Corsair Graphite 760T Case Review
by E. Fylladitakis on March 27, 2014 1:10 PM ESTCorsair Graphite 760T Interior
Most of the interior of the Graphite 760T is black, with the exception of the top and bottom panels, which are white on our sample (with black as an alternative). The mechanical strength of the case is well above average; Corsair could not cut corners with a design that receives no mechanical support whatsoever from its side panels. The thickness of the metallic chassis is sufficient and extra supports have been installed to reduce flex at nearly all the panel junction points. There could have been some extra support between the motherboard tray and the front panel, as they are essentially connected only with the 5.25" drives cage, but we cannot really complain about it since there is no apparent structural weakness to be found on the chassis.
The Graphite 760T has a large, all-black motherboard tray permanently attached to the chassis. It can hold up to Extended ATX and XL-ATX motherboards, as well as all the smaller compatible versions, down to Mini-ITX; however, even a full ATX motherboard looks small inside the Graphite 760T, so smaller motherboards will look very out of place. There are openings on the side and top of the motherboard tray for the routing of cables, with the former featuring rubber grommets. There is ample clearance between the motherboard tray and the top panel, ensuring that liquid cooling radiators will fit without issues.
Although it is possible to use a PSU of virtually any length with the Graphite 760T, we strongly recommend to not select a unit with a chassis longer than 175mm if you do not plan on removing the first HDD cage. The PSU sits directly on the metallic panel itself, which has been embossed to raise the unit slightly.
There are two HDD drive cages installed in the Graphite 760T, out of the four possible total (sold separately). Each cage has three trays and thus can hold up to three 2.5" or 3.5" drives. 3.5" drives are secured by simply flexing the tray to make the metallic studs go into the screw holes of the drive, but screws are necessary for the installation of 2.5" drives. The cages are removable and stackable; they can be installed in any combination, some of which are depicted in the above gallery.
By removing the rear drive cage, an additional 120mm fan mounting point is revealed. It is also possible to leave only the rear drive cage where it is and remove the front cage, allowing the installation of a large liquid cooling radiator. When installed at the bottom of the case, they are placed on a plastic stand, which can be removed from the bottom of the case. Actually, it will have to be removed alongside the attached cage if you wish to remove it from the case, as the frame of the case blocks access to the front screws required to release the cage from its plastic stand. This is not an ingenious approach if you ask us; at least holes should have been punched on the frame where the screws are located, allowing a screwdriver to fit through. Furthermore, if you decide to connect two of the cages, connecting them will instantly scratch some paint off the sides that are brought together.
Corsair provides ample clearance behind the motherboard tray for the routing of cables. There are many cable tie mounting points and several openings for additional flexibility. The most prominent feature on this side of the case however is the four plastic 2.5" drive slots, which are placed sideways across the edge of the motherboard tray. These mini-trays are removable and very easy to use, as they will simply lock any 2.5" device (presumably SSDs) inserted into them. Screws can be added for extra safety, although it seems extremely unlikely that a drive could come out of the tray if someone does not pull the plastic locking latch intentionally.
The doors can be removed by simply pulling them upwards once they are open. Although that will not be necessary when performing small upgrades, we strongly recommend doing so when you want to build a new system or to perform a major overhaul.
Black cables and parts are easily hidden inside an all-black chassis; therefore, for visual clarity, we are using an AX760i PSU with a red cable pack and white SATA cables for our pictures. Building a system inside the Graphite 760T is a seamless procedure, aided by the large size of the case. Most of the time required to build a system inside this case will most likely be for the routing of the cables. There are no sharp or dangerous points about the Graphite 760T that we could locate during our experience with it.
As exhibited in the pictures of our test build, a full ATX motherboard is a little short for the tray of the Graphite 760T, creating a gap between the cable openings and the board itself. The EPS connector and other cables that may have to reach the top side of the motherboard can be easily routed through the openings at the top of the motherboard tray. Graphics cards of virtually any length can fit as long as there is no HDD cage placed in front of them. The addition of a second cage at the front of the case will limit the length of the graphics cards down to 340mm, which is still adequate for the vast majority of GPUs, but ultra-long performance monsters will not fit. Also note that the plastic 2.5" trays will have to be removed if a HDD is to be installed in a cage beneath them and reinstalled after the cables have been routed out of the way.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
E.Fyll - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link
Well, actually, from an engineering point of view, the whole "plastic vs metal" thing is just a silly debate. Plastic is a material that, depending on its composition and density, can have far superior characteristics that even the best of metals. Actually, it can be so much harder and lighter than metal that plastics are being added to both vehicle and personal armor to stop piercing projectiles. The front panel of the 760T is far more rigid than the flimsy metallic panels of cheap cases, for example. Plastic can easily be far more flexible, lighter and damage resistant than SECC steel or even aluminum, it depends on the quality of the plastic used.As for the appearance/prestige goes, it is a subjective matter and I am with you on this one; I too would probably prefer a cold, minimalistic, all-metal case myself. That is not true for everyone though and it does not mean that the design of the 760T is bad.
nevertell - Saturday, March 29, 2014 - link
Yes, but what about the regular desktop case being a Faraday cage ? It's like that for a reason. And having magnetic clamps next to my hard disk drives is just as stupid. Whilst I may sound like I've got a tinfoil hat on, these are real concerns.Antronman - Sunday, March 30, 2014 - link
NZXT has very successful cases, and they make the body out of plastic. The structure is metal, yes.In miniatures and models, plastic is considered superior.
