at low speed.
May 16, 2006 9:24:21 AM


It's just that from the BTX systems I've seen at work they just look better than the ATX systems I've seen with windtunnels. Some HP workstations and low end servers have a sort of windtunnel that works well but is rather noisy even at low speed.[/quote]

I don't think too many people would disagree that BTX is a good setup.

Had it been introduced, instead of ATX, it would have been the better

standard. "But", that's not how things transpired, and nobody likes it

when one company flexes a little muscle, to change things to their way

of thinking(especially when we have no say, and it generally entails

more monetary outlay).
May 16, 2006 9:28:44 AM

It may seem like Intel flexing it's muscles and to a certain extent it was. But there have been cases (no pun intended) in the past where change has been forced upon people for the good of people and people have in the end liked it :) 

As I said before my next PC will probably be in an ATX case unless someone makes a BTX case as lovely and sexy as the P180 :) 
May 16, 2006 10:17:57 AM

There's where you're losing your mind, er, failing to access the situation: Full-Sized BTX boards resemble ATX boards, flipped over. If BTX wind tunnels are better than ATX wind tunnels, it's simply because the ATX wind tunnels were using an inferior design.

You see, Intel could have incorporated the SAME wind tunnel into ATX, and called it ATX version "whatever". Such a design would have the following features:

1.) the same fanless CPU cooler now being used in BTX could have been applied to a new ATX standard instead.
2.) An old board would fit into the new ATX case, but require the use of an old-style cooler.
3.) A new board would fit into the old ATX case, but require an old-style cooler
4.) A new board would fit into the new style case, and could use either the new or old style cooler.

So you see, Intel could have revised the ATX case to use the same wind tunnel as found in the BTX case, and there would be enough cross-compatibility to make older parts and newer parts work together. Bonus, building a system with all newer parts would have the same cooling features you like so much in BTX.
May 16, 2006 12:43:14 PM

Why is it so bad that Intel is trying to go to a new, better standard? We went from AT to ATX. We went from AGP to PCI-E. Change is good. No one is forcing you to switch right now to BTX. That is why Intel is making a Gradual change. Maybe years down the road when you have upgraded everything already and decide to do a new build everything will be BTX but who cares? Yes it is a change, yes it seems inconvienient to some people at the begining, but yes it is a better design.
May 16, 2006 1:20:02 PM

I'd upgrade to BTX in my next rig if I could but the problem is there aren't many AMD BTX motherboards. Its all Intel stuff for the most part. Puts a nice huge, quiet 120mm fan right in front of the CPU heatsink to avoid needing a dedicated fan for it. Only problem with that is then where do the hard drives go and still have a fan blowing over them.

This is why I'm getting a Lian Li V1100B Plus II case which is a reversed ATX design.
May 16, 2006 1:54:07 PM

Either you don't understand anything or you're stupid. That's like saying a 19.1" wheel is better than a 19" wheel and changing all the tire sizes, it just doesn't make sense.

They didn't need to make the parts incompatible in order to implement their new cooling method. They did make the parts incompatible for no engineering reason whatsoever. It's all marketing, zero engineering behind the decision.

No more making excuses, I won't accept your excuses. Change is never inherently good, there has to be a reason for it. And it wasn't necessary to make the parts incompatible simply to add a cooling feature.

I don't know why anyone would make excuses like you have. It's completely illogical. It's as bad as MS saying "We're saving the computer industry by making an OS that has so much overhead, people will be forced to upgrade". All spin.
May 16, 2006 2:50:46 PM

there is more here than "no engineering reason whatsoever". BTX is not just about cooling w/ a tunnel. The traces within the pcb of the mobo are shortened and re-routed to achieve better latency and less interference. (especially for onboard sound) Shorter/less traces eventually equates to a cheaper/easier to manufacture mobo. theoretically if the standard was widely adopted then it would be cheaper to buy then ATX all else being equal. Of course I really doubt prices would ever come down once the consumer base was comfortable w/ paying $x.

I am actually in agreement w/ you on change, and also agree that it is probably more for marketing reasons than anything that it is incompatable. btx could just as easily be compatable w/ atx, even w/ shorter traces and other things. But what's a girl to do gidge?

One thing about the tunnel on atx is the layout of the ram sticks. Ram on btx is parallell w/ the tunnel, while atx is perpendicular. It is small, but it does hamper airflow on an atx tunnel. Many "reverse" atx cases have the tunnel, and it is good for sure... just btx is prb better.

