-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
13900k Best Thermal Paste Method
- Thread starter Arthaei
- Start date
On LGA 1700 it's very unlikely you'll get as good results from a line, or 5 dot method, verses manually spreading the paste. The IHS is just too big. Experts/champion overclockers such as der8auer use the manual spreading method, regardless of the paste used.
Video is old, though shows the method >
If you look through his 12th, 13th gen or Ryzen videos, you'll always see the paste has been manually spread over the IHS. He's using the thermal grizzly paste, but same is applicable for arctic silver, MX6, whichever paste.
You'll get armchair "experts" here saying otherwise, though be wary as they don't know as much as der8auer
There is no problem getting optimal spread on LGA1700 with a line, some CPUs like Threadripper can present a situation where a compromise is required due to the size of the IHS and spread out packages - for these pastes like certain Thermal Grizzly ones can be a benefit due to being designed with spreading in mind.
Der8auer generally uses TG pastes several of which are designed intentionally to be manually spread - some even have a applicator to aid spreading - one of the reasons people have had problems with TG pastes is because they ignore the application guide. Many common pastes like AS-5, MX series, etc. should not be applied the same way.
EDIT: Interesting the AS instructions say vertical line for Ryzens but doesn't look like they've updated the guide since Zen 1 (see for instance Ryzen 2600 delid).
Last edited:
I've done both spread and x with 4 dots (5800x3d) over couple of months and noticed no difference in temps with either
There are a lot of variables to it as to what can make a difference or not including the specific paste, surface quality and geometry of the IHS and heatsink, etc. and sometimes the difference is how well the cooling performance holds up over time rather than the first few months.
Soldato
All that rroff is not really that interesting for most, most just wana put some on, stick the cooler on and go, long as it doesnt throttle etc most will be happy enough, not like u can screw it up that much. Only ppl interested in overclocking which isnt really that popular anymore would care about the little details.
As I've mentioned the fail safe method is a blob like in the MX-6 video and let the cooler spread it - hence why it is the advice most brands use as it is the hardest to mess up and works in most situations. Though I'd have put 5-10% less paste on than they did in the video.
Soldato
Plus i dunno if they will but a lot seem to like to upgrade to the next big thing so long as the paste holds up till upgrade itch the how it is after a while thing kinda is moot as they will just be doing new paste on a new cpu in a year or so. 
Depends if the OP is one of em.
For me tho, i hope i get it right first go lol cos im not upgrading for another 10 years when i get this 7600x build built. Probs wont repaste either after few years unless i really had to. Hoping mx4 paste lasts a good while like mx2 has in the past.
Depends if the OP is one of em.For me tho, i hope i get it right first go lol cos im not upgrading for another 10 years when i get this 7600x build built. Probs wont repaste either after few years unless i really had to. Hoping mx4 paste lasts a good while like mx2 has in the past.
Last edited:
Think it's over blown I'll stick to spreading unless can show me some data to back it up
It is mentioned in the datasheet/application guide for most pastes - AS for instance:
The MX-6 quote as my previous post is designed likewise for plate pressure spreading.
Some pastes are different, some are even optimised for spreading. The impact can vary from degraded performance to just reduced lifespan of varying degrees.
Last edited:
Well, I've gone as far as cpu,m.2,ram,motherboard,rear fan and aio radiator installation, but time to sleep now. I'm still none the wiser what to pick with all these varying methods, but I'm wondering if 3 thin vertical lines could work well for the 13900k? there's also a video on Youtube of Arctic themselves installing the AIO (and obviously they make the paste too) where the guy puts quite a thick DIAGONAL line across the IHS.. I've only seen that method in that video but can't find any results for doing it that way, so I'm intrigued about those two methods as alternatives.
Bit of an odd one - all their other Intel installs are a blob in the middle. I can't see any logic for a diagonal line like that.
3 lines are probably a waste of time - intel doesn't have any die packages towards the edge and it is the centre which is most important especially if the surfaces are slightly concave or convex.
EDIT: Video here doing 3 lines https://youtu.be/LHOBRvXYqEg?t=123 interestingly they got the best results with spreading but that is partly because they used too little paste by quite bit on the blob method and their application in general was pretty garbage and didn't even test the optimal layouts.
Last edited:
Soldato
First use a contact frame I got the thermaltake one as the price £9 was a no brainer, I used to use mx4 but this time I got thermal grizzly kryonaut to try and I'm happy with it so far I used to do the pea application, so I decided to use the spread method and with that my 13900ks at 5.5 p core 4.0 e core 1.25v cpu volt it does 25c idle and 35c odd in games with a artic freezer 2 420mm aio.
Surely you go with the paste manufacturer's recommendation? Especially with a relatively large and established manufacturer like Arctic, i assume (perhaps naively) that in developing the paste, they (or their partners) test the efficacy under various conditions, using various application methods. All respect to youtube streamers and experts, but i imagine the manufacturers' testing is a lot more accurate, consistent and sophisticated.
The application guide isn't necessarily the optimal method - they often go with a method which will be widely compatible and least likely chance of going wrong. But definitely worth reading as they will have often notes as to how the paste was developed and how it should or shouldn't be applied for instance with TG:
Some will explicitly say don't spread, others will have different advice for different scenarios, etc. if you have a large contact area then sometimes you have to spread it due to the compromise between getting enough coverage and other potential negatives like drying out sooner, etc.
“Too Much Thermal Paste” – Benchmark of Thermal Paste Quantity
We've all seen people say "that's too much thermal paste." Most the time, it turns out, they're wrong. This test benchmarks thermal paste application methods...
www.youtube.com
