Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

[ChaosTheorist]

The spec pages and manuals say these are E-ATX boards, but they're clearly nowhere near 330mm long. They look more like SSI-CEB length (269+/- 4 or so mm), with the WS being 1 or 2 mm longer.

[parsec]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

I don't know the exact dimensions, but both of those boards are very similar in size to the Z87 OC Formula I obtained recently.

ASRock calls them EATX simply because they are not exactly ATX size. The screw mounting holes are those of an ATX board, but the board is mainly longer in width than an ATX board, width being from the IO panel side to the side with the 24 pin ATX connector. Check the picture of those boards on their information pages on ASRock's website.

These boards are also a little longer in the height dimension, obviously the opposite of the width dimension. Again using the screw mounting holes as a reference, these boards are slightly larger in height.

The case I use for the Z87 OC Formula accommodates EATX boards but there was plenty of room left over. If your case will only accept up to ATX size boards, you'll need to judge the clearances available, with the width dimension being the one where more space is needed.

[ChaosTheorist]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

Thanks. Do you have the exact dimensions of your board? I agree that it looks very similar to its X99 cousins, so measurements would be helpful.

I'd be surprised if it is wider than 305mm. That's the standard width for everything from ATX to SSI-CEB-/EEB and even E-ATX; those boards get progressively longer, but it isn't until you get to non-standard sizes like WTX and XL-ATX that the width increases. Even the original AT was 305mm, though of course that was the short dimension, since they were longer then they were wide.

[parsec]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

I wish I had the measurements, the board is mounted in a PC case now so I'll need to open it up to check.

[parsec]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

Ok, opened the case and used my metric ruler, and was able to get good measurements.

My Z87 OC Formula board is 305mm from top to bottom, and 265mm wide. I am confident those are accurate measurements.

The board does look rather square, but I triple checked the width measurement, and it is 265mm.

[leedreamer189]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

There's gotta be an easier way to find out dimensions of the board...maybe just contact Asrock directly?

[parsec]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

There's gotta be an easier way to find out dimensions of the board...maybe just contact Asrock directly?

Yeah, but that would make sense...

Plus you can have some chump like me do it, and get the results here, and then disappear into the Ether-net.

[- wardog -]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

"some chump"

[ChaosTheorist]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

There's gotta be an easier way to find out dimensions of the board...maybe just contact Asrock directly?

You'd certainly think so. But, after a week with no answer from Asrock, I decided to seek the info elsewhere. Sorry if that inconvenienced anyone.

[parsec]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

"some chump"

I said it not you!

You'd certainly think so. But, after a week with no answer from Asrock, I decided to seek the info elsewhere. Sorry if that inconvenienced anyone.

While I took it upon myself to measure the board for you, I imagined I'd get a "Thanks" in reply, silly me!

I would not be surprised if the support personnel that received your request have no more documentation about the boards than are available to us.

But what do you know, my board's manual had this in the specs: EATX Form Factor (12.0-in x 10.5-in, 30.5 cm x 26.7 cm)

Looks like I was off by two millimeters.

No such specs in the X99 OC or X99 WS manuals.

[ChaosTheorist]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

Ack. I *did* post a thank-you, mere hours after you provided the measurements:

"Thanks for the measurements. As expected, it's basically an SSI-CEB board with standard ATX mounting holes. The 'overhang' compared to ATX is less than an inch, so there's a good chance it will fit into the cases I have in mind. Which is where I was trying to get.

I really appreciate your taking the time to get those measurements."

[yes, I spell-check my posts in another app, which was still open]


I have no idea why it didn't appear, though I confess I didn't actually go back to the board to verify that it posted. I apologize for the oversight.

[parsec]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

Ok, I believe you, I've done that myself, meaning write a post and then forget to submit it as I close the browser. Return to the forum later and wonder where my post is...

Sorry to be crabby, I thought your lack of response was just another of the many threads I post in that just end at that point, with no reply of any kind. Your thread had the dubious honor of me whining about it in print. I appreciate your reply, thank you.

Anyway, I happened to notice those measurements in the Z87 OC Formula manual, and then checked the two you were interested in, the X99 OC and X99 WS, but found nothing in the Specs section.

But now I discovered in the manual for my ASRock Z77 Extreme 4 board (unrelated in size to the boards in question), a listing of the size where I did not expect it, in the Package Contents section:

ASRock Z77 Extreme4 Motherboard
(ATX Form Factor: 12.0-in x 8.6-in, 30.5 cm x 21.8 cm)

Those dimensions are not exactly what the ATX standard specifies AFAIK.

Who knows why the size specs were included in some cases, and in others not.

I looked again at the X99 OC Formula manual, and all it has is "EATX" for the size, at least that I could find. The picture in the manual shows the board in its usual orientation, while the picture on the board's info page is turned 90 degrees, making it look more square IMO:



Just noticed the lack of mounting screw holes in that picture, which makes it pretty useless.

