Geek Tested: 17 Thermal Pastes Face Off
Geek Tested: 17 Thermal Pastes Face Off
Posted 01/19/2012 at 12:10pm
| by Nathan Edwards
54
Comments
Print
Does thermal paste really matter? We applied, reapplied, reapplied some more, and turned up the heat on our testing CPU to find out.
Ask ten geeks about their preferred thermal interface material (TIM) and you’ll get six different answers. Five will go with Arctic Silver 5 and the others will have five totally different favorites. Ask a non-geek about their favorite thermal paste and you might get slapped.
But is Arctic Silver 5 really the best? Is the thermal testing compound we’ve been using in the lab really cutting the mustard? We gathered seventeen premium thermal pastes and an overclocked test bed and set about finding out whether thermal paste really makes a difference, and if so, which one is the best.
A Note on Methodology
Our test bed consists of an Intel Core-i7-975 CPU, overclocked to 3.9GHz. This gives an idle clock speed of 2.1GHz. Our motherboard is an Asus P6X58D Premium with 6GB of RAM and a Thermaltake Frio OCK cooler with its fans set to their highest setting, to maximize airflow. Our test bed is built into a High-Speed PC Top Deck Tech Station (large), and our PSU is an Antec TruePower 850W.
We tested each thermal paste after an hour of idling, then after three hours running Intel’s Nehalem thermal stress-testing utility at 85 percent thermal load. How’d we get that number? We applied our standard thermal testing compound—Arctic Silver Lumiére—and cranked up the utility until the CPU was consistently just under 90C, then used those settings for every future test. CPU temperatures are an average of the four CPU core temperatures as measured by HWMonitor, and we used TMonitor to make sure the processors were running under 100 percent load at their full 3.96GHz during testing.
For this test, we focused on thermal pastes that are nondestructive—none of this liquid metal stuff—and readily available in the United States.
After a few weeks of testing day in and day out, we’re ready to report our results. Here are your contenders!
The Contenders (in order of testing)
Arctic Silver Lumiére OEM Thermal Testing Compound, Price N/A (OEM only)
Arctic Silver’s OEM testing compound is a ceramic-based TIM which we’ve been using in the lab for years because of its consistent performance and lack of burn-in time. It’s not available to the general public, but we included it to see how our baseline TIM really stacks up to the competition.
Not well, it turns out. We’ve been using Lumiére since God was a kid, and it’s not bad at low temperatures, but in our stress test it pulled down temps on par with the worst performers of the bunch—89C, almost hot enough to trigger our CPU’s automatic throttling.
Geek Approved?: No
Noctua NT-H1, $10 / 1.4ml tube
Noctua’s NT-H1 is a thick electrically non-conductive composite material that ships with the company’s CPU coolers and can also be bought separately. Noctua recommends dropping a small amount in the center of the heat spreader and allowing the pressure to spread the paste across the interface. Given the tackiness of the compound, that’s good advice.
NT-H1 is good stuff. At full burn our processor only averaged 81.25C, and at our processor’s idle temps (still far higher than most processors’ burn temps) were just 41C.
Geek Approved?: Yes
Arctic Cooling MX-4, $13 / 4g tube
Arctic Cooling—not to be confused with Arctic Silver, which also makes thermal pastes—distributes several thermal pastes in addition to its lineup of CPU and GPU coolers and remote-controlled tugboats (yes, really). MX-4 is a non-metallic carbon-based gray compound that doesn’t conduct electricity, and Arctic Cooling says a single application will last up to eight years. It’s a bit pricy at $13 per tube, but it does the job well, with burn temperatures of just 81C and idle temps of 41C.
Geek Approved? Yes
Tuniq TX-4, $12 / 1ml tube
Tuniq’s TX-4 is gray and tacky and difficult to apply even with the included spreader, which is the size of a credit card. TX-4 is not electrically conductive. Once we did get the paste applied, Tuniq TX-4 performed the best of any thermal paste in our roundup, and was the only TIM with a sub-80C score—though at 79.5C, that’s within the margin of error for our test. It’s quite expensive for the tiny amount you get per tube, so you may be just as well off with some of the less expensive pastes in the roundup, but TX-4 has top-notch performance and earns our recommendation.
