Conclusion
Builders asked about the Cooler Master HAF X, and we had the parts in place to answer that question. Rebuilding with this case allowed noticeably reduced GPU temperatures with a noticeable increase in noise.
The problem was that our original overclocks weren’t limited by GPU cooling. Instead, the frequency of our cards was artificially capped by AMD, and we were stuck only because none of the workarounds that we could find would actually work around those limits. GPU fan speeds in excess of 55% were never required, so both configurations had GPU cooling in reserve.
Our CPU cooling was slightly closer to the limit as a result of using a cheap cooler, but again we had over 25° Celsius worth of headroom before we had to worry about throttling. The original system outperformed the HAF X in this discipline, but that slight advantage wasn’t needed. With cooling differences too small to affect our overclocking capabilities, we were left with nothing more than a comparison of case features to price.
While the new case costs 36% more than the original case, it adds only 3% to our total system cost. It adds a pair of hot-swap bays that we didn’t use, some ductwork that didn’t fit our hardware configuration, the ability to support an internal liquid cooling system that we didn’t need, and nearly 3 dB of noise. Thus, the extra money spent is really an exercise in aesthetics. While we prefer the look of anodized brushed aluminum, we’re sure that several readers will instead prefer the massive statement that a windowed steel case the size of the HAF X makes about their equipment.