It all depends on the quality of the plastic and acrylic. It's a nice switch from Corsair's heavy, full-metal Obsidian cases. Besides, I don't get what the fuss about having metal cases. If the computer falls, it's not like the case will save it. The components inside are going to exhibit damage either way.
soldier45 - Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - link
Yep, what do you want, metal and it weigh 60 lbs so pencil necks can't lift it.ianmills - Thursday, March 27, 2014 - link
Is this article a paid advertisement by Corsair?JarredWalton - Thursday, March 27, 2014 - link
Why would you say that? It's a case that performs well, it's spacious and generally easy to work with (like most Corsair cases), and depending on your taste it looks nice. Are there less expensive cases? Of course there are! Do they offer the same features, performance, build quality, etc.? Generally speaking, no. I think $189 is a bit much as well, but street prices might be up to $30 lower. We'll have to see when it becomes available.fri2219 - Thursday, March 27, 2014 - link
Because a four page "article" is essentially a collection of meaningless graphs that don't have a single origin or any statistically valid testing on them? The only thing this "review" was missing is using the world "loose" for the word lose.E.Fyll - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link
I would love to hear your suggestions on "statistically valid testing". To the best of my knowledge, everyone else is just "testing" cases by installing a system inside them, a procedure that has zero actual validity for a ridiculous number of reasons. Even if you were to acquire the same exact system, a single part from a different OEM would generate different results. Furthermore, a single system's configuration would favor some case designs over others, leading to misleading results. Using an active load (any kind of) to thermally test anything, especially when comparisons between different designs are going to take place, is far from an improper testing procedure; it does not qualify as testing at all.As for the graphs, we only have a few reviews right now, so yes, you cannot really compare to many other cases yet. That will change in time.
Black Obsidian - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link
E, although I wouldn't call your testing "meaningless graphs" or [lacking] "statistically valid testing," I *would* suggest that your methods are significantly less USEFUL to the readership than the previous testing method based on real-world hardware.Few of your readers, I would wager, are interested in the results of simulated tests when those simulated tests don't appear to correlate to any kind of system anyone would--or possibly even COULD--actually build (200W CPU? 30W HDDs? 30W RAM?).
I would suggest that the variability between different OEMs' parts is generally so small as to be irrelevant unless we're talking different GPU or CPU cooler designs, and the latter is easily-enough controlled for by testing with one or two of the most popular coolers on the market. Yes, there will be some variation between even a "popular parts" test rig and the specific rigs that your readers might have. But that variation will be a lot smaller--and more easily comprehended--than that between any real rig and the bizarre imaginary configuration above.
I understand the desire for repeatability and scientific rigor in testing. But at the end of the day, you're not a laboratory, you're a case reviewer for a popular website, and surely I am not the only reader who finds these simulated load tests entirely pointless, and thus find myself needing to turn to other sites' reviews for their real-world testing.
E.Fyll - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link
Actually, you are mistaken. Let me explain why.As far as thermal testing goes, you do not have to correlate with the power of the test equipment. It is not even possible to reach the power figures of my testing equipment with any real system but, even if you could, the thermal performance of an active system depends on the design of the system itself. Even the orientation of the CPU cooler would affect the results. Our testing displays how each case performs thermally without any kind of support from the system or other variations; you can see which case performs better than another, regardless of the configuration that will be inserted into it. If anyone tells you that they can even guess the exact thermal performance of a system inserted into any case by simply comparing the thermal results of another system inside the same case, even if it is very similar, he has no idea of what he is talking about. If anyone is making comparisons between cases using a system, which an active load, you are being played, simple as that. A different system would yield entirely different results and comparisons are downright obsolete.
The variability between OEM's can be massive. Even a change of a thermal sensor or even the BIOS can cause a great difference on results, let alone a different cooler and or component. A change of motherboard will render all comparisons useless, as not only the sensors are different but also their locations have changed, as well as the locations of other components. Even the same exact same system with a CPU cooler will provide different results depending on the mounted orientation, favoring certain case designs over others. But, even if I consider that the difference between similar components is small, it would mean that a) I expect the reader to have a system similar to mine and b) that comparisons between similar designs, which offer similar thermal performance, are obsolete, as the "small error" still is an unidentified random error of unknown magnitude. Under such an assumption, all similar cases will perform similarly anyway and testing is redundant to begin with.
As I said before, "real-world" testing does not qualify as testing at all. If you try to compare the results of any such tests to those of your system, even if you system is slightly different, you are only making nothing more a random guess. If you are trying to compare the results of such tests to those you expect to receive from an entirely different system, that does not even qualify as guessing. I have many years of professional experience on such matters and I would not even dare to make an educated guess if more than a single part of a system changes in a single case, let alone compare different systems to each other, especially between different cases.
I would rather give you results that you can actually use to compare the thermal performance of different cases between each other before buying one than random numbers that have absolutely no value and would simply mislead you. I could easily add the thermal results of a typical system if I wanted to, it would hardly take me a couple of hours to do so and that would cease all "bashing" from people who want to see "real-world testing"; however, I will not do so because I know that a) it is just plain wrong and b) I will be misleading the readers.