Thermal paste thermal conductivity

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
22,988
Location
London
I was going down a rabbit hole and came across this.


Why doesn’t ARCTIC communicate thermal conductivity values?​

ARCTIC made a conscious decision not to specify any values for the thermal conductivity of its thermal paste and thermal pads, because many manufacturers invent, artificially inflate or embellish this value. Thermal paste has a thermal conductivity of 1 to 4 W/mK. Values outside of this range, such as 12.5 W/mK, are at odds with the truth.
Many competitors quote values above 4 W/mK to suggest better performance. This often leads to false expectations and dissatisfied users.
ARCTIC offers its customers innovative thermal interface materials at the best possible price-performance ratio instead of relying on manipulated performance data.

That is clearly a direct dig at Thermal Grizzly who advertise 12.5 W/mK for Kryonaut.

Arctic must feel theirs max out at 4 W/mK, and Kryonaut definitely isn't significantly better (when looking at tests), like for example liquid metal (like Conductonaut). I will admit I somewhat assume there was some science behind these numbers, but clearly not and is marketing fluff.

I have always found Noctua NT-H2 to be the best, and interestingly they don't advertise anything either.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
15 Mar 2006
Posts
890
Location
Hastings East Sussex
I was going down a rabbit hole and came across this.




That is clearly a direct dig at Thermal Grizzly who advertise 12.5 W/mK for Kryonaut.

Arctic must feel theirs max out at 4 W/mK, and Kryonaut definitely isn't significantly better (when looking at tests), like for example liquid metal (like Conductonaut). I will admit I somewhat assume there was some science behind these numbers, but clearly not and is marketing fluff.

I have always found Noctua NT-H2 to be the best, and interestingly they don't advertise anything either.
An interesting read. Have you done your own test between NT-H2 and Kryonaut ?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,498
I might be wrong but despite the way Arctic communicate it I think the problem is real world results are more in the range 1-4 - to actually achieve higher results needs perfect surfaces which can be filled with a highly controlled certain minimum amount of paste (~0.02mm) without air gaps.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2005
Posts
2,943
Location
Inverness
I use cheap stuff from Ali express that comes in big syringe for about a fiver and it performs identically to mx2 in my tests. My (uneducated )opinion is it's a bit of a snake oil.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom