Talk:Motherboard form factor

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Motherboard form factor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Industrial design

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 19 January 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Computer form factor to Motherboard form factor. The result of the discussion was moved.

Mini-ATX vs Micro-ATX

Something is messed up on the chart, Micro ATX is listed as being much larger than Mini ATX, and then the description is talking about ITX which appears to be something completely unrelated. Shouldn't the size of the Mini ATX be smaller than the normal ATX but larger than the Micro ATX? Jimindc (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-ATX size spec given (224 x 224 mm) does not correspond with what manufacturers currently (April 2020) sell as Micro-ATX (226 x 174 mm, e.g. https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-H110M-H-rev-10/sp#sp)

Mini ATX (284x208mm) is missing from the top-right table. This is one of the most common sizes there is - it should be added to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.160.158 (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mini ATX does not appear to be offered much any more.

merge (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose moving the list of specific form factors from motherboard#Form_factors to comparison of computer form factors.

Listing all those form factors in 1 article (even twice in one article) is easier to maintain and cite and keep consistent, than trying to keep similar-but-not-quite-the-same lists consistent in 2 different articles.

Is there any reason not to put both lists into one article? --76.209.28.72 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Celestialmechanic 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I believe the comparisons should be nested. Thus, all the ATX-related form factors would be nested under the original ATX format:

ATX: 12" x 9.6" (305 mm x 244 mm)
- Mini ATX: 11.2" x 8.2" (284 mm x 208 mm)
- microATX: 9.6" x 9.6" (244 mm x 244 mm)
- FlexATX: 9" x 7.5" (229 mm x 191 mm) Celestialmechanic 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge. Should we also consider renaming this article? Ewlyahoocom 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the merge. Move the form factor stuff out of the motherboard article and put it here, referenced in passing. That's what hyperlinks are for. --Wtshymanski 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about excluding COM-based formats from the article, as these always require a carrier board (by definition of the neologism). Which is another term for motherboard.Poppafuze (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move (2009)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am requesting that this article be renamed to Computer form factor, over the current redirect. Since there is no main article, and this article does contain a basic overview, I believe that promoting this to a main article is appropriate. While Computer form factor previously redirected to a section of Motherboard, I do not think this is the most appropriate choice because form factors cover significantly more than the motherboard (notably, power supplies and cases). Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator noteSince no one's objected, I've moved the article.--Aervanath (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Width and depth are mixed in the table between AT style an ATX style formats. For example the older Baby-AT-format is listed as 330 x 216 depth/width but the modern 90° turned ATX-format is listed as 305 × 244 width/depth. So somebody could get confused, and think that a modern ATX Case will fit an old Baby-AT Board, wich is mostly not the Case anymore {not enough depth, not the right screwholes}. {Only old ATX Cases which where modified Baby-AT Cases and some E-ATX Cases where backward compatible to Baby AT.}

You should change the AT style formats {AT, Baby-AT, ...} from depth-to-width to width-to-depth like the ATX-Style formats! So nobody gets confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.248.225 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TODO (2009)

Add Extended-ATX ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.50.51 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more:

Qseven 70mm x 70mm with PCIe and Gigabit Ethernet
nanoETXexpress 50mm x 85mm, module is called Nano COM Express

-- SpareSimian (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table needs to be sortable (as in by date or company). Also more dates need to be put into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.154.48 (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ATX missing

The ATX form factor is missing from the table at the top right. I couldn't figure out where the source for it is. Can somebody add it please? Reddyuday (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Case Pictures

Some case pictures would help to give the reader an idea of the size of each form factor. --86.169.102.32 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HPTX

This is a new form factor made by EVGA for their ClassifieD SR-2 board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SFF PC's

Missing small form factors that initially began with entry level servers: "EPS12V, SFX12V and Others

The EPS12V power supply form factor utilizes an 8-pin processor power connector in addition to the 4-pin connector of the ATX12V form factor. (Note: this isn't the only difference between these two form factors, but for most desktop computer users, knowing this should be sufficient). The EPS12V form factor was originally designed for entry-level servers, but more and more high-end desktop motherboards are featuring the 8-pin EPS12V processor power connector now, which enables users to opt for an EPS12V power supply.

The Small Form Factor (SFF) designation is used to describe a number of smaller power supplies, such as the SFX12V (SFX stands for Small Form Factor), CFX12V (CFX stands for Compact Form Factor), LFX12V (LFX stands for Low Profile Form Factor) and TFX12V (TFX stands for Thin Form Factor). They are all smaller than the standard ATX12V form factor power supply in terms of physical size. SFF power supplies need to be installed in corresponding SFF computer cases."

http://www.newegg.com/product/CategoryIntelligenceArticle.aspx?articleId=199 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.103.8 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rewrite

I visited here a couple months ago and thought that the page needed a lot of rewritings and such. Now I see that nobody is adding to it.