Having said all that, and knowing that Dell has always had proprietary "atx looking" boards so a switch to btx for them was a no-brainer, AMD stated a while back that they had no reasons to push for btx. This of course makes it a total AMD vs Intel thing, and so I personally think that it may evolve into totally different form factors based on companies. ATI and Nv already are making you buy their whole platform to lock you into upgrades w/ them only, It would not surprise me to see AMD and Intel do the same w/ entire systems! lol :roll:

bean counters suck
May 16, 2006 3:00:17 PM

Quote:

They didn't need to make the parts incompatible in order to implement their new cooling method.

True.


Quote:
They did make the parts incompatible for no engineering reason whatsoever. It's all marketing, zero engineering behind the decision.

I am not sure this is strictly true. Since Intel chips likely benefit from loosing some latency by rearranging the memory/NB/CPU relationships. By angling the CPU they simplify the motherboard a bit.

EDIT: Curses! sojrner beat me to it!
May 16, 2006 3:09:11 PM

Very valid points. Cross-compatibility would have been a much better route for all of us "The Consumers."
May 16, 2006 3:27:04 PM

Yeh, like I said, all the changes to the board layout could have been done to an ATX board. The new ATX version would have a revision name, like ATX-B or something, but basically you could move the RAM (lots of companies have done that on ATX boards), move the sound chip, etc, without changing a single mounting hole or port location.

And that's really what it's about, mounting holes and port locations. The cooling improvements could have been done to ATX.

In fact, given that BTX bolts the cooler to the motherboard, it would have been possible to mandate them for cases to meet the revised spec, and design the board to also support a "legacy" bracket for use with the old-style coolers when a new board was installed into an old case.
May 16, 2006 3:59:25 PM

Didn't you know...that the ATX sink is round? It wouldn't matter that they rotated the socket.
May 16, 2006 4:21:07 PM

agreed indeed.
May 16, 2006 11:45:11 PM

Quote:
Either you don't understand anything or you're stupid. That's like saying a 19.1" wheel is better than a 19" wheel and changing all the tire sizes, it just doesn't make sense.

They didn't need to make the parts incompatible in order to implement their new cooling method. They did make the parts incompatible for no engineering reason whatsoever. It's all marketing, zero engineering behind the decision.

No more making excuses, I won't accept your excuses. Change is never inherently good, there has to be a reason for it. And it wasn't necessary to make the parts incompatible simply to add a cooling feature.

I don't know why anyone would make excuses like you have. It's completely illogical. It's as bad as MS saying "We're saving the computer industry by making an OS that has so much overhead, people will be forced to upgrade". All spin.


How much of a performance difference is there between a AGP and PCI-E card with the same chipset? Are AGP and PCI-E cards compatible? Are Nvidia and ATI going to make AGP cards forever? Things change, especially in the computer world.

How do you know it has nothing to do with engineering? Are you an engineer? Maybe they could implement a cooling solution with current ATX or maybe they couldn't. How would it benefit Intel from a marketing standpoint anyway?

Why would I be making excuses? I don't work for Intel. I am simply answering someone else's question on whether or not BTX is here to stay, and it is. I have worked with BTX cases and can tell you from experience they are easy to work with and you can get a nice quiet case for little $. Sure I could spend $150-$300 on a nice quiet and cool ATX case or I could modify the case as you have suggested, but I would rather buy a descent $50 case and spend my money elsewhere.
May 17, 2006 12:28:35 AM

Hey Crashman, could you show us some screenshots or describe how the "wind tunnel" would work on an ATX case? I'm trying to envision it but where would the input of the tunnel go? The front of the case?

Dell's been sort of doing that for a while - they kind of have a tunnel that has the input and output in the back of the case w/ 2x80mm fans (one blowing in, one out). It goes over the CPU heatsink, etc.

Personally, I like BTX's look and feel. I hate computer noise, so how they align everything in the case makes it alot better in the heat management. The P180 by Antec is sort of following the same idea w/ its thermal chambers.

Another note on BTX is that it has the picoBTX form factor, which is smaller than the microATX.

It could have been done to the ATX form factor, but perhaps the revisions were to far away from the previous ATX spec? *shrug*
May 17, 2006 2:47:36 AM

It shouldn't be too hard to envision, look at a BTX case, and flip it over in your mind's eye. Wow!

