# Thermal paste



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 5, 2011)

Hey, I saw that arctic silver is cheap atm, I was wondering if It would really help from the coolermaster stock thermal paste im using atm.


----------



## Homeless (Aug 5, 2011)

AS would probably do a better job, but don't expect anything more than a 1-3 degree difference


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 5, 2011)

^ Id say 3-5c difference.
 AS5 is good stuff. I used to use it all the time but Here it's 15 bucks for a small tube. You also don't need very mush compared to the other pastes on the market


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 5, 2011)

So is the coolermaster stuff I have okay?


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 5, 2011)

it's paste and thats about all.

Grab some MX-4 it's cheaper and does a bit better job


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 5, 2011)

I think my friend has some.. I'm not gunna use it till I get a new cooler. If you know where I can find one, can you post  it in my new thread?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

I use Arctic Silver Alumina, it is within 1°C of the best and you can get a huge tube for like $7.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I use Arctic Silver Alumina, it is within 1°C of the best and you can get a huge tube for like $7.



I'm not sure what your definition of best is, but its very different than mine.

AS5 is still pretty good, MX3 and MX4 are good, even Gelid's Extreme is good but expensive. 

Try googling reviews of any of those and you'll see some good details.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

Quick question, is the Zalman CNPS9000 any good?


----------



## erocker (Aug 6, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> Quick question, is the Zalman CNPS9000 any good?



It's old. Here, I googled reviews for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=Zalm...w.r_cp.&fp=b3159dd593f595f9&biw=1920&bih=1105


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

I have been googling for a bit, didn't really find a real review. Is it worth $20?

Is it even better than a hyper tx3?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> I'm not sure what your definition of best is, but its very different than mine.
> 
> AS5 is still pretty good, MX3 and MX4 are good, even Gelid's Extreme is good but expensive.
> 
> Try googling reviews of any of those and you'll see some good details.



My definition of the best?  Shin-Etsu G751.  Better than AS5 MX-3 and MX-4, probably the best paste on the market.

AS Alumina is within 1°C of Shin-Etsu, and AS5 if you must.

And in my own testing I saw absolutely no difference between AS Alumina and MX-3/4 and AS5.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 6, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> I have been googling for a bit, didn't really find a real review. Is it worth $20?
> 
> Is it even better than a hyper tx3?


It's a good cooler if you can grab it for the 20 bones, and with your cpu, it'll work good for sure!


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

:3 Tehehe kk thanks :3 I hope this one doesn't glow green  I have a blue and black theme to my pc.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 6, 2011)

What ever , It'll work fine


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

kk bought it :3 Hope it doesn't suck


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 6, 2011)

This cooler is WELL worth the money!

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181011


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

I only had $30 on my debit card. I'm upgrading to the H50 the stupid way  (going step by step ending up spending $400 in 10-80$ coolers) I got it for $20.50 though. The guy said hes gunna throw in some mx1.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 6, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> kk bought it :3 Hope it doesn't suck


By looking at your Avatar pix, Id say you suck worse then the cooler!  ;P


----------



## happita (Aug 6, 2011)

Any halfway decent paste that doesn't cost obscenely expensive gets the ok by me. There are much more important things than paste like the cooler and fan. But if you got an awesome cooler, then of course there's no reason to skimp out on the thermal paste. I've got some MX-2 and it's been working just fine with the temps I'm getting.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> By looking at your Avatar pix, Id say you suck worse then the cooler!  ;P



Tehehehehe :3 I saw this icon on tumblr and I laughed for 5 mins. I then realized why I'm going to hell.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 6, 2011)

Here's more reviews and graphs than you can shake a stick at:

http://skinneelabs.com/tim/

Sadly no AS Aluminum, I would have liked to see how far down on the list it would have ranked


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 6, 2011)

If ya can afford IC Dimond paste then grab it! Wicked stuff! It's my fav by far, but a tough paste to clean off when re-mounting the block


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

Nothing baby wipes can't handle :3


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 6, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> Nothing baby wipes can't handle :3


^ is that a pair of nut's on your chin * :3 ?


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

No idea, but it looks like a fishy face!  It makes me happy, okay?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> Here's more reviews and graphs than you can shake a stick at:
> 
> http://skinneelabs.com/tim/
> 
> Sadly no AS Aluminum, I would have liked to see how far down on the list it would have ranked



Considering it is 0.2°C behind OCZ Freeze, you can do the math.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 6, 2011)

I'll trust works cited from 2011, not 2009 that data was from a different decade so it must be outdated.

Long answer is, sometimes the thermal paste can be worth it. Some are easier to spread, clean, or have better performance value over others.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

I get mine straight from hp! They have the best stuff! So worth the $200 a tube@!!!!!~~


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> I'll trust works cited from 2011, not 2009 that data was from a different decade so it must be outdated.



Yes, because we all know that thermal paste performance changes based on when the testing was done.:shadedshu


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Considering it is 0.2°C behind OCZ Freeze, you can do the math.



I think it would have been helpful to point out that it's a permanent adhesive.

From the Arctic Silver web site:



> Precaution:
> Arctic Alumina Thermal Adhesive is a permanent adhesive. Components you attach with Arctic Alumina Thermal Adhesive will
> stay attached forever.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I think it would have been helpful to point out that it's a permanent adhesive.
> 
> From the Arctic Silver web site:



They have both.

http://www.arcticsilver.com/arctic_alumina.htm


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 6, 2011)

I highly recommend the Gelid Extreme. Best of what I'd call the easy spread pastes. Plus no cure or conductivity.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> They have both.
> 
> http://www.arcticsilver.com/arctic_alumina.htm



Thanks, but there has to be a difference in performance and I'm not sure which one he was talking about.  I would guess that any adhesive type paste is going to do a better job than it's non-adhesive sibling just because it forces a tighter mating.

Or am I completely stoned in thinking that?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Thanks, but there has to be a difference in performance and I'm not sure which one he was talking about.  I would guess that any adhesive type paste is going to do a better job than it's non-adhesive sibling just because it forces a tighter mating.
> 
> Or am I completely stoned in thinking that?



Tbh, I haven't the slightest freakin clue. lol.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I think it would have been helpful to point out that it's a permanent adhesive.
> 
> From the Arctic Silver web site:



Did I say Arctic Silver Alumina Thermal Adhesive?  I don't believe I did.  I said Arctic Silver Alumina.  We are talking thermal paste here, so even if they had the same name, wouldn't it be logical to assume I was talking about the thermal paste and not the thermal adhesive?

Also, thermal adhesives tend to perform worse  because the adhesive part isn't as conductive as pure thermal paste.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Did I say Arctic Silver Alumina Thermal Adhesive?  I don't believe I did.  I said Arctic Silver Alumina.  We are talking thermal paste here, so even if they had the same name, wouldn't it be logical to assume I was talking about the thermal paste and not the thermal adhesive?
> 
> Also, thermal adhesives tend to perform worse  because the adhesive part isn't as conductive as pure thermal paste.



