Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Devonavar
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
It's focus seems to be on watercooling which results in it being big for MiniITX. It's rated at 26.8 litres but include protrusions and it's up to 28.8 litres. That's bigger than many MicroATX cases.
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Could they go smaller? Sure. On the other hand, it's a nice form factor and could be a nice substitute for the Define Mini...which really needs to be updated.
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
mITX boards are not as good as µATX ones.CA_Steve wrote:and could be a nice substitute for the Define Mini
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
How do you judge that they are "not as good"? If you want something smaller, they are much better. If you need more than one expansion slot, they are not. If cost is a major issue then uATX is slightly cheaper but there are different arguments each way dependant upon an individual use case.quest_for_silence wrote:mITX boards are not as good as µATX ones.
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Because they are, particularly if meant to be used in a dual radiator (small) system: look to the latest SPCR review.edh wrote:How do you judge that they are "not as good"?
-
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:44 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Hey, I had a dual-radiator ITX system and it worked perfectly!quest_for_silence wrote:Because they are, particularly if meant to be used in a dual radiator (small) system: look to the latest SPCR review.edh wrote:How do you judge that they are "not as good"?
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Right. Thanks for answering that one for me. There I was wondering why you thought MicroATX motherboards were better than MiniITX and the answer was there all along! Why on earth couldn't I work that one out for myself?quest_for_silence wrote:Because they are
That is your opinion. Not fact, opinion. I think MiniITX is awesome, that is my opinion.
I am not bothered about water cooling and what has motherboard form factor itself got to do with watercooling potential?!?quest_for_silence wrote:particularly if meant to be used in a dual radiator (small) system: look to the latest SPCR review.
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Better build quality, more robustness, better cooling, more features, wider offering...edh wrote:There I was wondering why you thought MicroATX motherboards were better
edh wrote:I am not bothered about water cooling and what has motherboard form factor itself got to do with watercooling potential?!?
No, you are somewhat misunderstanding: I'm not bothering about which is better between mITX and mATX form factor.
I answered to a very specific remark whether that Nano is a valid Mini replacement.
The Nano is just 5.1cm less tall and 7.8cm less deep than the Mini: who would buy such an elephant?
Probably who needs a huge cooling prowess (lots of computing threads, high TDPs, huge OCing): but those people are better served by the Mini (or similar enclosures), given that mITX board offering is less capable and flexible than mATX board one for those kinds of usage patterns.
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Which is your enclosure?Fire-Flare wrote:Hey, I had a dual-radiator ITX system and it worked perfectly!quest_for_silence wrote:Because they are, particularly if meant to be used in a dual radiator (small) system: look to the latest SPCR review.edh wrote:How do you judge that they are "not as good"?
-
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:44 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
It was a Cubitek Mini Tank.quest_for_silence wrote:Which is your enclosure?Fire-Flare wrote:Hey, I had a dual-radiator ITX system and it worked perfectly!quest_for_silence wrote: Because they are, particularly if meant to be used in a dual radiator (small) system: look to the latest SPCR review.
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Really?!? Wider offering maybe, more features I do not care about and the other things you simply can't state as if they are fact unless you have proof. If anything MiniITX would be expected to be built better and be more robust as there is less of it to go wrong!quest_for_silence wrote:Better build quality, more robustness, better cooling, more features, wider offering...
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Fire-Flare wrote:It was a Cubitek Mini Tank.
Oh, lovely enclosure, though even bigger than the Define Nano S.
edh wrote:unless you have proof.
Check the latest SPCR review, it's a pretty good "proof".
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
No it is not good proof. It shows one motherboard is bad, the other is SPCR recommended. Both are MiniITX. It's illogical to link the issues of one single motherboard as being inherently a problem with all motherboards of the same form factor.quest_for_silence wrote:Check the latest SPCR review, it's a pretty good "proof".
Next you will be saying that because the original Audi TT started taking off and killing people due to it's floored aerodynamic design (requiring a recall to add a rear wing, fact fans) that all coupe's are dangerous.
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
I don't care that badge, I prefer to weight the words:edh wrote:It shows one motherboard is bad, the other is SPCR recommended.
I'm pretty confident the US$115 ASUS Z170M-Plus with its 7 phase VRM is "better" than the US$150 SPCR recommended one, and inside a Define Mini will offer a better outcome than the other one inside a 5cm less tall Define Nano, with reference to an highly potent rig (what about an oc'ed 295X2 on the Z170N-Gaming 5?).
