Is there a future in ITX gaming?

adequate is in the eye of the user.. I Don't see gaming on a 1024x768 CRT at minimum settings adequate either, but some do.

& If you thought at any point that I was arguing saying that a mITX couldn't be a gaming rig then your mistaken. I want to see mITX take off & know that there are cases that support large video cards. But at the point that they do the size difference between mITX & mATX is almost negligible. Now if they could make a 5870's performance out of a card with the dimensions of a 5750 then we would really be cooking with gas. At this point everything else can shrink to a true mITX (and I dont consider anything deep enough to hold a 58x0 series card to be a true mITX case as your normally within 2" width & height of a mATX cube) size, except for gaming video. Which I would like to see follow.
 
Honestly, the thing holding me back are the sizes of video cards and the sizes of power supplies. Once those shrink I think the size of iTX will become clear. Right now as bastage has stated, they don't stand out completely different from the MicroATX in terms of volume size.
 
3DChipset said:
Honestly, the thing holding me back are the sizes of video cards and the sizes of power supplies. Once those shrink I think the size of iTX will become clear. Right now as bastage has stated, they don't stand out completely different from the MicroATX in terms of volume size.
Click to expand...

PSU is another good point. Although I think this one is partially due to "most" smaller systems being limited in hardware the PSU's that there are can keep up. I think the technology probably already exists to make a 1000w PSU in 1/3rd the space as a ATX psu. Just wouldnt be enough people in need to justify such a tiny beast.
 
i don't know why you're all arguing over definitions. Here's the way I see mini itx:

The only differences with the mini-itx platform is that you're limited to one expansion slot, (normally), reduced ram ceiling, and generally poorer overclocking results compared to similar-tier mobos in larger form factors. The market is clearly growing.. I see mini-itx becoming more popular for office settings and remaining sub-par in terms of gaming enthusiast features.
 
bastage said:
So I play games on my Android Cell phone alot more then I Do on my Desktop.. So that would make my cell phone more of a gaming system then my Desktop?

Yea thats a No..
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that we were on a PC forum, talking about PCs? But even if we expand the definition, are you saying that for example a Sony PSP or a Nintendo Gameboy aren't gaming systems? Because they are. Similarly PS3 and X-Box 360 don't have anywhere near the hardware power of a current enthusiast PC, yet they are indeed gaming systems. As said, it's not about the power, it's what it can do and what it is used for. A gaming system of 5 years ago is still a perfectly viable gaming system in my books if you only player older games.

There in fact exist definitions such as mainstream gaming, enthusiast gaming, and whathaveyou. While not set in stone, they generally represent a variety of hardware levels. Even a mainstream gaming computer - which could indeed be an i3 CPU and a HD 5770, or even less powerful - can run modern games, even if not maxed, so how it is not a gaming computer if you in fact play games with it? If a HD 4670, which I have, with a dual core CPU can still run modern games like Batman: AA and Bad Company 2 with good playability at 1920x1080, I don't see how you must have a dual HD 5970 to be considered a gamer with gaming hardware. My brother still uses a 8800GT with an E8400, both outdated by today's standards, and he hasn't yet run into a game he can't play, and can run Bad Company 2 almost with maxed graphics. So his system and mine can run games, and we play games. We are gamers, with gaming computers.

Honestly, your definition of a gaming computer simply doesn't make sense.
 
kencheeto said:
i don't know why you're all arguing over definitions. Here's the way I see mini itx:

The only differences with the mini-itx platform is that you're limited to one expansion slot, (normally), reduced ram ceiling, and generally poorer overclocking results compared to similar-tier mobos in larger form factors. The market is clearly growing.. I see mini-itx becoming more popular for office settings and remaining sub-par in terms of gaming enthusiast features.
Click to expand...

I dont understand why people need like 5-6 - 5.25 inch expansion bays. The MAX I'd use is one for a optical drive, and MAYBE one for a fan controller.
 
sidsaccount said:
I dont understand why people need like 5-6 - 5.25 inch expansion bays. The MAX I'd use is one for a optical drive, and MAYBE one for a fan controller.
Click to expand...

