Corsair Graphite 760T Case Review
by E. Fylladitakis on March 27, 2014 1:10 PM ESTFinal Words
The Corsair Graphite 760T is the company's latest addition to a series designed to offer versatility to advanced users. It would seem that Corsair released it as an advanced version of the basic 230T and a successor to the highly successful 600T. As such, the Graphite 760T is a product that should have been perfectly balanced, both practically and aesthetically, as it targets a very broad but highly demanding audience.
In terms of design, the Graphite 760T does very well. Although it is based on the Graphite 230T, the design has been improved greatly, is well balanced, and will undoubtedly appeal to a very broad spectrum of users. The use of too much plastic may drive away those that appreciate the cold appearance of metallic surfaces but, on the other hand, we feel that the nicely applied transparent acrylic left door and glossy right door will appeal to a far greater number of users. However, if a clean look is required, we strongly suggest replacing or disconnecting the front LED fans, as they seem to be doing more harm than good on the appearance of the case. We should also note that, in our opinion, the Graphite 760T looks rather ugly without its top cover installed. Corsair could have included a mechanism, even a mere spacer, to lift the cover by a few mm, allowing airflow without having to remove it completely.
The stock cooling performance of the Graphite 760T is good but it could have been significantly better for a case this size. Corsair rightfully attempted to balance the thermal performance with acoustics and, since the Graphite 760T has not been designed to block noise from exiting the case, quiet stock cooling fans have been chosen. In order to improve the thermal performance of the Graphite 760T, some acoustics performance will have to be sacrificed and vice versa.
For instance, the addition of cooling options at the top of the case will definitely improve the thermal performance significantly but will add to the noise output of the case. Even the simple removal of the cover will give noise a wide area from which to escape. Of course, there are devices that offer excellent performance and generate very little noise but such combinations are usually rather costly and the 760T is already somewhat expensive. Still, the Graphite 760T offers a great variety of options and combinations, allowing each end user to find their desired balance between thermal performance, acoustics, and cost.
In summary, the Corsair Graphite 760T is a product that can offer a balance of everything. It is aesthetically attractive without being too aggressive, offers good stock thermal performance without being too noisy, and is very versatile without being too expensive. There are some minor flaws involved with the removable HDD cages but none of these are critical. Although with careful planning one can build a very low noise system inside the Graphite 760T, it would not be our first choice for that specific purpose. On the other hand, for those seeking a spacious, versatile, and well-designed case, the Corsair Graphite 760T is sure to please.
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.