Too bad you didn't read the emails that followed that.  Wile E. managed to point that out without all the whining but you don't even mention his post.  What's the matter, were you just too anxious to point out a trivial error?  If so, I'll try to make similar errors in the future since you clearly need some form of amusement.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Too bad you didn't read the emails that followed that.  Wile E. managed to point that out without all the whining but you don't even mention his post.  What's the matter, were you just too anxious to point out a trivial error?  If so, I'll try to make similar errors in the future since you clearly need some form of amusement.



No I read them, but I was responding to your post because that was the post that was responding to me.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No I read them, but I was responding to your post because that was the post that was responding to me.



And so you could pretend as if the issue hadn't already been resolved.  OK.  Sure.  If that's how you roll, well, what can I say?


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 6, 2011)

Some guy on some site at some point (yea I know really specific here guys) tested a fuck ton of thermal pastes and put all the scores up. When it comes down to it, and unless you're anal about that 3-4C that makes absolutely no difference, just get the cheapest you can find.

In answering another question about coolers, I personally would get a cheap piece of shit for a bit and then save up and get what you want. Or look for re-badged coolers, sometimes they can be cheaper for the same thing.


----------



## scaminatrix (Aug 6, 2011)

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Thermal-Compound-Roundup-July-2011/1334/4

Yes, they actually tested toothpaste and pink lipstick


----------



## Grnfinger (Aug 6, 2011)

Not to hijack the thread but I was just reading this....

http://skinneelabs.com/2011-tim-results/2/

Are the numbers to be trusted? If so I would drop 20 bucks for a 8-10c drop from my AS5 I use now.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

Here's a current roundup from Hardware Secrets.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Thermal-Compound-Roundup-July-2011/1334/5

I had to search for Arctic Alumina since it seems to be a pretty old product.  Looks like it sucks from this review.  Or as the reviewers put it:


> Silver-colored AiT Cool Silver and Romanian Pro-Thermal 81 also cannot boast much, and Arctic Alumina becomes the best among the worst.



http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coolers/display/thermal-interface-roundup_10.html#sect0


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> And so you could pretend as if the issue hadn't already been resolved.  OK.  Sure.  If that's how you roll, well, what can I say?



The issue wasn't resolve as far as I was concerned.  You brought it up because you don't know what you are talking about trying to make it look like I didn't know what I was talking about, and Wile E pointed out they have both, but it wasn't clearified which I was talking about.  You still went on talking about how the adhesive might have better thermal conductivity like you still though that is what I was talking about.  If the issue had been cleared up, you wouldn't have kept going on about the adhesive like that is what I was comparing everything to.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The issue wasn't resolve as far as I was concerned.  You brought it up because you don't know what you are talking about trying to make it look like I didn't know what I was talking about, and Wile E pointed out they have both, but it wasn't clearified which I was talking about.  You still went on talking about how the adhesive might have better thermal conductivity like you still though that is what I was talking about.  If the issue had been cleared up, you wouldn't have kept going on about the adhesive like that is what I was comparing everything to.



I'm glad that made sense to you.  From what I can gather you think that I was making claims that I in fact was not making and that I was basically being a poser.  If that's your opinion - fine.  But before expressing your opinion to me perhaps you should first inquire as to whether or not I care. 

And in terms of pretending to know more than one does, perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to rebut the fairly hideous review of this ancient product which I refencence in my preceding post.  Ofc if you choose not to, I'll understand.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I'm glad that made sense to you.  From what I can gather you think that I was making claims that I in fact was not making and that I was basically being a poser.  If that's your opinion - fine.  But before expressing your opinion to me perhaps you should first inquire as to whether or not I care.
> 
> And in terms of pretending to know more than one does, perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to rebut the fairly hideous review of this ancient product which I refencence in my preceding post.  Ofc if you choose not to, I'll understand.



You mean the one showing it within 3c of AS5 and 3.5c of OCZFreeze? I thought you posted that to support my point, so a rebuttle isn't needed. I say 1c you say 3, do you really think there is a huge difference there?


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You mean the one showing it within 3c of AS5 and 3.5c of OCZFreeze? I thought you posted that to support my point, so a rebuttle isn't needed. I say 1c you say 3, do you really think there is a huge difference there?



You did? Really?  I guess you missed this part so I'll quote it again for you.  I even used a bigger font so it would be easier to see. 



> Silver-colored AiT Cool Silver and Romanian Pro-Thermal 81 also cannot boast much, and *Arctic Alumina becomes the best among the worst*.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> You did? Really?  I guess you missed this part so I'll quote it again for you.  I even used a bigger font so it would be easier to see.



I saw it, I just ignored it because it doesn't make sence. Look at the results yourself and not just what is spoon feed to you.  When the "worst" is 5c off from the best and AS Alumina is only 3c saying "it is the best of the worst" is pretty idiotic.  How about "it won't matter" instead? That makes more sense. And in case you couldn't tell, I did realize that you were trying to post that to debut the tests I showed, but you just did a pies poor kpb at it.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I saw it, I just ignored it because it doesn't make sence. Look at the results yourself and not just what is spoon feed to you.  When the "worst" is 5c off from the best and AS Alumina is only 3c saying "it is the best of the worst" is pretty idiotic.  How about "it won't matter" instead? That makes more sense. And in case you couldn't tell, I did realize that you were trying to post that to debut the tests I showed, but you just did a pies poor kpb at it.



Funny but I seem to recall your saying the following.



newtekie1 said:


> I use Arctic Silver Alumina, it is within 1°C of the best and you can get a huge tube for like $7.





newtekie1 said:


> My definition of the best?  Shin-Etsu G751.  Better than AS5 MX-3 and MX-4, probably the best paste on the market.
> 
> AS Alumina is within 1°C of Shin-Etsu, and AS5 if you must.
> 
> And in my own testing I saw absolutely no difference between AS Alumina and MX-3/4 and AS5.





newtekie1 said:


> Considering it is 0.2°C behind OCZ Freeze, you can do the math.



Hmmm.  And now you're saying that 3C doesn't matter.  What have you done with real Newtekie?

and by the way, I emphasized the quote to make it easy for you since obviously you can't read the chart.