Geek Approved?: Yes
ZeroTherm ZT-100, $10 / 4g tube
ZeroTherm ZT-100 is gray, silicone-based, and easy to spread. It also comes with a finger cot, so when you spread a thin layer of it on your CPU (as per ZeroTherm installation instructions) you don’t have thermal paste on your fingertip for the rest of the day. With burn temps of 81.5C and idle temps of 41C on our test configuration, it earns our solid recommendation.
Geek Approved?: Yes
Prolimatech PK-1, $13 / 5g tube
Prolimatech has a hard-won reputation as a maker of excellent, if massive, CPU coolers. It also makes PK-1, an aluminum-based thermal paste with bits of zinc oxide in it. PK-1 is gray and pretty easy to spread despite its almost claylike consistency, and doesn’t conduct electricity. It’s also one of the best thermal pastes we’ve tested, with burn temperatures under 81C and idles just over 41C. It’s cheaper than a lot of the other premium pastes, too—$13 gets you a whole 5g tube, or you can grab a 1g pouch from NewEgg for $3.50.
Geek Approved?: Yes
Rosewill RCX-TC090 Pro, $6 / 20g bottle
Rosewill’s thermal grease is cheap and easy to apply, thanks to its glorified nail-polish bottle and brush applicator, but its performance is strictly middle-of-the-road, with a burn average of 85.5C. Most of its 20g weight is the glass bottle.
Geek Approved?: No
Xigmatek PTI-G3606, $8 / 3g tube
Xigmatek’s memorably named PTI-G3606 is a silicon-based electrically non-conductive thermal grease. It’s very easy to apply a thin layer to the CPU with the included plastic spreader. In our tests it performed slightly better than the Rosewill RCX-TC090PRO, with burn temps of 84.5C.
Geek Approved?: No
Tuniq TX-2, $8 / 3.5g tube
Tuniq’s TX-2 is a light gray thermal paste that’s stickier than most of the ones in our roundup. It’s not conductive and it’s fairly easy to apply. In our tests it was just half a degree Celsius warmer than the TX-4, putting it within the margin of error for the tests and making it one of the best pastes we’ve tested. It’s cheaper than TX-4 and you get more in the tube, so we’d actually recommend TX-2 over TX-4 for the cheapskates.
Geek Approved?: Yes
Tags:
- arctic cooling mx-4
- arctic mx-2
- arctic silver 5
- arctic silver arctic alumina
- arctic Silver Lumiére
- biostar nano diamond
- cm thermalfusion 400
- CPU cooling
- noctua nt-h1
- prolimatech pk-1
- rosewill rcx-tc090 pro
- shinetsu microSI x23-7783d
- Thermal Paste
- tuniq tx-2
- tuniq tx-4
- xigmatek pti-g3606
- xigmatek pti-g4512
- zalman zmstg1
- zerotherm zt-100
- Features
More like this
TomsSound
January 23, 2012 at 7:55pm
I too would love to see what a stock intel paste would do against the more expensive pastes.
Also... I think it would be very relevent to see what the temps would be without the paste all together. True Baseline.
venturebro24
January 23, 2012 at 12:57pm
Why is there no review on any of the antec compounds, living in the upper peninsula in michigan i was recently in need of compound the same day and i had to go to the local computer supply shop. they didnt have my regular Arctic Silver 5 but they had a "premium" antec formula 7 nano diamond.... it applied fine and i havnt seen any adverse effects in the jobs ive used it in since. you had very poor results with the other "nano diamond" compound tested, should i be concerned and has anyone actually tested this compound against others previously?
lordfirefox
January 21, 2012 at 11:18am
I use IC Diamond 24. I will never go back to anything Arctic short-your-motherboard Silver or anything based on it. Thre' no risk if you accidentally get some on your motherboard as it's non-conductive. Unlike Arctic Silver. Get any of that on the motherboard and you may as well just forget about doing anything with your PC.