The X99 WS manual has this bit of helpfulness:

This is an EATX form factor motherboard. Before you install the motherboard, study the coniguration of your chassis to ensure that the motherboard its into it.

I just felt like posting this, partially due to guilt... you need not thank me for it... just sayin'...

[ChaosTheorist]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

Yeah, that 218mm dimension is definitely suspect; standard ATX is 244, so that's an inch short of spec. Which would mean that the 3 mounting holes on the front side of the board (opposite the I/O area) would be missing, and so 2 inches of the board--2 inches with a *lot* of connectors in it, including the DRAM sockets--would be hanging off in space unsupported. Uh, no; that's gotta be a typo: it's really 9.6, and the 218 came from someone converting the 8.6-that-should-have-been-9.6 into metric.

The bogus "E-ATX" is all over the ASRock site and docs. Yes, the boards are longer than ATX, but it's obvious from the pictures that none of them are even close to the 330mm E-ATX number, so it would be really helpful if the ASRock doc people would list the actual dimensions. The text you quoted seems more likely to scare people off ("OMG, E-ATX would never fit in my case!"), when the reality appears to be that they're like 0.8 inches longer than stock ATX. I can live with that, especially since the only high-insertion-force item in the overhang area is the 24-pin power connector.

So--thanks to your providing the real numbers that ASRock doesn't--I have a shiny new X99 OC Formula arriving day after tomorrow.

[parsec]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

Yeah, that 218mm dimension is definitely suspect; standard ATX is 244, so that's an inch short of spec. Which would mean that the 3 mounting holes on the front side of the board (opposite the I/O area) would be missing, and so 2 inches of the board--2 inches with a *lot* of connectors in it, including the DRAM sockets--would be hanging off in space unsupported. Uh, no; that's gotta be a typo: it's really 9.6, and the 218 came from someone converting the 8.6-that-should-have-been-9.6 into metric.

The bogus "E-ATX" is all over the ASRock site and docs. Yes, the boards are longer than ATX, but it's obvious from the pictures that none of them are even close to the 330mm E-ATX number, so it would be really helpful if the ASRock doc people would list the actual dimensions. The text you quoted seems more likely to scare people off ("OMG, E-ATX would never fit in my case!"), when the reality appears to be that they're like 0.8 inches longer than stock ATX. I can live with that, especially since the only high-insertion-force item in the overhang area is the 24-pin power connector.

So--thanks to your providing the real numbers that ASRock doesn't--I have a shiny new X99 OC Formula arriving day after tomorrow.

Good point about potential customers seeing EATX and moving on without checking the actual size, not that you can check the true size.

Documentation misses like this reminds me of my days working in software development for a big corporation. Most teams had a "technical writer" that would produce the documentation, but their level of technical savvy could vary widely. You may be surprised to learn that a manual author might be off-site from the design location, and not have constant, immediate access to the the engineers or even the same documents they use. Which is why we may see exact terms used as generalizations.

Just FYI, I have an ASR Z77 Extreme 4 board (two really), and its width is really 8.6". I happen to have it out of a PC case, and I checked the width measurement. So we yet again have a board that is kinda, sorta, a standard ATX size. OTOH, this petite ATX size is not unique, I have an older Gigabyte board that is almost the same size.

You are right that about two inches of board at the edge where the 24 pin ATX power cable and SATA ports are located are do not have screw holes, and is normally unsupported. That edge is at the bottom of the picture below.

But there is one hole in the board you can see at the lower right corner, that does not match any standard standoff pattern. I use a plastic standoff that snaps into the hole for some support. There's another hole like that hidden in the picture, and blocked by a SATA port in the lower left corner. Not very good, but I have yet to see a thread about someone breaking their board due to lack of support on that edge. Either ASR is lucky, or these boards are tougher than some people say they are.

Enjoy your X99 OC Formula, IMO the OC Formula models are the best built ASR boards that I have seen.

[ChaosTheorist]

Re: Anyone have correct dimensions of X99 WS and X99 OC Formula?

Interesting; I wonder what they got in return for chopping off that inch of board? I see that ASRock and AOpen have made a number of boards in that size, and SuperMicro had several back in the PIII/P4 days, so there must have been some advantage.

I've been "working in software development for [various] big corporation[s]" for the last 20+ years, so I know exactly what you mean about the docs. It doesn't happen a lot, but I've definitely had experiences of "That isn't how that works! Who the **** wrote that?" when I read the 'documentation' for my code. Sometimes I was able to get it fixed, sometimes not.

I'm definitely looking forward to this build. I've built about half of my own machines over the last 30 years, but apparently it's been a while; I went to take apart my last machine a couple of days ago to see if there was anything worth salvaging, and it has an *AGP* video card! So I guess that's a 'no'....