Expansion slot /= bays

Expansion slot is the slot that your video card goes in.
 
Tony Ou said:
I think the future is bright for gaming PCs based off of the Mini-ITX platform. We certainly are pushing it whenever we can.
Click to expand...
The problem seems to be the motherboard folks. You might now more than I but it seems like one motherboard design is created and the others either copy or rebadge. From what I remember talking to some folks a few years back you really only have one-two companies making motherboards and then other companies will either buy the design, steal the design, or have them produce the design with custom modifications. This explains why we have so many mini itx motherboards with horrific CPU placement. DFI are the only ones with a somewhat decent board out right now.
 
heatsinks for that boards will appear in time though, it's really no big deal if heatsink makers buid heatsinks for that form factor
 
Steeeeve said:
The problem seems to be the motherboard folks. You might now more than I but it seems like one motherboard design is created and the others either copy or rebadge. From what I remember talking to some folks a few years back you really only have one-two companies making motherboards and then other companies will either buy the design, steal the design, or have them produce the design with custom modifications. This explains why we have so many mini itx motherboards with horrific CPU placement. DFI are the only ones with a somewhat decent board out right now.
Click to expand...

The new Gigabyte mobo seems to be heading in the right direction and someone in another thread put a H50 on it so thats a plus. If it sells well other manufacturers will emulate, copy, and improve upon it. It took a while for the mATX mobos to get to where they are. I'm thinking iTX will get there eventually too. Possibly in less time than it took the mATX mobos. iTX is still in its infancy so time will tell.
 
tvih said:
Honestly, your definition of a gaming computer simply doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

How does "to be a gaming system it needs to have some hardware that was purpose built for gaming in it" not make sense. I am not saying you have to have a super high end video card to play games, but at the point to call it a gaming system & not a mainstream system then something should have been purpose built in that system to give you an advantage in gaming. But to call a mainstream system like an i3 with 5770 a gaming rig would be incorrect. That would be a mainstream rig that can play games.

And yes a psp, gameboy, wii, xbox, xbox 360 & all other console gaming systems are gaming systems, because they have hardware purpose built for gaming.. See the trend here..

That being said someone running a p4 with a nvidia 7900 series agp video card is also still a gaming system. Its an old gaming system, but still is a gaming system since hardware was built for that purpose.

Which is why I say the problem with ITX gaming is that cards are just toooooo damn big. Everyone here knows you can put a quadcore with 8gb ram into most of the 1156 boards out there, but you cant put a "gaming" video card into a small case (as in one that lacks depth).
 
bastage said:
How does "to be a gaming system it needs to have some hardware that was purpose built for gaming in it" not make sense. I am not saying you have to have a super high end video card to play games, but at the point to call it a gaming system & not a mainstream system then something should have been purpose built in that system to give you an advantage in gaming. But to call a mainstream system like an i3 with 5770 a gaming rig would be incorrect. That would be a mainstream rig that can play games.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. By that I mean you are telling us how you define (in your own mind) what is and is not a "gaming" system, which is "that which is purpose built for gaming." I'm assuming by the manufacturer.

Which brings me to your example. How is a Radeon 5770 not a purpose built gaming hardware. For non-gamers you don't see any advantage (in Radeons at least) past around a 5650 or somewhere. Thus, a card like the 5770 is purpose built for gaming, albeit for a lower price point. Kind of like how Sony still sells the PS2 Slim at a lower price point and the PS3 is at a higher price point.

The other thing is how strict is that definition of "purpose built for gaming?" For instance BITD I remember a lot of gamers using the Microsoft Intellimouse optical mice for gaming because they claim that it was the best mouse for gaming, hands down. However, Microsoft certainly did not market it as a "gaming" mouse. Also, Razer was known for gaming mice, but made a non-gaming mouse that was internally identical to their Diamondback gaming mouse, only with no glowing LEDs and in plain colors.