FrancesTheMute
January 20, 2012 at 9:45am
"We gathered seventeen premium thermal pastes"
holy crap, didn't even know there were that many different ones out there!
siramic
January 20, 2012 at 1:23pm
That was my thought also, let alone those here who mentioned other pastes that weren't even reviewed.
noghiri_x
January 20, 2012 at 8:58am
I've been using Arctic Silver 5 for years. Nice to know that I've been using good paste all these times.
Slurpy
January 20, 2012 at 1:49am
The only thing this review is missing is the thermal paste that comes pre-applied to many coolers, like the stock Intel cooler. I'd love to see THOSE numbers.
praack
January 20, 2012 at 6:50am
might be the shin etsu - I know that is the one they use on the AMD coolers. very tough to spread. nice numbers though - i get freat cooling on my noctua with shin -etsu - a bit better than the Noctua paste I used before.
Markitzero
January 20, 2012 at 12:09am
I have and always used Arctic Silver 5 and I will Remain Using it. When I got my New AMD Phenom II X4 3.0Ghz black edition the stock Heatsink had Arctic Silver already on it from AMD I have had idle temp user 38c and at load with like GTA IV w/ iEnhancer or Battlefield Bad Company 2 it barely gets over 50c I have yet reached 60c under load.
dgrmouse
January 19, 2012 at 9:10pm
Every time I see an article like this, I get excited that I may be reading an exposé. I remember that a few manufacturer's got quite a bit of egg on their face about a decade ago when it was found that their silver pastes did not, in fact, have any silver in them. How much diamond did you say was in that paste?
nedwards
January 19, 2012 at 9:19pm
They claimed it was 10%. Industrial diamond dust is pretty cheap.
Kinetic
January 19, 2012 at 7:25pm
It's funny, because I've always used AS5 on everything, including under my Tuniq Tower 120 Extreme. I actually have some Tuniq TX-2 and 4 sitting around, and as someone who obsesses about their temps I may have to do so testing of my own....
Insula Gilliganis
January 19, 2012 at 6:41pm
Keep the list going Nathan. For some reason I find thermal paste a really interesting topic in which there isn't a lot of documented proof available outside of anecdotal evidence. Test a couple every month and you will soon have a great reference database. There already is a large database of thermal paste tests, currently consisting of 60 difference substances, at Hardwaresecrets.com which gets updated each month but I rather have two sources of confirmed evidence than just one. They also test a few "non-traditional" thermal pastes such as mustard, tooth paste, chocolate, mayo. lip stick and cream cheese.. perhaps you can add to this "non-traditional" listing with your own ideas. Gordon must have a jar of some Starfleet substance on his desk you can try out or use leftovers from Jack-In-The-Box.
lindethier
January 19, 2012 at 6:06pm
Good article Nathan, I've been wondering about the efficiency of different thermal compounds for a while, and now I know.
HiGHRoLLeR038
January 19, 2012 at 6:00pm
Good to know, thank you! great article, i will definitely be referring back to this one in the future.
t.y.wan
January 19, 2012 at 5:38pm
My ASUS notebooks' OEM paste is so awesome that both of them just dried into solid and stuck the cpu and gpu....
They are both from the gaming series too...
davidtuerk
January 19, 2012 at 4:59pm
You missed Antecs nano compound, Better that arctic silver in my tests
Maggard
January 19, 2012 at 4:33pm
So...where was the IC Diamond 7 thermal compound review? I use it but would still really love to know how it stacks up.
Danthrax66
January 19, 2012 at 5:33pm
In my testing mx-4 is better than it. And mx-2 is a little worse, both are easier to apply though.
siramic
January 19, 2012 at 4:06pm
Excellent review Nathan, I didn't realize there were so many pastes out there. Also, I appreciate your chart at the end of the article, to help visually see and compare the manufacturer and the temps. :-)
supakeepa
January 19, 2012 at 3:45pm
I thought I was a pretty skilled builder, but now I'm questioning my most used technique of putting a small, pea sized glob in the middle of the proc and letting the heat spreader do all the work. It seems like there are some compounds where this is good and some where this is a no-no. Is that true or is it an okay practice regardless of compound I use. (I usually do Arctic Silver 5, but recently I've just used the compound that Cooler Master bundles with their heat sinks)
Also, I was glad to see you mention the ArtiClean. I've used it quite a bit in the past and was wondering throughout the article what you all were using.