Most cases have 3.5" drive bays where the wind tunnel would enter at the front of the case.

Don't make me get out a picture of a BTX case and mirror it in photoshop...
May 17, 2006 2:53:29 AM

As a matter of fact, I am an engineer of sorts, I'm a degree mechanical designer. I have to understand the basic principles of design, such as airflow and convection.

Your PCI-E analogy doesn't work, though we didn't need PCI-E x16 yet. The reason it doesn't work is that you can buy Socket 939 boards with AGP, PCI-E, or both (functioning correctly as both in the Asrock ULi board).

Some changes are necessary. AMD had to change the socket type from Socket 462 to 754 to implement their on-die memory controller. They should have jumped straight to 939. Intel should have skipped Socket 423 too, since 478 was already in late development at 423 release. I've already ripped on Intel for a few things...wait, BTX IS FROM INTEL!
May 17, 2006 12:59:38 PM

Quote:

Your PCI-E analogy doesn't work, though we didn't need PCI-E x16 yet. The reason it doesn't work is that you can buy Socket 939 boards with AGP, PCI-E, or both (functioning correctly as both in the Asrock ULi board).quote]

Last time I checked there are cases that are BTX, ATX, or both! :D 
May 17, 2006 1:19:24 PM

I'm sorry, but you can't buy a BTX motherboard for ATX cases. You can buy an AGP motherboard for Socket 939 processors.

I'm not walking down your slippery slope, which follows "this is a problem and a solution, the solution isn't much worse than the problem so I guess it's OK" followed by "this isn't much worse than the last solution".

That's like saying "I only owe $5 on my credit card, what's another $5", then saying "I only owe $10..." until you have the entire national debt under your name :p 
May 17, 2006 1:44:21 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry, but you can't buy a BTX motherboard for ATX cases. You can buy an AGP motherboard for Socket 939 processors.

I'm not walking down your slippery slope, which follows "this is a problem and a solution, the solution isn't much worse than the problem so I guess it's OK" followed by "this isn't much worse than the last solution".

That's like saying "I only owe $5 on my credit card, what's another $5", then saying "I only owe $10..." until you have the entire national debt under your name :p 


http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&ty...

If that link doesn't work go to www.newegg.com and type atx/btx in the keyword search.
May 17, 2006 2:04:15 PM

Quote:
I would rather buy a descent $50 case and spend my money elsewhere.


The cheapest case on your list you posted was $95!! Highest was well over $400!! lol


What crashman is getting at here, and what I think you are missing is that it would be easier to make some changes to the current atx spec and get all the bennies of btx while keeping within the parameters of atx. That would mean you would not need a "convertable" (read: expensive) atx/btx case, but could use any atx case and put in the "new" atx 3.0 board. (or whatever they would call it).

aeroCool has been making "reverse atx" cases for a while, as have others. This can use any atx board and get all teh cooling bennies of btx. Look here for one example of an atx w/ tunnel.

Once you flip the standard atx you can do it easily. This does not get the shorter traces of btx, but some re-engineering of some of the component layout on atx could get you that.

Basically, btx was done for less then pure functionality. If engineers and not bean counters were in control of it, it would just be a version upgrade of atx. JMO
May 17, 2006 2:09:39 PM

Hmm, that link doesn't work, it shows cases instead of motherboards.
May 17, 2006 3:20:29 PM

Quote:
I would rather buy a descent $50 case and spend my money elsewhere.


The cheapest case on your list you posted was $95!! Highest was well over $400!! lol


What crashman is getting at here, and what I think you are missing is that it would be easier to make some changes to the current atx spec and get all the bennies of btx while keeping within the parameters of atx. That would mean you would not need a "convertable" (read: expensive) atx/btx case, but could use any atx case and put in the "new" atx 3.0 board. (or whatever they would call it).

aeroCool has been making "reverse atx" cases for a while, as have others. This can use any atx board and get all teh cooling bennies of btx. Look here for one example of an atx w/ tunnel.

Once you flip the standard atx you can do it easily. This does not get the shorter traces of btx, but some re-engineering of some of the component layout on atx could get you that.

Basically, btx was done for less then pure functionality. If engineers and not bean counters were in control of it, it would just be a version upgrade of atx. JMO

The cheapest case on the list of ATX/BTX may have been $95. If I were going to get a BTX MB, I would buy a BTX case which the cheapest on Newegg is $77; I get them cheaper from a Distributor.

