Best long lasting TIM in 2017? MX-4?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
753
Building my new R7 1800X/Cryorig C7 rig on Tuesday and looking for TIM that works well but won't dry up for many years.

Right now I'm looking at Arctic MX-4, they advertise 8 years without reapplication. Does anyone know the difference between MX4 and MX2?

Or is there anything else I should be looking at that will stand the test of time? I've read people have found at least MX-2 to still be liquified after 6 years. That sounds great to me.

My last build was a Q9450 so I'm out of the loop. Used Artic Silver something back then (in 2009). I do plan on swapping out the mediocre motherboard I bought at some point but would like to default on some TIM meant to last that isn't terrible.

Also looking for something that isn't electrically conductive.

Thanks!
 
Reasons?

What do you know about Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut? It's advertised to last a long time as well without reapplication. I'm currently not eyeballing anything but those two.

Maybe MX-2 if you know the difference between them all.

I will say I prefer to not give money to Arctic (Cooling, formerly), if I can avoid it.
 
housecat said:
Reasons?

What do you know about Thermal Grizzly? It's advertised to last a long time as well without reapplication. I'm currently not eyeballing anything but those two.

Maybe MX-2 if you know the difference between them all.

I will say I prefer to not give money to Arctic (Cooling, formerly), if I can avoid it.
Click to expand...

Thermal Grizzly hasn't exactly been around for a long time, so I wouldn't consider their claim of longevity too be reliable at this point ;)
 
I wondered about that too. They weren't around back when I started building my own rigs in 1999 and definitely don't remember them as a name prior either.
 
IC Diamond is another one that caught my eye, people say it lasts a long time as well. Right now leaning towards the MX-4, while it looks inferior to TG Kryonaut (http://overclocking.guide/thermal-p...d-with-air-cooling-and-liquid-nitrogen-ln2/6/) it definitely stands the test of time. Ya I know that guys famous but don't really like his testing method with spreading out via credit card method for the average install. Seems like a bad idea IMHO. Arctic Silver always nails each CPU with the proper way (usually pea or straight line). http://www.arcticsilver.com/methods.html So I'll be doing the straight line as they suggest for AM4 to guarantee no air gets trapped.
Fiddling with thermal paste maintenance, even in a few years, is definitely low on my to-do list. This is a hobby but I tend to build, use it, and move along with my life taking care of business otherwise. Not [H]ard just need advice on getting [H]ard with what's on the market today. ;)

I will be removing the (likely) mediocre Biostar motherboard I'm using for an Asus, so one reapply will happen within the next 12-24 months but that's probably it for 5 years. Maybe more depending on how hard Intel's post-CoffeeLake, 2018 response trounces Ryzen and how things pan out in the CPU space overall.
The word is that IC Diamond 7 lasts longer than MX-4. So I'm still researching on those 3. MX-4, ICD7 & TG Kryonaut.

edit- And "no" to ICD7.. just based off the links in this thread and the behavior of the CEO. Years ago he was accusing people of doctoring photos up that their paste scratched their heatsinks and such.. what a nut to assume that.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1411528/avoid-ic-diamond-thermal-paste

Also that diamond enlaced paste will scratch your heatsink and CPU, not worth it.
So back to MX-4 vs Kryonaut for now.
 
Last edited:
Ocellaris said:
Thermal Grizzly hasn't exactly been around for a long time, so I wouldn't consider their claim of longevity too be reliable at this point ;)
Click to expand...
So thanks for posting. I didn't expect a ton of responses on such a thrilling topic like thermal paste.. but it did help me out even if a little bit to have someone chime in.

I did choose my goop and ordered Arctic MX-4. I wanted to leave my reasons here because I'm building a Ryzen system and I know many others are or will be soon.

From the Kryonaut page
- not electrically conductive, no convincing reasons IMO for a paste to be unless you're watercooling so this is great
- "this thermal grease was created especially for cryogenic applications"
- "long-term durability"; "Kryonaut uses a special structure, which halts the drying out process at temperatures of up to 80° Celsius."
- Great temps under extreme cooling conditions http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=144109
- Mediocre gains on air to say the least (tests around the web vary of course but the real glowing ones seem to be by German nationals and this is a German company, potentially just a coincidence) http://www.eteknix.com/thermal-grizzly-thermal-paste-vs-6-major-brands-review/3/
http://thermal-grizzly.com/en/products/16-kryonaut-en

In sum on the Kryonaut, it's stable up to 80C, then it breaks down. Ryzen shuts down at 95C. On air cooling, I could see 80C+ being relatively commonplace if you work your CPU enough to warrant having it. TG Kryonaut is intended to use between an IHS and a liquid cooling AIO or custom loop, hence the low 80C breakdown temp.