What if Intel decided to make a Core i3 "Gaming Edition" CPU such as a Core i3 530K (like their other "K" unlocked CPUs)? It would otherwise be identical to the normal 530, but be marketed for gaming.

Maybe you have just fallen for all their marketing tricks? After all, what difference does a DFI Lanparty Jr board have with an Intel Media Series board if they both used the same CPUs and chipsets, and had the same feature set? One is marketed towards gamers and enthusiasts, while the other is marketed towards HTPC. What real difference is there between an Intel Core i7 920 and an Intel Xeon W3520?
 
Gaming at an enthusiast level.

I suppose most of those OEM HP/Lenovo/Dell PCs could easily become a SFF gaming computer by just dropping in a video card.

I wonder if a mid-ranged gaming itx computer would be profitable to sell. Hmmmm

Zap said:
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. By that I mean you are telling us how you define (in your own mind) what is and is not a "gaming" system, which is "that which is purpose built for gaming." I'm assuming by the manufacturer.

Which brings me to your example. How is a Radeon 5770 not a purpose built gaming hardware. For non-gamers you don't see any advantage (in Radeons at least) past around a 5650 or somewhere. Thus, a card like the 5770 is purpose built for gaming, albeit for a lower price point. Kind of like how Sony still sells the PS2 Slim at a lower price point and the PS3 is at a higher price point.

The other thing is how strict is that definition of "purpose built for gaming?" For instance BITD I remember a lot of gamers using the Microsoft Intellimouse optical mice for gaming because they claim that it was the best mouse for gaming, hands down. However, Microsoft certainly did not market it as a "gaming" mouse. Also, Razer was known for gaming mice, but made a non-gaming mouse that was internally identical to their Diamondback gaming mouse, only with no glowing LEDs and in plain colors.

What if Intel decided to make a Core i3 "Gaming Edition" CPU such as a Core i3 530K (like their other "K" unlocked CPUs)? It would otherwise be identical to the normal 530, but be marketed for gaming.

Maybe you have just fallen for all their marketing tricks? After all, what difference does a DFI Lanparty Jr board have with an Intel Media Series board if they both used the same CPUs and chipsets, and had the same feature set? One is marketed towards gamers and enthusiasts, while the other is marketed towards HTPC. What real difference is there between an Intel Core i7 920 and an Intel Xeon W3520?
Click to expand...
 
Skott said:
The new Gigabyte mobo seems to be heading in the right direction and someone in another thread put a H50 on it so thats a plus. If it sells well other manufacturers will emulate, copy, and improve upon it. It took a while for the mATX mobos to get to where they are. I'm thinking iTX will get there eventually too. Possibly in less time than it took the mATX mobos. iTX is still in its infancy so time will tell.
Click to expand...

Can you please link me to that thread, I am interested in seeing how he installed the H50 on that board.

Thanks!
 
Rogue71 said:
the whole problem with sff cases is heat and space.we're not even close to dreaming of a highend cpu at under 45w tdp. any sff case with the psu right on top of the cpu is a recepe for disaster, even if youre able to fit a decent hsf onto it. the psu gets very hot unless your case has extra exhaust fans and a low wattage cpu. putting a highend gpu that creates heat just moots those extra fans, which in most cases are only 80mm anyway. way too loud.so unless designers start making sff cases with layouts that actually make sense, i would say anything using an sff case, let alone itx is pretty much a useless venture if you plan on playing higher end games.
i just used a silverstone sg02-f case for a secondary htpc. i gotta say its useless and i will never buy another one again. i couldnt even use a 65w amd x2 5200 in there without the psu gettin hotter than hell. so i had to go out and buy a crappy little sempron 140. the tdp and hsf clearance is much lower so its not fighting the psu fan so much. nice looking little case but what a pisspoor design imo.
Click to expand...

my 28 month old Sugo 03 system (see sig) with a quad-core and a 9800GX2 with two harddrives says you are wrong, very wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top