SleepyCatChris
January 19, 2012 at 3:21pm
So what are the temps for a stock cooler with its pre-applied goo?
SleepyCatChris
January 19, 2012 at 7:48pm
Soooo... Is no one else curious as to how all these results compare to the stock Intel cooler? I'd think that would be a pretty relevant comparison, no?
Danthrax66
January 20, 2012 at 5:38pm
You wouldn't be able to boot the pc with the stock cooler at those clocks.
Slugbait
January 19, 2012 at 9:57pm
Not really comparable, I'd say. While the stock HSF that comes with the Extreme series is superior to non-Extreme heatsinks, you're talking about comparing it to a monster cooler...at which point, there's a temp disadvantage for the TIM before the fan even powers up.
BTW, that stock HSF is nifty. Lots of copper. Super quiet (of course, I don't have mine set to performance mode, hence I can't hear it).
But you bring up a very valid point: the stock HSF has been shown as fully capable of allowing the proc to hit 4.1 perfectly stable. And lots of people (like myself) went ahead and used it.
So I believe it probably would have been better to utilize the stock HSF plus the Intel thermal as a baseline, or "control group". Then apply all of the different TIMs to the Intel heatsink...this could have separated the performers from non-performers even more, and maybe even drop geek cred for a couple.
Would numbers all come out on the higher side? Probably. But it would seem to me that we'd have a more-level playing field.
smashingpumpin
January 19, 2012 at 3:03pm
Great post! Awesome articles like these makes me love Maximum PC longest time!
I agree with how the ArtiClean stuff works and still have some half-full from 4 years ago. However I cant help but think I'd get a bigger bottle for using just Goo Gone with Coffee filters and cotton balls. I haven't tried it personally yet though or probably just reluctant to try it since I currently have no extra PC's laying around hehe.
So umm... When will MaxPC do ReadyBoost tests? I'd like to see Various capacities of medias (CF, USB drives, SD cards...) on different formats (NTFS, FAT16, FAT32) or a combination of sorts tested and debunked before I die. :D
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
January 19, 2012 at 2:39pm
Antec makes their own line of pastes, and I'm surprised something of theirs wasn't included in this review.
Artic Cooling MX-3 is supposed to be their best, but you didn't test it.
Anyway, I used Antec Formula 6 thermal compound on my i7-950. It's too thick to spread effectively, so I put a drop the size of a pea on the die and let gravity do the rest. My CPU idles at around 18° C and never rises above 28° at full throttle, so I figure it's all good.
nedwards
January 19, 2012 at 3:51pm
I couldn't test 'em all this time, but I don't see any reason I can't add more pastes to the rankings as they show up here, as long as I keep that test bed intact.
Danthrax66
January 19, 2012 at 5:45pm
You have to account for the room temperature and make sure it is the same.
HiGHRoLLeR038
January 19, 2012 at 5:59pm
He did:
"Margin of error is plus or minus 2C to allow for ambient air temperature, which ranged from 23.8C to 25.4C throughout the testing procedure."
Danthrax66
January 20, 2012 at 5:39pm
I meant if he adds more to the review at a later date. Maybe just do a run with the top performer as well just as a point of reference.
TommM
January 19, 2012 at 2:24pm
Great article - of all the things that go into building a PC, I think thermal paste is pretty much the only item I haven't seen a comprehensive review about until this one.
Nice to know that there really is a difference (albeit small at idle speeds) and it's not "all just the same stuff."