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 6, 2011)

maybe he is drunk/high/both


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Funny but I seem to recall your saying the following.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, 3°C doesn't matter.  When did I say it did?  I recommend Arctic Silver Alumina because it is cheap and you get a shit load for the money, and from what I've seen(both with benchmarks and with my own experience) it is within 1°C of the best.  I never said more than 1°C matters, I was just stating what I've seen.  Now you've posted something saying 3°C.  Okay, big deal.  You are arguing like 3°C is a big difference, you even posted a quote that seems to support that, but do you honestly think 3°C makes a difference?  I don't mean to offend, and I am sorry if I have, but I'm just saying the difference between AS Alumina and anything else is so small it won't matter.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, 3°C doesn't matter.  When did I say it did?  I recommend Arctic Silver Alumina because it is cheap and you get a shit load for the money, and from what I've seen(both with benchmarks and with my own experience) it is within 1°C of the best.  I never said more than 1°C matters, I was just stating what I've seen.  Now you've posted something saying 3°C.  Okay, big deal.  You are arguing like 3°C is a big difference, you even posted a quote that seems to support that, but do you honestly think 3°C makes a difference?  I don't mean to offend, and I am sorry if I have, but I'm just saying the difference between AS Alumina and anything else is so small it won't matter.


And I just have to showcase these 3 quotes again in light of that statement.  Ahhh.  Truly classic.


newtekie1 said:


> My definition of the best?  Shin-Etsu G751.  Better than AS5 MX-3 and MX-4, probably the best paste on the market.
> 
> AS Alumina is within 1°C of Shin-Etsu, and AS5 if you must.
> 
> And in my own testing I saw absolutely no difference between AS Alumina and MX-3/4 and AS5.





newtekie1 said:


> I use Arctic Silver Alumina, it is within 1°C of the best and you can get a huge tube for like $7.





newtekie1 said:


> Yes, 3°C doesn't matter.  When did I say it did?  I recommend Arctic Silver Alumina because it is cheap and you get a shit load for the money, and from what I've seen(both with benchmarks and with my own experience) it is within 1°C of the best.  I never said more than 1°C matters, I was just stating what I've seen.  Now you've posted something saying 3°C.  Okay, big deal.  You are arguing like 3°C is a big difference, you even posted a quote that seems to support that, but do you honestly think 3°C makes a difference?  I don't mean to offend, and I am sorry if I have, but I'm just saying the difference between AS Alumina and anything else is so small it won't matter.



You're really becoming tiresome.  If you think that what you're saying now is consistent with what i posted, fine.  As I implied earlier, it's not like I actually care and it's not like the people reading this are too stupid to see for themselves - regardless of how low your opinion of them might be.

But since I sort of enjoy showing how wrong you are, consider this.  You can't directly compare two sets of tests especially when they're like 3 years apart.  However we can compare your Arctic Alumina, which you said was at most 1C off the best (you know, even that doesn't mean anything as you've just explained) to another TIM on the chart and if that paste is still knocking around today (which seems to be quite unlikely) we make a relative comparison?  Savvy?

So in the old review, AS5 is 3.8C better than AA.  Oh, yeah, and it's not 3C is it?  I figured you would think I missed what the actual numbers are.  Silly boy.  Oh no, your AA is actually 4.8C worse than the best paste they tested.  But as you said, 3C or 4.8C - does it REALLY matter?  Pftt.  Of course not.

Now the current review from this past July, AS5 also appears.  Ofc bear in mind that nearly 3 years have passed.  But I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that there was no change - no improvement - no reformulation.

When we do that, we see that once again AS5 is only 1 degree from the top score - just like in the old review.  Therefore your AA is still at least 4.8C worse than the best product tested.  In other words, it sucked 3 years ago and it still sucks.  But this is what you want to tell people to use.  Your quotes are quite clear about that, or are you going to try to explain that little contradiction away as well?  I hope so because I'm looking forward to your explanation.  They've all been so marvelously contorted.

But then again, your position now is that 3C doesn't matter so presumable 4.8C doesn't matter either - right?  So all you have to do is stick to your guns and you win.  I think that might be called a Pyrrhic victory, but since you probably can't tell the difference, you'll be happy and I can enjoy the rest of my Saturday.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> And I just have to showcase these 3 quotes again in light of that statement.  Ahhh.  Truly classic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



74-71=3°C  I realize you are using the Linpack numbers, but when do processors ever get that hot?  Never.   OCCT is more realistic, but even that is beyond normal usage, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and used those numbers.

Now, I'll explain the situation.  When I say 1°C, I'm talking realistic load.  The benchmark I used uses a similar more realistic load.  I'm not going to even look at Linpack numbers because they are totally unrealistic.

First you are arguing over a 2°C difference between what I said and what you managed to come up with, now you are seriously aruging over a 0.8°C difference.  Seriously, you really think it matters?

I'll say it once again and that is it, the difference doesn't matter.  I've seen 1°C difference, and that is what I said, but even at the worst all you can manage to show is a 4.8°C difference at the vary most.  I'll even go as far as saying 5°C won't matter.  Do you really think it will?  If so, then I guess AS Alumina "sucks" but since 5°C doesn't matter, AS Alumina hardly sucks.

You want to put words in my mouth to try and make it look like I'm wrong, but I'm not.  I never said a 3°C mattered, I stated what I've personally witnessed AS Alumina do(I doubt you've even used it).  The only one here that seems to think 3°C matters is you, despite you constantly acking like I said it.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 74-71=3°C  I realize you are using the Linpack numbers, but when do processors ever get that hot?  Never.   OCCT is more realistic, but even that is beyond normal usage, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and use those numbers.
> 
> Now, I'll explain the situation.  When I say 1°C, I'm talking realistic load.  The benchmark I used uses a similar more realistic load.  I'm not going to even look at Linpack numbers because they are totally unrealistic.
> 
> ...


You've wasted enough of my time.  This me turning my back on you and leaving.  Go argue with your action figures.  I will let the people reading this thread be the jury.  Have a nice life.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

twilyth said:


> You've wasted enough of my time.  This me turning my back on you and leaving.  Go argue with your action figures.  I will let the people reading this thread be the jury.  Have a nice life.



In other words "I've lost the argument I've realized I make no sense and can't make stupid arguments that don't have any logic in them so I'll just insult you and stop posting to act like I've won"...

I'm pretty sure the people reading the thread will probably side with me that a 3°C difference doesn't matter, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Aug 6, 2011)

How much $ is the 3C difference?


----------



## twilyth (Aug 6, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> In other words "I've lost the argument I've realized I make no sense and can't make stupid arguments that don't have any logic in them so I'll just insult you and stop posting to act like I've won"...
> 
> I'm pretty sure the people reading the thread will probably side with me that a 3°C difference doesn't matter, but maybe I'm wrong.



No, don't worry about that.  I'd bet my life that you are NEVER wrong.


----------



## Brandenburg (Aug 6, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> maybe he is drunk/high/both



Like thats a plausible excuse for anything  LOL:shadedshu


----------



## PaulieG (Aug 6, 2011)

OK guys. Lets keep this thread on topic....


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> How much $ is the 3C difference?



A 9cc tube of Arctic Silver Alumina is currently $8 on newegg, a 9cc tube of Arctic Silver 5 is $24.


