The new Mini member of the Invader X lineup is here to prove that sometimes big things truly do come in small packages!
The XPG Invader X Mini is a compact yet versatile ATX case that balances modern aesthetics, functionality, and affordability. With its minimalistic design, support for high-performance components, and attention to detail, this case is a strong contender for those seeking a compact build without sacrificing component selection.
XPG sells two variants of the Mini. The “INVADERXMINIMT,” which we are reviewing, includes five RGB fans and a USB Type-C connector, while the “INVADERXMINIMTWOF” does not have fans or USB Type-C. Both come in black-and-white variants.
Unboxing and First Impressions
The chassis traditionally came in a brown cardboard box. Two sides of the box were covered with foam, and the contents were sealed in a plastic bag. Although our box may have been damaged, everything inside was in perfect condition.
Inside the chassis, you will find the instructions, the storage bracket that is not installed, and the two extra fans that are also not installed so that you have space to insert an ATX-size board without removing and re-installing them. A bag of screws and some zip ties complete the list of included items.
Design and Build Quality
One of the standout features of the Invader X Mini is its clean and modern design. It boasts dual tempered glass panels, offering a panoramic interior view, perfect for showcasing your components. The glass is sturdy and well-secured, adding a premium feel to the case.
The case is available in black and white variants. Each has a matte finish that resists fingerprints and smudges, maintaining its sleek appearance over time. Despite its compact size, the steel construction feels robust, ensuring durability while keeping the weight manageable.
This variant’s I/O includes a Power Button and a Reset Button, as well as one USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C, one USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A, and an Audio/Mic Combo Jack. One negative aspect of this combination is using the entire USB 3.2 header for a single USB.
Compatibility and Space Utilization
The Invader X Mini supports ATX, Micro-ATX, and Mini-ITX motherboards, making it a flexible option for various builds. This is impressive, considering its smaller footprint compared to standard ATX cases. It can accommodate GPUs up to 310mm in length and CPU coolers up to 160mm in height, which is adequate for most mid-range and high-performance components.
The case also offers decent cable management options, with cutouts and Velcro straps to help keep things tidy. However, the compact design makes routing cables a bit challenging, especially for those with less experience building PCs.
Inside, mounts for two 2.5-inch SSDs and one 3.5-inch HDD are sufficient for most modern builds. The SSD mounts are positioned behind the motherboard tray for a clean look, while the HDD cage is under the PSU shroud. However, the compact design can make accessing the HDD cage somewhat cumbersome, mainly if your PSU cables occupy the same space, in case you don’t use a modular one.
Cooling and Airflow
The Invader X Mini excels in air cooling potential. Our review model comes pre-installed with multiple ARGB fans, including unique reverse-bladed fans designed to enhance airflow. These fans are not only functional but also contribute to the case’s stylish appearance with customizable lighting effects.
In terms of overall compatibility, the case supports the following fan placements:
- Top: Up to 2 x 120mm or 2 x 140mm
- Bottom: Up to 2 x 120mm
- Rear: 1 x 120mm
The chassis also supports up to 240mm radiators on the top and 120mm on the rear, making it compatible with liquid cooling setups. Does water cooling make sense in this chassis? Depending on your configuration, blocking the top with a large radiator may lead to higher temperatures on other components, such as the VRMs, the motherboard chipset, and NVMe.
It’s worth noting that the case lacks sufficient dust filters in some areas, such as the PSU chamber, which might lead to dust accumulation over time if not cleaned regularly.
Storage Options
The case provides storage space for two 2.5-inch SSDs and one 3.5-inch HDD. While this is adequate for most modern builds, the limited space can make installation a bit cumbersome, especially when accessing the HDD cage. Builders with extensive storage needs may find this restrictive. Regardless, it’s nice to see the optional bracket and the potential to use traditional storage options, something that most modern cases have started to abandon.
ARGB Lighting and Aesthetics
The pre-installed ARGB fans offer vibrant lighting effects that can be customized through compatible motherboard software or the included controller. The case’s minimalist design combined with these lighting options creates a visually stunning build, especially when paired with other RGB components, as demonstrated on XPG’s build.
The technical specifications refer to the INVADERXMINIMT model we tested. XPG sells a cheaper variant (INVADERXMINIMTWOF) without fans and with a second USB Type-A port instead of the Type-C.
