This.
The X23 7783 is the king of thermal paste, been using it for years. Only ever used Shin Etsu too, you wont ever look back.
-
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.
Thermal Paste suggestions please.
- Thread starter Vlad Drac
- Start date
This.
The X23 7783 is the king of thermal paste, been using it for years. Only ever used Shin Etsu too, you wont ever look back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Bristol
I use MX-4 myself and I also don't spread it- I put a blob the size of a grain of rice in the centre and simply put the heatsink on to let it spread out that way. As long as you tighten it evenly when seating the heatsink, the paste should spread out fine as I have confirmed when I've reapplied paste and seen how the previous application spread.
Spreading adds air bubbles and can decrease thermal performance, just a pea size dot in the middle. Less is more - don't want the thermal paste overflowing over the sides of the chip (seen that plenty of times).
Also another vote for IC Diamond - been using this stuff for a few years and has been my go to paste for every CPU/GPU.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 4,722
- Location
- Buckinghamshire
^^^
This has been the best way for me for years. Never had any issues. Spreading imo is not a good idea.
Do you have any quantitative tests to support this? Have you tested every single paste with this method of application? Have you confirmed that those air bubbles are there not before you remove the cooler/plexiglass? I have never liked the tests about TIM spreading with plexiglass as it is not a representative of how the cooler will apply pressure - evenly and a lot more than just pushing a piece of plastic towards the CPU. This is the main reason why I asked 8 Pack what his experience says. From all my tests I cannot see any temperature differences between a pea method and spreading thinly and evenly.
If you cannot do this do not talk so closed mindedly and be more open to options. Very, very rarely there is an all best solution for a problem.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Bristol
I'm not exactly sure how you came to the conclusion that I am closed minded as I in no way insinuated that this was the only way to do it or the 'best' way to do it- I simply stated that this is the way I have always done it myself.
I mentioned how the paste looked after removing the heatsink as some people were worried the paste wouldn't spread evenly to cover the entire die this way- which is why I can reassure people that it does.
If nothing else, the 'pea method' is is quicker and easier than spreading it, so even if everything else is equal there seems little point in spreading it personally.
Some pastes like Arctic MX-3 are unspreadable as well. The Tuniq pastes, albeit being very high performance, are like modelling clay in viscosity.
After twenty people come and say the same thing without any proof or support for their words this is the only reason I can see for such behaviour.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 399
i used mx4 in my recent built and spread it a straight line across the centre
tempted to try a blob later when i get a better cooler
tempted to try a blob later when i get a better cooler
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Bristol
Some pastes like Arctic MX-3 are unspreadable as well. The Tuniq pastes, albeit being very high performance, are like modelling clay in viscosity.
After twenty people come and say the same thing without any proof or support for their words this is the only reason I can see for such behaviour.
I still fail to see what my statement has to do with proof- I simply said what I personally do and made no assertion that this gave better temperature results than the spreading method. Sure, some pastes might not spread very easily- well perhaps a different method might work better for them. I've only used MX-4 so all I can say is what I have done myself and the pea method spreads fine with MX-4. If I was saying that the pea method is the best method to use for all thermal pastes you might have a point- but I never made any mention of it being a superior method, simply that it is what I have done myself.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 4,722
- Location
- Buckinghamshire
It would be nice if someone did have a comparison between spreading and a pea sized blob though. I'm guessing there wouldnt be much difference anyway. Maybe in benchmarking or watercooling setups, but I'm guessing not in general usage.
Don't listen to him fusion. I ignore know it all's
Know it all comes with experience. I might not have a lot of time in this forum but trust me, I'm not new to the field. And know it all is better than fanboys. You can find quite a lot from the second type even in this thread. MX-4 forever...
This is exactly why I see as not fully open minded behaviour - you have tried only 1 paste with 1 method. I personally have tried 5-6 pastes with any method possible, lines, crosses, peas, spreading, thin and thick. Results vary but I think the quantity of paste and amount of pressure are more important for actual temperatures. I have seen reviews from people that have tested all those hypotheses and quantitatively decided what is best for what paste or type of paste based on viscosity. If you want I can go and dig them up.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
Go big or go home
Go CLU!
TBH though, unless your using CLU on direct chip contact, the difference between a top performing paste and a mid range paste is not going to make or break anything.
Go CLU!
TBH though, unless your using CLU on direct chip contact, the difference between a top performing paste and a mid range paste is not going to make or break anything.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Bristol
I never said I wasn't open to other methods, as I keep saying I have never once asserted that the pea method is THE best method. Some people say one way is better, others say another method is better. At the end of the day, it seems to make little difference to temperatures (as you said yourself) so I'm not going to worry myself unnecessarily with which shaves a few degree off, so I just go with the pea method since it is easiest.
If I was claiming that the pea method is best without having tried any others, then you would have a point calling me out on it. However, all I have done is said what I do myself- and in no way implied that therefore it is the absolute most optimal way.
I am also not suggesting that MX-4 is the best paste, I just happen to have a tube so I use that as I can't really be bothered with buying another type for the sake of a few degrees.
The main reason I posted was just because some people were worried that the pea method wouldn't spread out to cover the entire surface, which is why I was able to confirm that with MX-4 at least, it does.
Would be good if you could
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
This pea vs spread thing is ridiculous to compare. So much variation in paste stiffness and application that you cant say one method is better than the other. Yes spreading makes you prone to air bubbles but blob method makes you more prone to thicker application of paste which is just as bad or worse depending on the size of the bubbles and thickness of the paste.
What shows results is not the method you use but rather how well you apply the method.
Going from mx-4 to anything other than CLU directly on the die wont net you enough gains to let you chase a higher clock.
I have always used GC-Extreme, mx 4 or mx 2 for anything that might short if i use a conductive paste and i now use CLU on pretty much anything i can. I expect ill be using the same pastes for the next few years given the ridiculous size of syringes i bought.
What shows results is not the method you use but rather how well you apply the method.
Going from mx-4 to anything other than CLU directly on the die wont net you enough gains to let you chase a higher clock.
I have always used GC-Extreme, mx 4 or mx 2 for anything that might short if i use a conductive paste and i now use CLU on pretty much anything i can. I expect ill be using the same pastes for the next few years given the ridiculous size of syringes i bought.
I'd go with GC Extreme judging from this thread
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18416534
Apparently CLU is a bugger to clean off
Personally I use mx4 but in future I'll give GC Extreme a shot
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18416534
Apparently CLU is a bugger to clean off
Personally I use mx4 but in future I'll give GC Extreme a shot
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
It isn't too bad, though i wouldn't use it with anything reactive like aluminium. Its also pretty fool proof to apply, as you literately just need to paint it on. If you paint clu on, there is no chance of having it spill anywhere.
Click 1, Click 2, Click 3, Click 4.
The conclusion is that there are a lot of types of paste and a lot of different processors. You have to find the best way for your processor but spreading and x shape are usually the best for modern rectangular shaped dies in the mainstreem Intel CPUs. AMD and socket 2011 are with more or less rectangular dies so I would use the older reviews for reference as the best way to apply the paste would be similar.
On my opinion the best website for reviews of TIMs (and in general best reviews of everything, no offence to anyone) - TIM roundup 1 and TIM roundup 2 at Xbit labs.
Nice one cheers, think I'm going with the X next time I have to do it