Thermal paste thermal conductivity

[muon]

I was going down a rabbit hole and came across this.

Why do we not specify the thermal conductivity?

In this article we explain why ARCTIC does not specify the thermal conductivity in its thermal interface materials | Thermal interface materials | ARCTIC Store

www.arctic.de

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.

 

[jabski]

I was going down a rabbit hole and came across this.

Why do we not specify the thermal conductivity?

In this article we explain why ARCTIC does not specify the thermal conductivity in its thermal interface materials | Thermal interface materials | ARCTIC Store

www.arctic.de

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 ?

 

[Rroff]

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.

 

[MikeTimbers]

back when the internet was young, DansData did a test of many pastes including toothpaste, vegemite and water and found that in fact water was best albeit briefly. Interestingly, toothpaste was pretty good, albeit again briefly.

 

[muon]

An interesting read. Have you done your own test between NT-H2 and Kryonaut ?

Not scientific testing. But never got more than a degree or two variance between between all three.

 

[sgoaty]

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.

 

[MartinPrince]

An interesting read. Have you done your own test between NT-H2 and Kryonaut ?

I have and the H2 was consistently better by ~2-3c.

 

[jabski]

I have and the H2 was consistently better by ~2-3c.

thanks mate. I might look to pick up some H2

 

[Nick1881]

H2 was my choice for my last build. Great performance and should perform well for years, it certainly hasn't let me down yet.