- Model Name: Invader X Mini
- Case Type: Midi-ATX
- Materials: Tempered glass, Steel, Plastic
- Available Colors: Black, White
- Motherboard compatibility: ATX, mATX, ITX
- Included fans: 5 x 120mm
- Fan support (Top): 2x 120 / 2x 140mm
- Fan support (Bottom-PSU enclosure): 2x 120mm
- Fan support (Rear): 1x 120mm
- Radiator support (Top): 120 / 240mm
- Radiator support (Rear): 120mm
- PSU form factor: ATX
- Max PSU length (mm): 180mm ( longer without the optional storage bracket)
- Max GPU length (mm): 330
- Max cooler height (mm): 166
- Drive Bays: 2 x 2.5″ and 2 x 3.5″ or 1 x 3.5″ and 3 x 2.5″
- Dimensions (L x W x H), (mm): 359 x 210 x 460
- Fan PWM/RGB Controller: No
- I/O Panel: 1x Power Button, 1x Reset Button, 1x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C, 1x USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A, 1x Audio/Mic Combo Jack
- Removable dust filters: 2x (Top, PSU)
- Expansion slots: 7x
- Weight (kg): 5.7kg
- Price: $75 plus VAT
- Warranty: 2-years
Hi Aris and Mr. Tstamadianos
May I have one request for you, despite your energy efficiency endeavor? 🙏
I would be very happy if you reviewed these 3 PC chassis using the “old” methodology, i.e. with thermals.
—
1) Lian Li Lancool 207
A very affordable case with strong thermal performance (according to other reviews) … and very popular these days.
2) Antec Flux SE
Other reviews are for Pro version only. This one is smaller and has noise dumping material on the side panels, which could be very interesting for your DELTA.
note: Mr. Jack Wu from Antec wrote to me, that this case should be available in Central Europe in March 2025.
3) Cougar MX600 RGB
Another affordable and well-ventilated case and unlike the previous ones, this has all the vents accommodated with dust protection.
In this case I would like to ask you to make, in addition to the stock configuration, a special measurement w/o dust filters and with one fun on the PSU shroud to equalize the contest.
—
Each of the cases has a depth under 50 cm, can accommodate 180 CPU cooler and has good access to cool air for the CPU and GPU, so I assume they would be at the top of your charts.
edit:…with one fan (not fun) on the PSU shroud …of course 😀
We will try to do them although I cannot make any promises because we have so much in other sections this period. GPUs, monitors, TVs and of course above all, Cybenetics 🙂
thank you very much 🙇 …of course, take your time 😉
Will you also evaluate the thermal performance of the last two XPG cases?
…or is there any reason why not? 😛
because we have performed thermal evaluations in more than a dozen chassis so far, consuming tons of energy, only to see minor temperature differences in the CPU, GPU etc. so it doesn’t worth the time, the money and the trouble.
Well, Aris, quite frankly your answer smells a little bit misleading 😉
Obviously (and I am sure you know it :P) the temperature difference is irrelevant when using such a CPU. The same case as when testing the CPU cooler.
For chassis testing, you use R9 X3D CPU with TJmax at 89°C and for CPU testing, you use R9 X CPU with TJmax at 95°C. So, it’s obvious when you torture the CPU that the temperature would sit close to these values, especially at lower noise levels and on AIR cooling.
The difference lies in frequency and wattage as you know.
—-
Temperature difference in chassis rev. at 25dBA is 1.25°C and at max RPM it is 2.55°C
Temperature difference in AIR Cooler rev. on AMD platform at 25dBA is 0.19 °C and at max it is 2.25°C
Frequency difference in chassis rev. at 25dBA is 134.2 MHz and at max RPM it is 109.35 MHz
Frequency difference in AIR Cooler rev. on AMD platform at 25dBA is 162,64 MHz and at max it is 144.3 MHz.
—-
However, if you find it too bothersome, I have one suggestion if you care.
I have 5800X3D and I found out that if the temperature starts to attack 76°C, the CPU frequency starts to decrease gradually. It maintains the same frequency up to this temperature point.
So, for chassis thermal reviews, you can use a much less demanding CPU (let say Ryzen 5 9600 or you can lower the voltage) and you find this point. You can then set the NH-D15 to such RPM (with some margin), that the noise would be low enough to keep the CPU temperature below this point (in room with temperature of let’s say 35°C … like in the hot case). You can then use this fixed RPM for testing. (If the temperature rises above this temperature point, the chasis will be DSQ.)
Similar approach for GPU (undervolt, min freq.=max freq.<<boost, fixed RPM)
And then you can just record temperatures and not worry about frequency or wattage to have less work to do.
But chassis reviews w/o the thermal performance are …
we also measure frequencies, you know that 😉
Do you really believe that for 100 MHz Freq difference and 2-3C degrees is it worth it to fire up a 14kW Climate Chamber and have it running for 6-8 hours? Above all we are an efficiency certifications agency, and we promote energy efficiency in any form. If I felt that thermals are required, I would do conduct them, but I don’t see any real benefit there since whatever we did so far, and you can easily find our results, shows minimal differences, not worthy of the energy required to conduct these measurements.
I got your point,… OK, is valid 😉
I have shown (from your data) a very similar or even worse situation (in case of temps), that can be observed in AIR Cooler reviews on the AMD platform, in the previous post.
Therefore, can we expect Air Cooler reviews to be canceled on the AMD platform? 😛 …
It would be a pity, because I like them. 🙂