Budman_NC
January 19, 2012 at 2:03pm
Great article Nathan! Good information here. I'm still on my last tube of arctic silver 3 and am very happy with its performance. I was wondering if it was necessary to clean and reapply thermal compound, say, on a yearly basis or so? Or is it a ... 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' kind of thing.
Supermonkey
January 19, 2012 at 4:02pm
Arctic Silver 5 looked fresh and new after 4-5 years. Not sure about Arctic Silver 3 though.
nbrowser
January 19, 2012 at 1:56pm
eh been using Arctic Cooling MX-2 since the earth was cooling, it just works on everything from a hot running Opteron 180 to my latest SFF E5700 build, always a solid performer.
athlon11
January 19, 2012 at 1:43pm
Been using AS5 since my first build in 2003, great stuff. May have to pick up some of the TX4 or TX2 though since its a bit better and it guarantees that it works since there's no thermal cycling or burn in needed.
Danthrax66
January 20, 2012 at 5:41pm
TX-2 and 4 are kind of thick and don't work well with all heatsinks unless you have a high amount of pressure holding the heatsink down (like AMDs clamp). I'd go for the MX stuff almost the same and really nice to work with.
avenger48
January 19, 2012 at 1:39pm
The only one you missed that I can think of offhand is IC Diamond. It's a good article, especially since I'm fresh out of my last tube.
SPreston2001
January 19, 2012 at 1:23pm
I've been using Tuniq TX-4 for a few years now. Good stuff...
cmasupra
January 19, 2012 at 5:37pm
Supposedly TX-3 is better than TX-4. I own both, but I can't say which is better firsthand because I haven't put them in the same computer.
Paul_Lilly
January 19, 2012 at 2:36pm
Same here, same conclusion. I've played with a lot of paste and Tuniq has consistently impressed.
biggiebob12345
January 19, 2012 at 1:19pm
I highly recommend testing GC Electronics 10-8108. Been using it for a year now on my X3 and used it for years for circuit heat-sinking stuff. According to the infamous "80-way Thermal Interface Material Performance Test", it runs right up there with AS5 in terms of performance and only costs a couple of bucks for a huge tube.
Blues22475
January 19, 2012 at 12:56pm
Very interesting post appreciate you posting this run. Nice to know that Arctic Silver is considering one of the good thermal pastes. Also, the ArctiClean is a good set of cleaners to use. I recall using it myself after I had rebuilt my system and reapplied thermal paste. Does smell good, and it cuts through old thermal paste like a hot knife through butter.
@csspwner: Also interested to read the report if you would have the time to give us the information.
biggiebob12345
January 19, 2012 at 1:24pm
You're being a moron buying "thermal paste cleaners". They're just isopropyl alcohol (IPA) that you can buy at walmart....just with a new label and a marked up price. 91% IPA and cotton balls work great for removing thermal paste...spray on CPU, let soak for a few seconds, wipe off, wait minute to dry.
Blues22475
January 23, 2012 at 10:28am
ArctiClean actually works better than isoprophyl alcohol, chief. I have already used both and I can tell I have spent much more effort in cleaning off old dried up thermal paste with plain isoprophyl as opposed to ArctiClean.
Maybe you shouldn't knock it until you've see the difference for yourself? Unfortunately it seems the other comments are right: you appear to be clueless on the subject.
biggiebob12345
January 19, 2012 at 7:18pm
My point still stands. Spend a fraction of the price and use IPA which will work just fine (and I know for a fact you can spray 91% and higher on the cpu directly...it evaporates quickly).
But whatever. Some people will argue to no end that you have to waste tons of money to get 1% better performance.
athlon11
January 19, 2012 at 7:27pm
Trust me, the ArtiClean works 10x better than IPA, used IPA many times, would never go back after using the ArtiClean, it just works that much better.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: HUD-Sporting "Google Glasses" May Hit Streets This Year http://t.co/TDXjJowZ2 hours 38 min ago
- maximumpc: Nvidia Releases WHQL-Certified 295.73 GeForce Drivers http://t.co/NVMWruHO4 hours 12 min ago
- maximumpc: http://t.co/BVVfRA3B4 hours 12 min ago
