Cooler Master Launches Airflow-Focused PC Cases With Aggressive Front Ends

CMP 520
(Image credit: Cooler Master)

Cooler Master has announced two all-new CMP series computer chassis focusing on looks and high airflow while vying to compete with our Best PC Cases of 2022 in the future. These cases come in the form of the standard ATX CMP 520 and Micro-ATX CMP 320. Pricing and availability are undisclosed at this time.

The CMP 520 and 320 take on the same design language as Cooler Master's more premium CMP 510 and compress it into a cheaper, more simplistic design approach.

Both cases feature aggressive angular front panels and a full mesh front end for unobstructed airflow. In addition, the 520 will come with three 120mm ARGB intake fans, while the 320 comes with just two -- despite supporting the same fan layout as the 520. Tempered glass side panels come standard as well.

CMP 320

(Image credit: Cooler Master)

One feature that made its way into these cases from the CMP 510 is a breathable power supply shroud that allows you to orient your power supply up or down, depending on your needs. It also improves the airflow routing from the hard drive cages next to the PSU.

Cooler and fan support is quite extensive as well, with support for dual 140mm or 120mms on the top, three 120mms or two 140mms on the front, and 280mm radiator options for the CMP 520.

Surprisingly, the micro-atx CMP 320 retains the same cooling setup as the 520, including triple 120mm fan support in the front. However, radiator support has been dropped to 240mm in the front due to space restrictions.

Other features worth mentioning are air tower support of up to 161mm for the (bigger) CMP 520 and 163.5mm for the CMP 320. Following this same behavior, graphics card support extends to 350mm for the 520 and 365mm for the 320.

Front I/O for both cases includes one USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A port, one USB 2.0 port, and one 3.5mm audio jack. Hard drive support extends to two 2.5/3.5-inch drive bays and two additional 2.5-inch drive bays for a total of four.

Based on the design language, we can estimate these cases to be cheaper models with a price of around $80 to $120, depending on the price of the fans. This should put them in competitive distance of other popular cases such as the Phanteks P series, G series, Fractal Design Meshify 2, and NZXT H5 series, to name a few.

All these cases have very similar cooling characteristics, with mesh front panels, so it will be interesting to see if the CMP 520 and 320 can stand out from the crowd once we get both cases in our lab for testing.

Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • -Fran-
    Looks ugly. Come on Cooler Master, give me back the HAF-X! That is your only duty to me and the world.

    Regards xD
    Reply
  • wifiburger
    I guess we can consider "airflow focused" if you don't install that glass panel :ROFLMAO:
    Reply
  • TechyInAZ
    The front panel is actual mesh in the image, its just that the image compression is so bad, it makes it look like a tempered glass front LOL.
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    What the crap, Cooler Master?
    You already had something nice with the three H500s(blank, P Mesh, M), the NR200P(for the M-ITX fans), the Cosmos(for big loops)...
    The style of the SL600M needs a refresh - sadly, Lian Li beat them to it.


    These new CMPs feel lazily done.
    Reply
  • Co BIY
    -Fran- said:
    Looks ugly. Come on Cooler Master, give me back the HAF-X! That is your only duty to me and the world.

    Regards xD

    Searching the Haf-X and I found a Blue-Black Antec Lanboy on ebay. That's a case that makes a statement!




    These new mesh fronts are bland.

    A couple of Haf-X cases on ebay.
    Reply
  • wifiburger said:
    I guess we can consider "airflow focused" if you don't install that glass panel :ROFLMAO:

    Have to agree there. Sealed sides, fronts all but sealed. I guess they changed the definition of what "air flow" means.
    Reply