I think the page needs to be rewritten from scratch and this time have all the necessary facts and such. I don't have the time to do this so like everybody else on this page I'm asking somebody else to rewrite this page for me and everybody else who comes to this page.--tumaru 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumaru (talk • contribs)

Non-PC form factors

This article only covers PC form factors. It does not mention other established computer form factors like VMEbus, CompactPCI, VPX, etc. widely used in more specialized markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macko74 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

screw locations

you have two images detailing the form factors, (somewhat simular), how about one that shows the hole locations required for form factors. this shall be quite informative to anyone who wants to see what boards will fit in their case. because in some there are holes everywhere. maybe also include holes for the processor heatsink mounting. Charlieb000 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SSI-EEB screw holes do not match ATX

SSI-EEB motherboards do not have the same mounting hole locations as ATX motherboards. I have multiple ASUS Z8PE-D12(X) motherboards which ASUS specs list having a SSI EEB 3.61 form factor, and the motherboard screw holes do not completely line up with the Antec Titan 650 case, which Antec specs list supports mini/micro/standard/extended ATX. You either have to tap new holes in the case or leave out a couple of motherboard supports.

Johnmneil (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Intel ECX Form Factor (105 x 146 mm) be included here?

I stumbled upon on this form factor while searching for raid box motherboard candidates. Here are examples of existing boards with this form factor. I do not consider myself as authority on the subject so useful comments are welcome. Vladimir.Lavrnic (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-ITX

The table mentions: "Mini-ATX is slightly smaller than Micro-ITX", but there's no row for Micro-ITX. Does that size actually exist? Google seems to turn up pages where use of that name is a typo for Mini-ITX or MicroATX. Gwideman (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intel NUC missing

Intel NUC missing --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical comparison of physical sizes -- 5.25", 3.5", and 2,5" markers plz

I use metric but I'm looking for right size ff for 5.25" drivebay (at old miniat case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.182.201 (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer form factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211094103/http://www.pc104.org:80/history.html to http://www.pc104.org/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update to "Graphical comparison of physical sizes" please

Why are there 2 graphics for the same thing instead of just 1?
Why does the second not have their axis labeled?
Why is the smallest one, Core Express, missing?

I think there are a lot of things that can be improved with this section. Bonomont (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E-ATX is not a form factor

According to Gamer's Nexus, E-ATX is not a standard, it is free-for-all marketing thing that generally agrees largest size is 12" x 13". Wikipedia article has inaccuracy referring E-ATX and SSI EEB are not hole compatible which is untrue. SSI-EEB only introduces additional POSSIBLE hole choices to make component placement easier on the motherboard. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54VJwwLRJBk</ref>

PICOe article - needs placement

Hi, Temporarily I added article PICOe to See also section. Asking for Expert Help to move into better spot within this article. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved, with the redirect retargeted. There's also a weak consensus for merging and listifying this article, which IMO can and should be done by any editor who wishes to do so. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computer form factor → Motherboard form factor – There's no reason why "computer form factor" should apply only to motherboards, in fact it applies more strongly to computer size categories. The current name is confusing, requiring two {for} templates at the top. cagliost (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisted. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. cagliost (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Form factor (design). Both can easily fit in the same article, the only issue is the list, but that can be spun out into List of motherboard form factors. I also believe that Form factor (design) needs a move to Form factor as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that's a different discussion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, Form factor (design) is much broader than motherboards. We need a separate article for motherboard form factors, it just shouldn't be called "computer form factor". cagliost (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. Please can this be actioned or closed? cagliost (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the title is certainly wrong right now. There are many form factors in computing; and a "computer form factor" should refer to the form factor of the case, not the mother board. Such as SFF, pizzabox, desktop, fulldesktop, smalldesktop, tower, minitower, fulltower, deskside, underdesk, minifridge, fridge, rackmount, fullrack, 1U, 2U, 3U, etc, and portable sizes, laptop, notebook, mininotebook, micronotebook, ultrabook, netbook, tablet, minitablet, transportable, luggable, lunchbox, briefcase, suitcase, pocket, palmtop, etc; -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support rename, and then retarget the resulting redirect to Form factor (design) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This. cagliost (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the status quo of the article is most precisely and concisely described as "Motherboard form factor". I am neutral on Zxcvbnm's merge proposal, but think it could use a separate discussion. I support the IP editor above's redirect proposal. Firefangledfeathers 16:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.