Hardware BitFenix Prodigy: Add-ons, mods and why it’s my favourite mini-ITX case

Having used a Prodigy as my main case for most of this year, here are my thoughts.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/16/bitfenix-prodigy-add-ons-mods/1

 

Yes, i do own a Prodigy :
http://rog.asus.com/152712012/news/prodigy-projekt-a-watercooled-overclocked-mini-itx-lan-monster/

Not for everyone, but both Node 304 and PC-Q08 has their own limitations - Node 304 hard drive mounts collide with my HR-02 Macho mounted sideways (so i can use a graphics card) and PC-Q08 has PSU over the CPU cooler. Prodigy doesn't have any of these problems (thanks to the size) except the PSU length limitation.

 

I hate, hate, hate those ****ing handles and 'feet'. I hear nothing but good things about this case but I would never ever consider buying one purely for the outside looks. Now, if they did a version that was exactly the same except on the outside it was squared off and had chrome feet like those often given away in the Bit-Tech comps then I think it would be a winner. As it is I think Fractal will be getting my money instead.

 

Just unscrew them and stick some other feet on the case then?

 

And the handles?
Frankly, the prodigy looked horrid when it first came out, but now it's overused, too. It's a good, well built case, but the looks just put it all out a window.

 

Like I said, just unscrew them?

 

The penom has the same internals as the prodigy but no big handles and feet poking out if that's more to your tastes. http://www.bitfenix.com/global/en/products/chassis/phenom-mini-itx

 

See post above.

 

Just unscrewing and removing them leaves it looking tacky and unfinished. As for the Phenom case, as far as I can see from the images there is no optical drive bay so that also rules it out.

Personally I don't care if a case is used a lot or 'over used' if you prefer. For me it comes down to how I think the case looks and whether it ticks all of the requirement boxes that I want it too. That seems to be the biggest issue with case manufacturers. It seems to be that we say we like 9/10 things about a case and would like to change just that one thing. The manufacturers go away and say 'OK, we heard you. We changed that thing but we also changed one of the things you were happy with for no apparent reason.' This then leaves us with another 9/10 case and this seems to be the ever lasting circle.

 

I like the prodigy, if I could afford a decent mini itx board and cpu or if i could even get a mini itx board for my current phenom 2 CPU then I'd get a prodigy. To be honest i'm pretty sick of the size of my old CM cosmos s.

 

we using aerocool cases and they are awesome with rubber touch fascias let us know if you would like to see more info http://www.yoyotech.co.uk/give-your-pc-some-colour

 

@ The Bear...

THAT is exactly what I meant by giving something you want and still getting it wrong. I don't want the 3.5 drive bay.

 

WOW, just noticed that SCAN doesn't have any of either BitFenix or Aerocool mini-ITX cases.

 

If I were building a regular desktop machine then mini-itx would make sense, but if you want multiple GPUs for surround gaming it's a no-go, likewise if you need more processing power. 3 1080p displays on a titan probably works out but 2560x1440 X 3? The displays aren't even that expensive any more. Don't forget 4k will be coming round soon (you can already pick up displays from China for far less than a grand if you're willing to accept 30Hz).

As for processing power, I have a machine I use as a NAS with an i5-3470 and sometimes I give it tasks I don't want to leave my main machines on for like video encoding. I have seen it be reduced to less than 1 frame per second average by some of my encodes, even a 5GHz quad wouldn't be enough to do it quickly, you need as many cores as you can get for that sort of task so mini-itx with its lack of multi-socket boards is right out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if mini-itx is enough for you then you probably aren't pushing your computer very hard, which is fine but you should bear that in mind, it's a better scene than it was but it's still comparatively pedestrian. /rant

 

I really like my Prodigy, aside from all the plus point about how easy it is to take apart and such, the handles remind me of my old G5 workstation...

