Sign up for a new account or log in here:

Oh come on, a reference GTX 570 is 267mm, if the 343 turned the drive cage to face the side panel, they probably could have made the space. A Radeon 6970 probably would not fit ether way. =/
Both seem like decent cases, and the addition of filters on the 371 is nice, though it looks cumbersome to get to them.
This is good news. I really like my CM HAF 922. Even though it's much more expensive than these will be, I have become a fan of CM cases overall.
Oh come on, a reference GTX 570 is 267mm, if the 343 turned the drive cage to face the side panel, they probably could have made the space. A Radeon 6970 probably would not fit ether way. =/
Well this is a budget case, so it's understandable imo. At least with a removable driver cage you have the option to put in longer cards without much hassle.
True, but you lose a majority of the storage capacity of the case by removing the drive cage. A number of budget cases have the side panel oriented drive bays, so it was not infeesible for these cases to have them either. being only ~18mm off, a dremel and a little time can solve that; if I were to need that bay I'd put in a Solid State Drive in it
The case I own (Lian Li PCQ-08) actually has two drive cages, so rather than losing all six of my 3.5" bays I lose only two, but I also paid nearly three times the price compared to these cases, so that might not be a fair comparison. =)
I wish some cases would come out that didn't feature external 3.5-inch drive bays, they're ugly and who the hell still uses a floppy drive in this decade.
3.5" bays are also used for card readers, fan controllers, LCD Matrix bay screens, bay mounted IR recievers, etc. While including a bracket/bay cover to convert a 5.25" bay to a 3/5" bay could offer the same thing, a dedicated 3.5" bay may offer additional design space, especially when there is not enough space for that additional 5.25" bay.
| Trending | Featured |
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.