----------



## Riotpump (Aug 6, 2011)

Unless the thermal paste could give me at least 5-10c lower temps. I would not even go through the hassle of removing, cleaning, remounting, then reseating my heatsink.  It's definitely worth changing or trying something new when you upgrade from your previous heatsink, ex.(going from stock to aftermarket cooling).


----------



## LordJummy (Aug 7, 2011)

shin etsu has always yielded me the best results, and I will stick with it until I find something better.



newtekie1 said:


> In other words "I've lost the argument I've realized I make no sense and can't make stupid arguments that don't have any logic in them so I'll just insult you and stop posting to act like I've won"...
> 
> I'm pretty sure the people reading the thread will probably side with me that a 3°C difference doesn't matter, but maybe I'm wrong.



Why do you feel the need to have everyone think you're right and side with you? I find this interesting.



twilyth said:


> No, don't worry about that.  I'd bet my life that you are NEVER wrong.



I feel your pain here. I've realized there's absolutely no point in arguing with anyone on here unless it's constructive in some way. Most forum users feel great power through anonymity and refuse to yield or compromise. They seek social approval and attention from the forums where it is lacking in other areas.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> In other words "I've lost the argument I've realized I make no sense and can't make stupid arguments that don't have any logic in them so I'll just insult you and stop posting to act like I've won"...
> 
> *I'm pretty sure the people reading the thread will probably side with me that a 3°C difference doesn't matter, but maybe I'm wrong.*



Umm, yeah, Im gonna have to go with: you are wrong on this one. 3C is pretty significant from just thermal paste. It does kinda matter to me, and a lot of other enthusiasts, or else we wouldn't have these kinds of threads or debates, or entire round-ups of testing nothing but thermal paste. And I don't know about you, but when I want to see how well something cools, I wanted it tested in absolutely worst case scenarios.

Now, I won't go swapping paste arbitrarily, but when I go to buy new paste, I want the best I can afford at the time. (Minus that PITA liquid stuff that eats aluminum).

But I do have issues with the results of the chart posted. It shows AS5 being ahead of MX2, and that just isn't the case in my testing. I have both here, and MX-2 has always done better for me.

That said, I'm probably gonna give ocz freeze or MX-4 a go after my tube of MX-2 runs out. (another application or 2.)


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 7, 2011)

Hey now guys, Newteckiez is gonna have to reply with a ton of emoticons with all these replies.

Just for the records, I disagreed with him before disagreeing with him was popular.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 7, 2011)

Wile E said:


> That said, I'm probably gonna give ocz freeze or MX-4 a go after my tube of MX-2 runs out. (another application or 2.)



You tried the gelid yet? Went from freeze to it and like the spread a bit better.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Umm, yeah, Im gonna have to go with: you are wrong on this one. 3C is pretty significant from just thermal paste. It does kinda matter to me, and a lot of other enthusiasts, or else we wouldn't have these kinds of threads or debates, or entire round-ups of testing nothing but thermal paste. And I don't know about you, but when I want to see how well something cools, I wanted it tested in absolutely worst case scenarios.
> 
> Now, I won't go swapping paste arbitrarily, but when I go to buy new paste, I want the best I can afford at the time. (Minus that PITA liquid stuff that eats aluminum).
> 
> ...



No, 3°C isn't really that significant.  I can't see a single instance when a 3°C higher temp would make any difference in 24/7 use.  Can you?  Yeah, you might like to say "oh look, it runs at 67°C that is so much better than 70°C", but it won't actually make any difference other than increasing your penis size.

Hell a bigger difference can happen just by having a crappy application of the paste.  I'd rather put the $18(or whatever the savings) into better cooling elsewhere, where it will likely make more of a difference.

And there are plenty of these threads, and most of them usually end with "there is 5°C between the best and the worst, so it doesn't matter".


----------



## twilyth (Aug 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No, 3°C isn't really that significant.  I can't see a single instance when a 3°C higher temp would make any difference in 24/7 use.  Can you?  Yeah, you might like to say "oh look, it runs at 67°C that is so much better than 70°C", but it won't actually make any difference other than increasing your penis size.
> 
> Hell a bigger difference can happen just by having a crappy application of the paste.  I'd rather put the $18(or whatever the savings) into better cooling elsewhere, where it will likely make more of a difference.


For the record.  We've established that it was nearly 5C (4.8) NOT 3C.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2011)

twilyth said:


> For the record.  We've established that it was nearly 5C (4.8) NOT 3C.



Actually, no we haven't.  You said that, but even Wile E disagrees with the chart you posted.  The tests I posted show a less than 1°C difference using a more realistic and accurate testing method.

So just becuase you posted some number doesn't mean you've estabilish anything, I posted numbers too, before you even, you just chose to ignore them.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Actually, no we haven't.  You said that, but even Wile E disagrees with the chart you posted.  The tests I posted show a less than 1°C difference using a more realistic and accurate testing method.
> 
> So just becuase you posted some number doesn't mean you've estabilish anything, I posted numbers too, before you even, you just chose to ignore them.



Mmmm, whatever.  Anyone who is interested can look for themselves.  B'bye. (for now).


----------



## Wile E (Aug 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No, 3°C isn't really that significant.  I can't see a single instance when a 3°C higher temp would make any difference in 24/7 use.  Can you? * Yeah, you might like to say "oh look, it runs at 67°C that is so much better than 70°C", but it won't actually make any difference other than increasing your penis size.*
> 
> Hell a bigger difference can happen just by having a crappy application of the paste.  I'd rather put the $18(or whatever the savings) into better cooling elsewhere, where it will likely make more of a difference.
> 
> And there are plenty of these threads, and most of them usually end with "there is 5°C between the best and the worst, so it doesn't matter".



Yes it can. Just ask anyone pushing the limits of their OC. Especially temp sensitive AMD chips. You can then argue that "maybe you should back down your OC." To which my response would be "why should I when just using better thermal paste allows me to remain stable?"

Better is better, no matter the spin you try to apply to it. 3C is significant to many people. Significance is determined by user. To say it's insignificant to you is one thing, to say it's completely insignificant is an entirely different animal altogether, and is not a quantifiable position in the slightest.


----------



## Widjaja (Aug 7, 2011)

I have AS5, MX-3 and Shin Etsu Red Cap which is supposed to be the best stuff.

AS5 was the thinnest of the lot, sort of runny.
MX-3 was relatively thick and seems sort of dry in comparison to the AS5
Shin Etsu was a bit thicker than the MX-3.

Personally I didn't see any of them doing better than the other.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Yes it can. Just ask anyone pushing the limits of their OC. Especially temp sensitive AMD chips. You can then argue that "maybe you should back down your OC." To which my response would be "why should I when just using better thermal paste allows me to remain stable?"
> 
> Better is better, no matter the spin you try to apply to it. 3C is significant to many people. Significance is determined by user. To say it's insignificant to you is one thing, to say it's completely insignificant is an entirely different animal altogether, and is not a quantifiable position in the slightest.