 

@ CampGareth

It's all very well to say that a Mini-ITX machine doesn't satisfy all your requirements and you are always going to be able to do more with a bigger and hungrier machine, but that isn't for everyone and many people's requirements are more than adequately met by such a small system, especially if size is important to you, not to mention cost.
Personally, I know that PC gaming far exceeds the resolutions offered by consoles but I am perfectly happy the run my PC at 1080p on my monitors and have them directly match the resolution of that on my TV.
I am not a 'graphics whore' who cares for nothing but the highest possible resolutions and cranking up all available settings to 'Ultra'. I, like many others have also got tired of having large PC cases being on show in the front room/bedroom and so Mini-ITX offers great options to those requirements. If you need to have a monster machine then fair enough, but I think the vast majority of PC gamers/users are finding that they don't need such big machines any more.

 

wow, replies not working? Ah well
@SchizoFrog

Let's go back a few years to when average joe wanted to play, idk, crysis on their 1280x1024 monitor, they'd have needed a fairly beastly PC, perhaps even multiple cards for a 20% boost or whatever and they might even have overclocked or watercooled because it was kinda required. I guess I find it amusing how games have stagnated to the point where gaming in normal form is no longer a high end task requiring the most powerful computers, you can throw together a mid-range system and play at 1080p and that's that, it won't complain and it'll look just fine. Mini-ITX is only possible because average joe hasn't needed any more grunt, but it has saddening effects in the high end where a 10 core intel CPU is £1500, and it could be more like £400 if there were a mainstream need. I'm not upset with mini-ITXers, I'm upset with the mindset that said "that's enough innovation" and stopped, not sure where that lies since it's all a cycle.

 

Highend intel desktop CPU was $999 since.... forever, same for second highest desktop CPU at $500 bracket and same for third at $300 bracket. And server CPU was $1000+ since forever too .

And why is there no mainstream need ? Because CPU is not the limiting factor for anything but video encoding and similar tasks.

 

I had to go have a look at core numbers over the years for this, it's odd... dual cores first appeared in 2005 as near as I can tell (figures servers would get it first), quad cores in 2007 and then as far as consumers are concerned nothing for 6 years. There was a need of some kind otherwise we wouldn't have moved away from single cores (they were so simple and convenient), so what gives? My best guess is that a generation of consoles was launched about then but whatever the case, games were certainly a factor in driving us from P4s to C2Ds and they also drove us from those to Q6600s and the like, but why has it stopped?

Separately, you're right that server CPU prices have always been extreme, I'm not sure if they're worth it but it's nice to see that they at least have been improving (6 cores in 2008, 8 in 2010, 12 in 2013).

 

I don't think innovation has stopped. I remember just before the C2D chips came out and AMD were possibly the strongest they have ever been and all the innovation was about the then current 'clock wars'. Then it moved on to the 'core wars' and now we have the 'efficiency wars'. Ever since the 'iX' series of CPUs we have pretty much had the same set up, i3 - Dual Core+HT, i5 - Dual Core+HT/Quad Core, i7 - Quad Core+HT... but you can't say that each generation hasn't improved as they have all given generous performance increases (although not massive) while also becoming more efficient.
Computers on the whole have levelled off as nothing really pushes them these days but apart from encoding, image editing and the 'resolution wars' for PC games, what exactly can you not do on a basic PC, almost instantly now? There are only so many things people need or even want to have running all at the same time. So they just isn't the need as there once was.
Yes you may say that 4k is coming but even Blu-Ray is still yet to be adopted by the ultimate masses, even though Blu-Ray drives are frequently included in laptops and are now present in both new consoles. Improvements need to be tangible to the end user at home and not just be a stat on the spec sheet.
Back in the day as you mentioned, if you didn't have the latest hardware trying to play the latest games were crippling and the frames would become a slide show. The same just isn't true now. A tired old machine (Q6600/9600GT) is still capable to play the latest games at common and very adequate resolutions (1680x1050-1920x1080) without having to lower settings below med/high and for the average gamer, the graphics wouldn't look that much better on a higher res monitor with things on Ultra...