Next I'll say I'm done, edh, that's not a matter of advocacy: you are in love with your methis, enjoy!edh wrote:Next you will be saying
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
I also think my Asus Mini-ITX board (Z87I-PRO WiFi) is fine. Have not noticed any bad build quality and I don't miss any features, on the contrary, it has WiFi and BlueTooth that I do use.quest_for_silence wrote:mITX boards are not as good as µATX ones.
Better build quality, more robustness, better cooling, more features, wider offering...
Robustness - I don't understand what you mean, better cooling - mine is cool enough, wider offering - well, I found what I needed.
So me too find these statements a bit too categorically.
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Talking about feature?
idk, maybe try to fit good wifi on a microATX board w.o adpater card?
idk, maybe try to fit good wifi on a microATX board w.o adpater card?
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
LongJan wrote:I also think my Asus Mini-ITX board (Z87I-PRO WiFi) is fine.
Oh, actually it's more than fine (as well as edh's one): how much did you pay it? Which is your rig?
LongJan wrote:So me too find these statements a bit too categorically.
Probably because you want to see as a blanket statement what was a very specific remark (about the Nano as a replacement for the Mini).
baii wrote:Talking about feature?
idk, maybe try to fit good wifi on a microATX board w.o adpater card?
But that's not a feature on a mITX board, that's an inner necessity.
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Yes, I understand what you mean. Going from mATX to mITX may be 'not as good' in some situations (eg. lack of PCI-slots).quest_for_silence wrote:Probably because you want to see as a blanket statement what was a very specific remark (about the Nano as a replacement for the Mini).
Suppose I reacted mostly on the build quality thing, because even if Gigabyte have made a couple of questionable mITX boards, I doubt that generally speaking mITX is of worse quality than mATX.
Probably you can find some bad mATX boards out there too.
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
looking BIG.
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Yes, big for MiniITX and as big as many MicroATX cases. Not as big as the BitFenix Prodigy perhaps but then that is about the biggest MiniITX case there is. Can't help feeling that without the watercooling support it would be a better case for normal use.
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Personally i like the offering, i always felt the Define Mini was not that much smaller than R4/5, while this is still big for mini itx, i still feel it fits more the purpose of a smaller Fractal case, at least much better than define mini did.
I do think by design seems more a watercooling setup, but i think it can work out fine for air cooling with dual 120 on the front i feel it would help keep the gpu cooler than the single 140.
Now to persuade a friend that he needs this.... so i can build it =P, this case + MSI Z170 mini ITX + MSI GTX970 + EVGA P2 650W + Noctua NF-S12B PWM would be a killer (at least in my mind).
I do think by design seems more a watercooling setup, but i think it can work out fine for air cooling with dual 120 on the front i feel it would help keep the gpu cooler than the single 140.
Now to persuade a friend that he needs this.... so i can build it =P, this case + MSI Z170 mini ITX + MSI GTX970 + EVGA P2 650W + Noctua NF-S12B PWM would be a killer (at least in my mind).
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Alas, the EVGA P2 is 165mm long and the case accepts up to 160mm.
-
- Posts: 5275
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: ITALY
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
Mate, 5cm less... go figure: a Corsair 88R is more balanced...Abula wrote:at least much better than define mini did.
... a Core 500 is better, a Node 304 is better, edh's Metis is better, Silverstone's "Z" cases are better, not this thing...
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
='(CA_Steve wrote:Alas, the EVGA P2 is 165mm long and the case accepts up to 160mm.
Well then Seasonic Platinums are 160mm, but wondering if the 160mm restriction considers the thickness of the cables and connectors on a modular PSU?
The friend that ill be persuading likes fractals style of cases, but i did suggest a Z02 and he liked also, will see what happens.quest_for_silence wrote:Mate, 5cm less... go figure: a Corsair 88R is more balanced...Abula wrote:at least much better than define mini did.
... a Core 500 is better, a Node 304 is better, edh's Metis is better, Silverstone's "Z" cases are better, not this thing...
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:39 pm
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Fractal intro's Define Nano S Mini-ITX
I assume Fractal Design is one of the manufacturers that provides SPCR with samples to review. I remember reading a review of the Core 500 in the not too distant past. I think overall I would still prefer to do a mini-ITX build in the Core 500 but this case may still be worth a look as the Define Mini has not been updated in quite a while and it seems like this might appeal to the same people who liked the mini.
Would be nice if Fractal Design threw in some Venturi fans for review too. SPCR is my must trusted source for fan reviews and would love to see what they think of them.
Would be nice if Fractal Design threw in some Venturi fans for review too. SPCR is my must trusted source for fan reviews and would love to see what they think of them.