Can you show me any evidence that 3C would make a difference in any overclock(except maybe extreme overclocking with extreme cooling)?  Even on "temp sensitive" AMD chips 3C doesn't make a difference.


----------



## Grnfinger (Aug 7, 2011)

For me personally 3c would make a difference
White paper/tech side 3c is not going to impact anything unless it's pushing the limit to instability.

eg... P45 chips were safe to 90c according to Intel. Many users had stability issues at 60c and it's was recommended to keep the NB under 45c for long term stability.

So 3c can have an impact, it's just when does it become a factor. A chip running it's life in the 30's, 3c wont be much of a consideration. A chip like mine running high 70's (under load) 3c is a bigger deal.
This is why I just shelled out 24 bones for some Indigo Extreme, if I can buy 4-6c temp drop on load it's worth it to me. Where someone else would prefer to spend 24 bones on a bucket of chicken and live with the extra heat.

Not trying to argue with anyone just trying to look at the question from a different angle.
Now I'm off for a bucket of chicken


----------



## PaulieG (Aug 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Can you show me any evidence that 3C would make a difference in any overclock(except maybe extreme overclocking with extreme cooling)?  Even on "temp sensitive" AMD chips 3C doesn't make a difference.



Well, the 3c would make a difference when I determine what temps are acceptable to me. For instance, I don't want my 2600k to ever break 75c when I'm benching and testing an overclock. If one paste allows me to stay under this, and another is 3c above then it does matter. This entire debate is really useless, as this 1c,2c,3c etc. are gonna matter to various levels depending on the individual...since so much of the information on safe 24/7 temps from both AMD and Intel are vague at best, and we all end up deciding what is acceptable to us.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2011)

Paulieg said:


> Well, the 3c would make a difference when I determine what temps are acceptable to me. For instance, I don't want my 2600k to ever break 75c when I'm benching and testing an overclock. If one paste allows me to stay under this, and another is 3c above then it does matter. This entire debate is really useless, as this 1c,2c,3c etc. are gonna matter to various levels depending on the individual...since so much of the information on safe 24/7 temps from both AMD and Intel are vague at best, and we all end up deciding what is acceptable to us.



Wow, you really pick 75°C and won't accept 78°C?  What logical reason do you have for this?(not to mention that I've already estabilish the difference is less than 1°C, but whatever.)

Don't get me wrong, I understand personal preference, and personal preference doesn't have to have any logic behind it.  As I kind of elluded to earlier about personal preference(with the penis size reference if case no one got it), personal preference is one thing, but in reality it makes no difference between 75°C and 78°C.  It won't affect the life of the chip(noticeably) and it is extremely unlikely to affect clock speeds.


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 7, 2011)

I have run through so many pastes over the years I really lost count. I wont agree or disagree with anyone in this thread.

I take a balance of say the top 5-10 pastes (which are all within a degree or very close to that of each other) and then look for what spreads the easiest and offers the best bang for the buck, out of those 10 or so.

Typically, in my shoes, I use what is free This makes me use TIMs for all sorts of applications. My favorite for ease of use and "good" temps is MX-2. I had 3 and 4, but the samples I got, they were both thicker than the MX-2, making 2 easier to apply in all situations than the other two.

I have also noticed, some TIM doesn't do as well on a CPU as it does on a GPU and the same can be found the other way around.

Personal preference plays a huge factor in this topic, and what works great for some doesn't do as well for others.


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 7, 2011)

i use whats cheap. CM HTK-002


----------



## PaulieG (Aug 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Wow, you really pick 75°C and won't accept 78°C?  What logical reason do you have for this?(not to mention that I've already estabilish the difference is less than 1°C, but whatever.)
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I understand personal preference, and personal preference doesn't have to have any logic behind it.  As I kind of elluded to earlier about personal preference(with the penis size reference if case no one got it), personal preference is one thing, but in reality it makes no difference between 75°C and 78°C.  It won't affect the life of the chip(noticeably) and it is extremely unlikely to affect clock speeds.



We all have our limits of absolute risk. The "line in the sand" IS a personal preference. So yes, when I have control over the situation by choosing one paste over another, I will do it, as will most enthusiasts. It seems silly not to, when MOST good pastes are within a few dollars of one another.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2011)

Paulieg said:


> We all have our limits of absolute risk. The "line in the sand" IS a personal preference. So yes, when I have control over the situation by choosing one paste over another, I will do it, as will most enthusiasts. It seems silly not to, when MOST good pastes are within a few dollars of one another.



Ok, I can accept that, I don't agree with it, but I can accept it.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 8, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Can you show me any evidence that 3C would make a difference in any overclock(except maybe extreme overclocking with extreme cooling)?  Even on "temp sensitive" AMD chips 3C doesn't make a difference.



My 6400+ would run 3.5Ghz all day long at 57C. It would crash off and on at 60C.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2011)

Wile E said:


> My 6400+ would run 3.5Ghz all day long at 57C. It would crash off and on at 60C.



Yeah, well mine wouldn't crash.  I said evidence, not just you saying so.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 8, 2011)

Honestly I think the effectiveness of thermal paste depends on the heatsink.

Some argue a a stock Intel cooler with a snap in mounting mechanisms may not be sufficient pressure on the cpu socket to evenly distribute the pressure and provide good conduct. Hence, the job of the thermal paste is to fill in the areas where contact is not being made. 

Testing could be swayed in any direction you want. 

Want to show a slim margin of difference? No problem, use a very tightly mounted heatsink and a cpu that doesn't load anywhere near nominal values(e2200). 

Want to show a large margin of difference? No problem, I'll use a crappy heatsink and limit the fan(if not take it off all together) and use a cpu that loads well into 90+Cº.

Ideally, a comprehensive Thermal Paste review can only be done by a computer. An exact amount applied in exactly the same way every time, with a cooler ran the exact same every time, while conducting the exact same testing/loading of the cpu every single time.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 8, 2011)

I have used a dozen TIMs but my fav like peet said is MX-2. It spreads nicely and cools very good.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 8, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The issue wasn't resolve as far as I was concerned.  You brought it up because you don't know what you are talking about trying to make it look like I didn't know what I was talking about, and Wile E pointed out they have both, but it wasn't clearified which I was talking about.  You still went on talking about how the adhesive might have better thermal conductivity like you still though that is what I was talking about.  If the issue had been cleared up, you wouldn't have kept going on about the adhesive like that is what I was comparing everything to.


It's 5.8C.  Now I know this is going to be difficult for you, but see if you can't read these charts.  Short lines are better than long lines in case you might have been confused about that.  Clearly you are confused about something if you think that the 5.8C figure is not obvious and I'm willing to help you in any way I can.