The MX-4 is a winner on air cooling because
- same thing here, not electrically conductive, no convincing reasons IMO for a paste to be unless you're watercooling so this is great
- it does average to great on various temp tests around the web
- 8 year claim on breakdown, many people don't think they value this but it's important when it performs the same as most everything else
- no 80C limit stated for thermal breakdown, maybe they all breakdown at 80C but that's unknown to me. Knowing what I do know about chemistry and materials, I doubt very much that's the thermal limit for every other TIM as well.
- lots of positive user posts on Hardforum over the years that I've seen including user reports of it maintaining viscosity over many years (one noted 6 years still liquefied), these anecdotes over a decade+ are the most important, significant praise and matters the most over some guy doing the usual techsite "benchmarks" AKA misrepresenting products, best case on purpose, worst case sheer incompetence
https://www.arctic.ac/us_en/mx-4.html

The only thing I didn't like is being sold MX4 by Arctic based on value. I'm not looking for value, and that implies to me in general that I'm getting the short end of the stick on quality somehow. Regardless, I won't spit at 4grams of MX4 over the 1gram of TGK at the same price.

My last paste was Arctic Silver 5 back in 2008, it was fine but temps did rise over the years and I never reapplied it. This topic is a difficult one to accurately research, because the only benchmark that matters is your CPU in your case with your heatsink, no one can tell you what is best without all the details, having good sense about builds from many years of experience, and current knowledge on available products.

But if my temps are decent at all, being as it doesn't dry up in up to ~8 years and works as well as anything else on air, is not electrically conductive like Arctic Silver (or as they say on their site "slightly capacitive", hah).. I'll probably be sticking to MX-4 or its successor for a long time.

I can say that if I were a system builder or some sort of IT repairman, I'd keep a bunch of cheap Arctic MX-2 onhand for sure. MX-4 seems like a great choice for anything aircooled that you don't care to save those few extra cents on yet want something tried and true.

Anyway hope this helps someone else with the same or similar question that I had, TIM is the most annoying choice I make with each new build. Remember to check multiple sources before drawing a conclusion, there's a lot of terrible roundups out there. Not that any of the stuff out there won't work well enough.

edit to add- And the other stuff out there because that's a bit of an elephant in the room. Almost all the stuff I checked into had enough reports of the paste drying up fairly quickly. Saw a few reports of the Noctua stuff doing that and between that and having an 8 year promise on MX4 shut the door on those. On air, the performance gap really just isn't there to not just use MX4 IMO if it does actually work out well for me.
 
Last edited:
Hey, thanks for including the actual reason for the recommendation.. that helps.
For me though the lighter viscosity of NT-H1 isn't high on my list of priorities for a paste. I won't be removing it too often like some of you may be doing. At least, I really hope I'm not because that means something is broken. The extra 10 minutes spent rubbing paper towels and alcohol on the heatsink when I do isn't something I'm worried about.

I do like Noctua, and seriously considered that one but found enough people saying it had dried up on them a little early. It would probably be the only other one on my list with the MX-4 because unlike AS5 it's not electrically conductive (not a real problem because I apply lightly but on principle I don't want to be using conductive paste unless I'm using liquidcooling). Noctua in general is great though, I like them because I like "fit and finish", same reason I use an iPhone :) All of their stuff is meticulous while other heatsinks seem pretty thrown together. I'm not a "value" buyer especially given how often I build a machine. If I could've used a Noctua heatsink/fan in my Node 202, I would've.

Given I'm air cooling though, I didn't see any larger than 1-2C differences in any paste so the 8 year replacement promise from MX4 means the most to me. And importantly, it performs better than the mean result just as the NT-H1 does. I know they said it was good for 3 years at least, and giving me that sort of assurance puts it as a close 2nd choice for me.

The big problem as I see it is everyone is looking for "the best" and kind of mindlessly pick Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut as a result for every new build. There is only the best choice for that person's setup, the name even says it "Kryo".. it's meant for IHS to waterblock use and it's the ideal choice for it. I'm convinced after researching most people using heatsinks should go with the MX4 or NT-H1 though. Nonconductive and 3 years is plenty of time for most people so it's a top notch paste in my mind.
 
Last edited:
Ceramique or C2; seems just as sticky and temps don't budge in the durations I've had it in operation, it's non-conductive and reasonably priced. Probably my favorite of the least expensive compounds.
 
PliotronX said:
Ceramique or C2; seems just as sticky and temps don't budge in the durations I've had it in operation, it's non-conductive and reasonably priced. Probably my favorite of the least expensive compounds.
Click to expand...
Do you have a favorite of the most expensive pastes (that aren't electrically conductive and don't scratch a heatsink/IHS as ICD7 can)? I have until Tuesday until my AM4 heatsink adapter arrives so I still have time to change from the MX4. :) The MX4 was shipped 2-day so it'll be here tomorrow but I can always buy something else. I reconsidered the Noctura stuff when Kelijan mentioned it.