I understand Crashman's point and I am not saying he is totally wrong. My point that I think you guys are missing is that BTX is just another standard. Would it be possible to make a board as small as a PicoBTX board using ATX? I don't know the answer to that. But the point is, Intel made some engineering changes for a reason. Whether it be smaller boards, or cooler solutions, or whatever.

I'm sure if they really wanted to, they could have made a PCI-E slot compatible with AGP. But they didn't because it is a new technology.

I do understand the point. Like I said, maybe they could have "updated" ATX instead of creating BTX. But when you try to expand on old standards, it can limit what you can do. This is why you start from scratch and create a new standard. Maybe this was the better way of doing it, maybe not. We can agree to disagree all day about the advantages and disadvantages but in the end it doesn't really matter. They will keep putting products out, we will choose what we want to buy, and the world will keep right on spinning.
May 17, 2006 3:22:19 PM

Quote:
Hmm, that link doesn't work, it shows cases instead of motherboards.


Yes I know, this is because you said you can't buy a BTX motherboard that fits in a ATX case. You were talking about boards that had both AGP and PCI-E and I am showing you that there are cases that can support both ATX and BTX.
May 17, 2006 3:38:41 PM

Now we're talking about the difference between forced updates or optional upgrades.
May 17, 2006 3:50:53 PM

Quote:
Now we're talking about the difference between forced updates or optional upgrades.


Who is forcing you to go to BTX??? ATX will be around for a long time. By the time there is only BTX (IF that ever happens) you will probably want to do a total update of your system anyway. THIS IS HOW TECHNOLOGY WORKS!!!! New stuff comes out that isn't compatible with old stuff. I don't understand how you can be into technology and not understand that by now. Are you still using Windows 3.1 on a computer built on the AT standard? Did you think ATX would be the standard forever. Is ATX such a perfect design that it can't be improved upon?
May 17, 2006 5:49:12 PM

Actually I understand everything and you understand nothing. In reality that's not true, you pretend not to understand, you ignore the facts and substitute your opinion.

The facts are, some changes are mandatory, others are optional. If chipset companies wanted to move from parallel to serial PCI slots, they had to change the slots. If motherboard makers wanted to designate a portion of the motherboard for use as ports and open CPU/RAM area, they had to ditch AT. If AMD wanted to add another RAM channel to their on-die controller, they had to add more pins to the socket. If Intel wanted to go from an SDR to QDR socket, they had to create new hardware to do it.

Intel didn't have to make ATX and BTX incompatible.

Your problem is that I understand the difference between progress and change.
May 17, 2006 6:42:38 PM

What do you think of the BTX's CPU coolers? They're supposed to be super-heavy. Would ATX had to have added some extra case piece to support the weight?
BTX supposedly can handle 2x the cooler weight of ATX.

Or do you think it was unnecessary to redo CPU coolers?

BTX CPU coolers remind me of the Zalman ones..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1683...
May 17, 2006 6:48:56 PM

remember when the first p4 coolers had to be bolted to the case wall?

that was still atx...
May 17, 2006 7:01:12 PM

That's a good one about the Motherboard.
May 17, 2006 7:26:09 PM

Yes, it seems that every single one of my posts in this thread over the past 12 hours have been repetitive.

Intel could have specified an amended ATX case for use with the passive cooler. That amended case would be ATX, with a cooling tunnel and any necessary small additions needed to support the larger cooler. And the board would have been able to use either cooler type, so that it would work with the passive cooler in the new case, or an older active cooler in an older case.

And if anyone is wondering about smaller form factors such as Nano-BTX and Pico-BTX, we already had Flex-ATX and Mini-ITX.
May 17, 2006 8:39:59 PM

IMO, w/ all the changes and modifications you say, yes, they could have amended ATX.. But it seems better to me to just launch a new standard since its more than just a design shift, its also an approach shift.

Plus from the sound of it, the extra case pieces would probably have the need for case manufacturers to alter their manufacturing process anyways. Probably not as major, but still.

Its probably better than it was launched as a new standard to avoid confusion on the consumers' part. Its annoying enough trying to figure out the ATX power specifications.

What do they say, agree to disagree? or something like that...

Anyways, I was actually asking what you thought of the CPU cooler design as well - apart from the case spec. I guess it wasn't conveyed enough.
!