Here is the chart from 3 years ago - which is how far back I had to go to find your shitty paste.  Notice that the score for your paste Arctic Alumina is 86.8C.  The score for the AS5 is 83C and the top score is 82C.

Pay attention because I'm going to do some math.  Your paste was 3.8C worse than AS5.  Further, your paste was 4.8C worse than the best paste tested.







Now here is the current chart that also includes AS5 and which shows it 1C off from the top TIM in the survey.  Interesting that 3 years later it still manages to take second place and by the same 1C.






So we know for a fact that compared to the best, you paste sucked by 4.8C.  Now using AS5 as our point of reference, given the fact that the AS5 is still only one degree off from the top performers, obviously your paste sucks even compared to the more modern pastes.

But that's just gravy.  The first chart is a direct head to head comparison and Arctic Alumina, the same paste you have strongly recommended, was 4.8C behind the top performer when you said it would be at most 1C off of the best.

Your exact words were:


newtekie1 said:


> I use Arctic Silver Alumina, it is within 1°C of the best and you can get a huge tube for like $7.



Is it becoming clear yet just how completely wrong and apparently uninformed you were in making that statement?

Thanks for reading.


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 8, 2011)

twilyth said:


> It's 5.8C.  Now I know this is going to be difficult for you, but see if you can't read these charts.  Short lines are better than long lines in case you might have been confused about that.  Clearly you are confused about something if you think that the 5.8C figure is not obvious and I'm willing to help you in any way I can.
> 
> Here is the chart from 3 years ago - which is how far back I had to go to find your shitty paste.  Notice that the score for your paste Arctic Alumina is 86.8C.  The score for the AS5 is 83C and the top score is 82C.
> 
> ...






and i still hold to my belief that he was high/drunk/both.


while keeping on topic, what paste do you guys think offer the best performance/price ratio? Kinda like TPU's gfx card reviews.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 8, 2011)

AS5 has about the best price/performance ratio I've seen.

MX-2 is a close second

MX-3/4 is a bit more but does preform relatively well

Some of the expensive stuff gets into $20 per application, well above what I'd pay but the performance is second to none.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Is it becoming clear yet just how completely wrong and apparently uninformed you were in making that statement?
> 
> Thanks for reading.



Again, using the tests I've seen and my own experience I am not wrong.  I find it interesting that you are arguing about a product that you have never even used.  I actually have experience with the pastes in question, you're too busy talking about how shitty the paste.  You seem to want to infer that because it is old, it must be bad.  AS5 is older, you seem to like that paste and it seems to hold up pretty well, by your own statement is is second still.  So how long the paste has been on the market must not matter, despite what you think.

Now as for me being uninformed here is where I got my numbers from:





I posted it one already, but you seem to choose to ignore it.  Your wonderful IC Diamond is on there too, so is AS5.  I'll do some math for you this time.

Arctic Silver Alumina is average 38.30°C above ambient.  The very best paste they tested(Shin-Etsu and AS5) was 37.55°C above ambient.

38.30 - 37.55 = 0.75°C

I posted where I got my statement from, besides my own experience, long before you started your rant.  You decided to ignore it and argue, fine.  You stick with your numbers and I'll stick with mine.

But calling my statement "uninformed" when I've already posted the tests that they are based on, as well as actually used the paste when you obviously haven't, is nothing more than troll flaming at this point.  The fact that you are going way back to quote a post from the beginning of the discussion that we've already finished just shows that you are just trolling to start the same argument again.  Especially when the post you quoted has nothing to do witht he responce you gave, it is talking about adhesive vs. standard thermal paste, is has nothing to do with Arctic Silver Alumina performing within 1°C of the best.


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 8, 2011)

kids stop fighting. youre both grounded.



anyone try mixing silver or copper or aluminium dust with their paste?


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 8, 2011)

And there it is.. Newtekie again cries trolling and flaming again.

Dude, just drop it. We all get that your an AS Aluminum fanboi.

Nobody wants to troll you or flame your posts, people think your wrong and you think we're wrong. End of discussion.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> And there it is.. Newtekie again cries trolling and flaming again.
> 
> Dude, just drop it. We all get that your an AS Aluminum fanboi.
> 
> Nobody wants to troll you or flame your posts, people think your wrong and you think we're wrong. End of discussion.



I'm glad you could add something constructive to the discussion.

Yes, when he bring an argument that was over back up and does so in an insulting manner, its trolling and flaming.  Live with it.


----------



## LordJummy (Aug 8, 2011)

shin etsu 7783D is still the best  | neither of you are compromising so just end the argument. if you know in your heart something is right, good for you. keep it in your heart, and stop destroying threads.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 8, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, using the tests I've seen and my own experience I am not wrong.  I find it interesting that you are arguing about a product that you have never even used.  I actually have experience with the pastes in question, you're too busy talking about how shitty the paste.  You seem to want to infer that because it is old, it must be bad.  AS5 is older, you seem to like that paste and it seems to hold up pretty well, by your own statement is is second still.  So how long the paste has been on the market must not matter, despite what you think.
> 
> Now as for me being uninformed here is where I got my numbers from:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/TIMtests.png
> ...


That was fun.  I really enjoyed eviscerating that piece of shit review and I think you will enjoy the highlights I've compiled.  The bottom line is that the review is, in my opinion and I'm sure yours as well, utterly worthless.  Actually worse than worthless might be a better description, but why split hairs?

Starting with the least amusing but still relevant point, these tests were performed over an unspecified number of months virtually guaranteeing inconsistencies.  But worse than that, they state their bias in advance.  See the bolded section.  They are certain that the paste itself is not important - only pressure and surface smoothness of the IHS and HSF.  But as they state later, this is only for surfaces that are smooth, flat and mounted with proper pressure.  They also state that this is NOT the procedure they will use.  They will deliberately use less than optimal pressure and various spread patterns depending on the type of paste. In other words, they are telling you in advance that the paste is basically meaningless.  Yes there are some differences but it's not really important.


> Because testing has been conducted over a 16-month period, this project has suffered numerous delays. At one point this project was completely restarted because the test system motherboard failed, which rendered months of progress wasted because temperature readings are specific to onboard thermistor diodes and BIOS calibration. Other delays came from waiting on manufacturers to supply test samples. While most of the thermal material used in our tests was purchased from online retailers in the USA, several samples were supplied directly from the manufacturer (due to lack of North American retail availability or recently announced product launch). Our results are certainly worth waiting for, yet the true focus of this article isn't meant to publish a chart with numbers, but instead it's meant to grade product performance and identify the non-performers. *More than any other factor, and vastly more important than any one thermal paste, the surface condition and mounting pressure have the greatest impact on cooling performance.* Unfortunately this is a conundrum for our 80-way Thermal Interface Material article, because our grades for thermal paste materials will be read by visitors who already have improved mounting and surface finishes... *making a particular product's performance moot.*



They state this even more vehemently on the very next page.


