Corsair Graphite 760T: Introduction and Packaging

Corsair has been releasing one case after another lately, expanding their already large ranks with an even greater variety of products. It has been less than three months since the release of the Obsidian 250D, a cubic Mini-ITX case, and only two days since another member of the Obsidian series, the Midi-ATX Obsidian 450D, has been announced. Today, Corsair announced the release of yet another case, the Graphite 730T/760T.

Unlike the Obsidian 450D, which was released in order to fill a specific gap into the already heavily populated Obsidian series, the release Graphite 730T/760T does not appear to have such a purpose. There are only two Graphite cases currently available, the 230T and the 600T and, considering the MSRP of the Graphite 730T/760T versions and that its aesthetic design is similar to that of the 230T, it seems more likely that it has been released as a replacement for the 600T rather than having products that will coexist. As such, the primary changes will be a modified aesthetic and improved performance.

We should clarify that the 730T and the 760T are essentially the same case; the major difference is that the former has an opaque left panel and the latter an acrylic window. The Graphite 760T also has a basic 2-speed fan controller installed and will become available in both Black and Arctic White colors. It is the Arctic White version of the Graphite 760T that we will be reviewing today. Corsair informed us that the new Graphite cases will become available through North American retailers in late April.

Corsair Graphite 760T Specifications
Motherboard Form Factor Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX, ATX, EATX, XL-ATX
Drive Bays External 3 x 5.25"
Internal 6 x 2.5"/3.5" (front drive cage)
6 x 2.5"/3.5" (optional front drive cages)
4 x 2.5" (rear of motherboard tray)
Cooling Front 2 x 120 / 140mm (2 x 140mm included)
Rear 1 x 140mm (included)
Top 3 x 120mm / 140mm (optional)
Left Side -
Bottom optional 120mm (drive cage must be removed/relocated)
Radiator Support Front Up to 240mm / 280mm
Rear 120mm / 140mm
Top Up to 360mm / 280mm
Side -
Bottom 120mm
I/O Port 2 × USB 3.0
2 × USB 3.0
1 × Headphone
1 × Mic
Fan Speed Toggle
Power Supply Size ATX
Clearances HSF 180mm
GPU 340mm (with drive cage)
460mm (without drive cage)
Dimensions 568mm × 246mm × 564mm (H×W×D)
22.4 in × 9.7 in × 22.2 in (H×W×D)
Prominent Features Hinged side panel with full window
360mm radiator support
Removable magnetic top panel
Two-speed fan control
Side-mounted tool-free SSD trays
Removable, reconfigurable 3.5” drive cages
Price 189 USD (MSRP)

The Graphite 760T comes in Corsair's traditional and visually simple brown cardboard box, the proportions of which hint that this is not a typical Mid-Tower case. Printed on the box are a schematic of the case and a short presentation covering its most important features. Inside the box, the case is wrapped inside a cloth-like bag and protected by very thick expanded polyethylene foam slabs.

The bundle of the Graphite 760T is very basic, especially considering the class of the case. Corsair only supplies the necessary screws and bits, a few short cable ties, and an installation guide. There are no cable straps or any other additional extras. The only positive thing about the bundle is that the supplied parts are black. If you like getting "extras", this is disappointing, but for some users the extras would simply be more clutter.

Corsair Graphite 760T Exterior


View All Comments

  • 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. Reply
  • 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.
  • ianmills - Thursday, March 27, 2014 - link

    Is this article a paid advertisement by Corsair? Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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.
  • Black Obsidian - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link

    So you agree that your thermal load has no meaningful relationship to the object it's supposed to be a proxy for (an active system), but that you see this as in any way advantageous is the part that I'm having difficulty comprehending.

    I'm going to cut down a much longer reply by simply bringing us to my ultimate point, which is that you appear to be starting by assuming a spherical cow in a vacuum ( for the reference, in case it's too obtuse).

    A static thermal load, like a spherical cow in a vacuum, virtually eliminates variables and simplifies the problem, which absolutely meets your stated goal of achieving repeatable results. But in so doing, it fails to emulate real-world situations (your other stated goal), because nobody, to my knowledge, actually HAS vacuum-breathing spherical cows (or static thermal loads in need of computer cases to house them).

    If your static thermal load is any easier to translate into the performance of an actual active load than one particular active load is to translate into a different active load, I'm clearly failing to understand how that is so.
  • E.Fyll - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link

    I fear that you understood little of what I said. I will consider the "spherical cow" mention as a joke, since it only applies to highly simplified theoretical studies, not laboratory testing. As a matter of fact, the "spherical cow" approach is a much better description of what you refer to as "real-world testing". Since you are referring to the results generated by a single system and you are actually trying to make comparisons with it, you are making half a thousand guesses and assumptions in order to make a guess about how a change of a single component would affect the thermal performance of a single case, let alone the comparisons between different cases or between different systems.

    What I said is that my thermal load is not directly comparable to that of an active system. It can however be used to compare the thermal performance of different cases and displays the true performance of a case, unaided by external factors. I cannot tell you how a case will perform with every possible configuration that could be installed inside it; however, I can tell you which case has better stock thermal performance regardless of the configuration that will be installed. On the other hand, testing with an active system creates results that again are not comparable to that of any other system and, as it adds a ton of variables, it also is obsolete for comparisons between different cases. If I were to do something like this, I would only be showing you some numbers that cannot be used to compare cases and cannot be used as a reference for any other system, even if it is almost entirely identical to the test system; it does not get any more useless than that.

    By what you are saying, you are suggesting to drop a methodology that can generate repeatable results and display the actual performance of the cases, in order to replace it with a "testing" procedure that will produce results impossible to compare them to other systems and useless for the comparison of different cases; in other words, meaningless and misleading.

    Let me try another, far too simple argument. I would need much less time and a fraction of the energy required to perform such testing if I were to simply press the power-on button with the system depicted in the review, run some applications and write down the numbers. Actually, it would reduce the time needed to test a single case from 2-3 days to about...30 minutes. I could essentially double my output (and my income, plus the energy cost). So, unless you actually believe that I am mentally deranged, take my word for it; there is no "real-world" testing that could produce any results meaningful to anyone.

    As you said so yourself, I strive for scientific vigor and repeatability. If you still believe that "real-world" testing is in any way better than testing done with lab equipment and by someone who at least understands the basics of the scientific method, then by all means, feel free to discard these results as "pointless" and refer to other sites for "meaningful" testing.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now