Corsair's case lineup has been growing over time with a trickle down approach, as they launched with the venerable (and expensive) Obsidian 800D and have been able to shrink all the way down to the Carbide 200R. Yet outside of the Obsidian 900D, their enthusiast high end (as opposed to the obscene beast that is the 900D) has actually remained relatively unchanged. Today the Obsidian 750D launches, covering the space the 700D and 800D used to occupy while trickling down the 900D's industrial design.

Read more...

The panel does not make the monitor. As I saw in my last 21:9 monitor review, even if you have the exact same panel in two displays, a whole lot more makes the display good or bad. One might assume that all the 21:9 displays now hitting the market are likely to be similar, or even the same, since they all use the same panel, but they would be greatly mistaken as that is but a small part of the overall display. Because of this I was looking forward to seeing what ASUS could manage to do with a high quality panel at its disposal for their MX299Q monitor.

While 21:9 aspect ratios were initially designed around movies in the scope format (2.39:1 and other similar aspect ratios), they also offer a unique experience for gaming. The wider aspect enables a wider field-of-view in many games and can offer an advantage. Personally, however, for general productivity work like Word and Excel I find a 2560x1440 display to be more useful as those benefit from the vertical space.

Out of the box the MX299Q has a stylish look to it. Vendors are trying to make a splash with their 21:9 panels and the styling on them has been nice so far. ASUS puts a thin silver bezel at the bottom of the display while the rest of the screen is effectively bezel-free. I’d like to see this bezel-free look come to more displays in the future. The inputs, DisplayPort, DVI, and HDMI/MHL, are located on the rear along with a headphone jack and audio line-in. Power is handled by an external power brick to accomplish the thin look.

Read more...

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 13px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arimo, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: rgb(246, 246, 246);"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Looking at the launch of the GeForce GTX 780 in retrospect, one of the more unusual aspects of the 780 was just how close NVIDIA let their lower-tier GK110 card get to the upper-tier GTX Titan. GTX 780 was able to deliver 90% of GTX Titan&rsquo;s performance, but did so at just 65% of the price of GTX Titan.</span></span></p> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 13px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arimo, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: rgb(246, 246, 246);"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now a 10% performance gap is a fairly common gap for high-end NVIDIA cards. The price gap on the other hand is clearly wider than normal. For example, in the last generation the GTX 680 and GTX 670 were separated by roughly the same performance gap, but the GTX 670 came in at 80% the price of the GTX 680, not 65%. Ultimately NVIDIA&rsquo;s &ldquo;prosumer&rdquo; positioning made Titan a very expensive card for gaming, with the end result being that the more strictly gaming focused GTX 780 could deliver very similar performance at a much lower price tag.</span></span></p> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 13px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arimo, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: rgb(246, 246, 246);"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">But the more interesting outcome of this performance/price disparity is how easy it is to close the performance gap against the much more expensive GTX Titan through overclocking. In the big picture 10% between tiers is almost nothing, and as we&rsquo;ve already seen&nbsp;GTX 780 can more than make up that last 10% in overclocking. NVIDIA&rsquo;s partners are of course well aware of this fact, and as the partners traditionally do, factory overclocked cards were a foregone conclusion. And with such a narrow gap between GTX 780 and GTX Titan, those factory overclocked cards should have little trouble matching GTX Titan.</span></span></p> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 13px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arimo, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: rgb(246, 246, 246);"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Today we&rsquo;re taking a quick look at one of those cards, EVGA&rsquo;s GeForce GTX 780 Superclocked ACX. The 780SC ACX is a fairly traditional card for EVGA, filling in as the company&rsquo;s standard first-tier factory overclocked card. With the GTX 780 Superclocked EVGA has rolled out two variations of this card, the first variation being an overclocked version of the reference card, and the latter being a semi-custom design with the company&rsquo;s new ACX cooler.</span></span></p> <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 13px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Arimo, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; background-color: rgb(246, 246, 246);"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/show/7356/capsule-review-evga-geforce-gtx-780-superclocked-acx" target="_blank">Read more...</a></span></p>

During my tenure as case reviewer here, I've tried to avoid revisiting hardware whenever possible. There are a tremendous amount of cases available and more launching every day, so to go back and spend more time with something I've already tested is typically less fruitful for all involved. With that said, sometimes it's worth making an exception, and I absolutely believe the SilverStone Precision PS07 merits being checked out again.

The first time I reviewed the PS07 was more than a year and a half ago, when it launched. Yet what often happens with cases is that they see modest revisions during their lifespans. The manufacturers almost never publicize these revisions, but they're almost always positive. NZXT's initially much maligned H2 eventually had the door vent significantly widened to prevent it from suffering the same airflow issues our review unit did, and during the transition to USB 3.0, many manufacturers simply did a one-for-one swapped and replaced their USB 2.0 headers with USB 3.0. SilverStone is no different; the current PS07 is manufactured using thicker steel than the original, and SilverStone has replaced the middling fans they included in the original with quieter, more efficient models.

At the same time, there's been a bit of a dearth of strong Micro-ATX enclosures. Rosewill's Line-M is a good case, but not a great one; the Fractal Design Define Mini has acoustic padding but generally underperforms. The best Micro-ATX case I can really recommend at present is the Corsair Obsidian 350D, but that ignores SilverStone's entries from the year before. I was quite smitten with this enclosure design then, and our testing methodology has improved considerably since that time, so I'd like to see just how well it holds up.

Read more...