> More shocking than the incredible list of TIM's we've collected is one important discovery: *thermal paste isn't the most important aspect of good thermal conductance between the processor and heatsink. Sure, it does help, but not to the extent so many marketing campaigns would have you believe.*


I don't think a pre-existing bias could be expressed much more clearly.

On page 3 they state that they are deliberately going to use sub-optimal mounting methods.  They never seem to give a reason for this except the one I am basically assuming - doing it their way is the only way you will be able to see differences between thermal paste products.  And they actually recognize how outrageous this approach is.


> Most enthusiasts shriek at the thought of using the push-pin style clips found on Intel's stock LGA 775 thermal cooling solution. Although this mounting system is acceptable, there is still plenty of room for improvement.


They then say that the focus of the tests is to see what difference the spread pattern makes.  So they seem to be saying, yes this looks like a paste review but it's more about how smart we are because we will use the right spread pattern for the right paste.


> In all of the tests which follow, it is important to note that our experiments focus on the spread pattern of thermal paste under acceptable pressure thresholds using either a push-pin style mounting system or spring-loaded clip system. In most situations your results will be different than our own, since higher compression would result in a larger spread pattern and less thermal paste used. The lesson learned here is that high compression between the two contact surfaces is better, so long as the elements can handle the added pressure without damaging the components.


Note that they describe alternate mounts that are used in the tests.  However later, they tell us that just the stock HSF mount with push pins was used.

We'll get to that in a moment.  Right now, compare the bullshit methodology of this test to the one I quoted from Xbit labs.


> In order to increase the dependence of the CPU cooling efficiency on the thermal interface used, we employed a highly efficient ZEROtherm ZEN FZ120 cooler. We replaced its default fan with two 9-blade Scythe Minebea Silent IC fans at ~1130 RPM each. They were attached to the heatsink for air intake/exhaust:
> 
> We decided on a ZEROtherm cooler, also because its base is not nickel-plated, like on some other cooling systems. Besides, its surface is well-finished, but not polished:
> 
> The cooler base is almost impeccably even. And the processor heat-spreader has long been perfected to the maximum (I evened its surface with 1000x sanding paper). In other words, both contact surfaces are made of copper and have been very well finished. The surfaces haven’t been polished. The cooler was always installed the same way and was fastened with retention screws evenly tightened in diagonal pairs.


In other words, they used a top notch cooler with mounting plate to create the tightest possible mating.  Compare this to using the loosest mounting system you can find and slathering on the thermal paste.

I can see why Newteckie loves this 3 year old review so much.  Listen to this little bit of pontification.


> The use of a standard-performance cooler with mounting clip system and unpolished IHS finish was intentional, as improvements would narrow the range of thermal performance. By testing with a mild yet fundamentally sound configuration, recorded temperatures were not as closely staged between products.


They are concluding, without any basis whatsoever, that performance of these pastes is going to be linear.  In other words, every paste will respond the same way to a sub-optimal mount.  So that when they compare the results, less heat dissipation by definition will mean an inferior paste.  Can I just cut this post off here?  These people are so sure they know what is going on at the molecular level, that they can blithely skew the results, intentionally, and see absolutely no problem with it.  How much clearer can it be that this article is a complete waste of data packets.

But unbelievably, it gets even better.  I think this paragraph should be framed and used as the very definition of pompous (from page 10).


> As a technical writer, I often times glean very subtle clues as to where a design leads to performance, and where a product goes wrong. When it comes to Thermal Interface Material, it's nearly impossible to produce a failure. If the contact pressure is good, and the surface is smoother than stucco, you can use anything you like fill the gap and performance won't really see a major negative impact. For this very reason, our results section was carefully worded to ensure that the term "enthusiast performance" was used to differentiate these thermal test results from general performance results. As you'll soon realize by the end of this article, the difference between those products rated to produce "poor enthusiast performance" and those given an "excellent enthusiast performance" rating will really become more or less an arguing point. Of course, for overclockers, that 5°C range between products could make all the difference.



I'm tempted to gloss over the following point, but I just can't.  They are so naive that they have bought into the curing time myth.  They didn't do a before and after test which would have been a simple matter.  They took the manufacturers word for it - since that's what every good reviewer does.


> Each product tested received the curing time recommended (see below), or approximately one hour of thermal cycling prior to testing when no cure time was specified.
> (0) No Curing Time or Special Application Suggested
> (1) Antec Formula 5 Application Instructions (no curing time recommended)
> (2) Arctic Silver II Application Instructions(48-hours minimum curing time recommended)
> ...


Now if you had any doubt that the test results here are meaningless, then get a change of underwear before you read this quoted.  This is from page 11 which covers pastes with "moderate performance".  That means a grade of C- to C+.



> EDITORS NOTE: As a result of Antec's concern for the rating or their product, the following information has been added to this article for clarification: The Antec 77063 Formula 5 Silver Grease used in our tests is identical to Arctic Silver 5 thermal paste. As of 26 June 2009, Antec's application instructions do not recommend or require any amount of material curing time, despite Arctic Silver recommending 200-hours of thermal cycling to allow a proper cure of their AC5 compound. Because no curing time is suggested by Antec, Benchmark Reviews has tested the Formula 5 thermal paste after one-hour of thermal-cycling was complete, which is how all materials with no curing time specified have been tested. Benchmark Reviews recognizes that this product (and other AC5-clone products) will perform slightly better over time, however the product instructions supplied by Antec are different than those of the original formula manufacturer (Arctic Silver) and was tested based on specific manufacturer recommendations.


So for the exact same compound from the same manufacturer, these "experts" managed to get a completely different result. The Antec paste got 38.7C for a grade of C. While the Arctic Silver got 37.55C for a grade of A+.  Oh my fucking god.  And they want to claim the difference is that the Antec paste wasn't cured.  Sure.

But beyond that, note the following.  The difference in this review between an A+ and a C is 1.25C.  So the very review that NT is relying upon says that this much of a difference is good for a drop of 2 grades - from "excellent performance" to "moderate performance".  However NT has argued that even a difference of 3C is insignificant.  Personally, I regard that as being at least . . . shall we say . . . "curious."  It's almost as NT never actually read the article.  Either that or he's just chosen to gloss over this fact.  That's even more "curious."

One of the things I really love about the article is their rationale for calling this and "enthusiast review" despite going about it in precisely the opposite fashion of an actual enthusiast.


> This article closely mirrors the classic tortoise and hare analogy: two completely different methods of reaching the same destination, and the fastest (best performing) product isn't always the winner. As I've reiterated over an over again in the article, no thermal paste will offer better results than a properly prepared processor and cooler surface with mounting hardware that creates very high contact pressure. To the average hardware enthusiasts, this doesn't mean very much, since they don't usually want to spend the hours/days/weeks of time lapping, polishing, buffing, and testing the various aspects of their tweak to achieve the best performance.


He obviously has his finger on the pulse of the enthusiast market.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Starting with the least amusing but still relevant point, these tests were performed over an unspecified number of months virtually guaranteeing inconsistencies.



Once again, you seem to want to make the argument that when the test was performed affects it.  Guess what, W1z benchmarks his cards over several months.  I guess you think his reviews are worthless too?  Time does not affect results when conditions for the tests are the same.



twilyth said:


> But worse than that, they state their bias in advance.  See the bolded section.  They are certain that the paste itself is not important - only pressure and surface smoothness of the IHS and HSF.  But as they state later, this is only for surfaces that are smooth, flat and mounted with proper pressure.  They also state that this is NOT the procedure they will use.  They will deliberately use less than optimal pressure and various spread patterns depending on the type of paste. In other words, they are telling you in advance that the paste is basically meaningless.  Yes there are some differences but it's not really important.
> 
> They state this even more vehemently on the very next page.
> 
> I don't think a pre-existing bias could be expressed much more clearly.



You think this is them stating their BIAS?  I don't.  I think it is them speaking the truth.  Mounting is far more important than paste, so they state that.  A bad mount will result in 10-20°C difference, a bad paste will result in ~5°.

Oh, and don't read reviews as the pages being written in cronological order.  Page 1 might have been written last.  In fact they likely wrote the entire review after the results were in.  You don't know, you only assume.  I wonder if you think W1z takes the cards apart first before benchmarking them because he puts that part first in the reviews...



twilyth said:


> On page 3 they state that they are deliberately going to use sub-optimal mounting methods.  They never seem to give a reason for this except the one I am basically assuming - doing it their way is the only way you will be able to see differences between thermal paste products.  And they actually recognize how outrageous this approach is.



Actually they do give a reason for this, on the same page I believe.  They do it because using better mounting would give a smaller margin of difference in the results.  Better mounting means less paste between the heatsink and processor, less paste means the paste has less of an impact on temperatures.



twilyth said:


> They then say that the focus of the tests is to see what difference the spread pattern makes.  So they seem to be saying, yes this looks like a paste review but it's more about how smart we are because we will use the right spread pattern for the right paste.



Yes, at that point in the article they are talking about mounting methods and spread patters, so that statement is relevent.  Is it difficult for you to grasp that they are explaining their methods and the test behind why they picked those methods?  I guess it is.



twilyth said:


> Note that they describe alternate mounts that are used in the tests.  However later, they tell us that just the stock HSF mount with push pins was used.



Still can't get the concept that they are talking about the spread tests here, and not the thermal paste testing?



twilyth said:


> We'll get to that in a moment.  Right now, compare the bullshit methodology of this test to the one I quoted from Xbit labs.
> 
> In other words, they used a top notch cooler with mounting plate to create the tightest possible mating.  Compare this to using the loosest mounting system you can find and slathering on the thermal paste.
> 
> I can see why Newteckie loves this 3 year old review so much.  Listen to this little bit of pontification.



Yep, because the more paste, the more the paste effects the temperatures.  It is a simple concept really, and one I agree with.



twilyth said:


> They are concluding, without any basis whatsoever, that performance of these pastes is going to be linear.  In other words, every paste will respond the same way to a sub-optimal mount.  So that when they compare the results, less heat dissipation by definition will mean an inferior paste.  Can I just cut this post off here?  These people are so sure they know what is going on at the molecular level, that they can blithely skew the results, intentionally, and see absolutely no problem with it.  How much clearer can it be that this article is a complete waste of data packets.



So from "we used a moderate heatsink with pushpins instead of a super high end heatsink with bolthrough" you get that they are assuming all the pastes will perform linearly?  Seriously?  It isn't hard to understand that a thicker later of thermal paste will perform worse than a thinner layer, that isn't something they have to assume, that is something that is pretty widely known.



twilyth said:


> But unbelievably, it gets even better.  I think this paragraph should be framed and used as the very definition of pompous (from page 10).



Really?  Because it seems like a pretty accurate statement to me.  Hell your own data that you provided shows you can use lip-stick and toothpaste and get results pretty damn close to the high end pastes.  So yeah, it _is_ pretty hard to design a failure paste, they can bottle toothpaste and it would function pretty decently.



twilyth said:


> I'm tempted to gloss over the following point, but I just can't.  They are so naive that they have bought into the curing time myth.  They didn't do a before and after test which would have been a simple matter.  They took the manufacturers word for it - since that's what every good reviewer does.
> 
> Now if you had any doubt that the test results here are meaningless, then get a change of underwear before you read this quoted.  This is from page 11 which covers pastes with "moderate performance".  That means a grade of C- to C+.
> 
> ...



Ok, so let me get this straight.  You find this logical.  You complain that they didn't do a before and after to confirm that curing makes the pastes perform better.  But then complain that a paste that needs to be cured was tested with and without curing, and performed worse before curing so this just proves how inaccurate their testing is?  That makes logical sense to you?

Oh and nice touch linking to an article attempting to say curing time is a myth.  The only problem is that they are showing that curring time *for all types of thermal paste* is a myth.  They didn't even test AS5, which one of the rare pastes that do cure and improve over time, and the paste they are talking about in their review and you are complaining about.  In fact they even state in the page you link to: [sigquote]There may be a thermal compound around that actually takes some time to performs at its best, but it seems to be the exception, and not the rule.[/sigquote]



twilyth said:


> But beyond that, note the following.  The difference in this review between an A+ and a C is 1.25C.  So the very review that NT is relying upon says that this much of a difference is good for a drop of 2 grades - from "excellent performance" to "moderate performance".  However NT has argued that even a difference of 3C is insignificant.  Personally, I regard that as being at least . . . shall we say . . . "curious."  It's almost as NT never actually read the article.  Either that or he's just chosen to gloss over this fact.  That's even more "curious."



You've been so good about reading the article, yet here you completely failed at it.  Focus less on the words they use to describe the categories and more what they used to make the categories.  The best pastes were the ones that performed in the top 10 percentile.  Yes, they were only a small 1.25°C difference, but that percentage was enough to class them differently.  That is why I have no problem recommending a paste that isn't int he Excellent performance class, because the difference is so small.  Why do you think I didn't recommend any of the others?  Because they all cost more for next to no difference in actual temperature.  Am I talking to a wall here?


----------



## erocker (Aug 8, 2011)

Twylith/Newtekie you can both leave this thread now. Whatever points you have made over and over again are noted. Good day.

*Actually, I see no reason that this thread needs to remain open. There are literally hundreds of "thermal paste" threads.


----------