I have no preferences or favorites here... last time I used Arctic Silver 5 because in 2008 it was the hot new thing. Works fine but ready to try something else, especially something that lasts a long time without reapplying. I think MX4 and NT-H1 both look pretty solid. Unless it's attached to a block or AIO, I'm not convinced as long as you have a halfway decent paste that it matters. Considering how well MX2/4 does in tests across the web, the 8 years quote from Arctic has been the thing that pushes it over the edge into the winners circle for me.
 
housecat said:
Hey, thanks for including the actual reason for the recommendation.. that helps.
For me though the lighter viscosity of NT-H1 isn't high on my list of priorities for a paste. I won't be removing it too often like some of you may be doing. At least, I really hope I'm not because that means something is broken. The extra 10 minutes spent rubbing paper towels and alcohol on the heatsink when I do isn't something I'm worried about.

I do like Noctua, and seriously considered that one but found enough people saying it had dried up on them a little early. It would probably be the only other one on my list with the MX-4 because unlike AS5 it's not electrically conductive (not a real problem because I apply lightly but on principle I don't want to be using conductive paste unless I'm using liquidcooling). Noctua in general is great though, I like them because I like "fit and finish", same reason I use an iPhone :) All of their stuff is meticulous while other heatsinks seem pretty thrown together. I'm not a "value" buyer especially given how often I build a machine. If I could've used a Noctua heatsink/fan in my Node 202, I would've.

Given I'm air cooling though, I didn't see any larger than 1-2C differences in any paste so the 8 year replacement promise from MX4 means the most to me. And importantly, it performs better than the mean result just as the NT-H1 does. I know they said it was good for 3 years at least, and giving me that sort of assurance puts it as a close 2nd choice for me.

The big problem as I see it is everyone is looking for "the best" and kind of mindlessly pick Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut as a result for every new build. There is only the best choice for that person's setup, the name even says it "Kryo".. it's meant for IHS to waterblock use and it's the ideal choice for it. I'm convinced after researching most people using heatsinks should go with the MX4 or NT-H1 though. Nonconductive and 3 years is plenty of time for most people so it's a top notch paste in my mind.
Click to expand...

I've been using NH-T1 for a long time now and never noticed it drying out. And even if it did lose viscosity as it set, that doesn't mean it's any less effective at transferring heat. Plus it's easy to find and cheap.

There's too much concern with "the best" for thermal paste IMO. There's really almost ZERO difference between most of the "top" pastes. There's so many variables in real world use, between humidity, ambient temps, surface finishes, installation methods, compression forces, etc, etc. That review posted earlier tested 80 different pastes...80!! and the difference between the best and worst was <10%. The difference between the top brands was <1%. Well within any reasonable margin of error. And that seems to be true for EVERY thermal paste round-up or review I've ever seen anywhere.
 
Yes, but I think there's reason for concern with liquid cooling on the TIM used. Coolaboratory Liquid metal or Indigo Xtreme for die-to-IHS, and then something like Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut for IHS-to-waterblock. I'm not convinced that there's not different formulations intended for watercooling (or extreme watercooling) and air cooling. Just going for liquid metal for an air cooling setup to me is adding a lot of work (application and cleanup) for nothing. May not last as long as other options, and could even be a net loss if a paste like Kryonaut is intended to be used at 80C or below (which is what they state on their website).

So far the more I hear, for my install at least, the more I'm convinced that going for any paste that isn't complete crap and performs at the mean or above of everything else but has the longest claim to paste longevity is the best for me. Which so far appears to still be MX-4. There's user account after user account online backing up their claim as well so I'm glad I placed my order when I did.

Still time though to order something else if I'm missing something here. :)
 
Last edited:
housecat said:
Yes, but I think there's reason for concern with liquid cooling on the TIM used. Coolaboratory Liquid metal or Indigo Xtreme for die-to-IHS, and then something like Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut for IHS-to-waterblock. I'm not convinced that there's not different formulations intended for watercooling (or extreme watercooling) and air cooling. Just going for liquid metal or Kryonaut for an air cooling setup to me is adding a lot of work (application and cleanup) for nothing.

So far the more I hear, for my install at least, the more I'm convinced that going for any paste that isn't complete crap and performs at the mean or above of everything else but has the longest claim to paste longevity is the best for me. Which so far appears to still be MX-4. There's user account after user account online backing up their claim as well so I'm glad I placed my order when I did.

Still time though to order something else if I'm missing something here. :)
Click to expand...

There's zero difference for the TIM itself on air or water cooling. At best, in a WC system, you'll have lower temps than a typical air cooled system. All the TIM sees is the IHS-to-heat sink surface interface, and all of these TIMs perform the same over a wide range (like 0-150C in most cases). Anything else you see is pure marketing BS.

Paste longevity is something I have never seen any reliable testing on. To really do this, you'd need a lot of identical systems under similar conditions (temps, humidity, etc) and then operate them for a couple years. Anything else is pretty much anecdotal evidence.
 
Did you read my hwbot.com link? If not, there's quite a massive gap in conductivity between Kryonaut and other options under liquid nitrogen / extreme liquid cooling.

I can confirm it's very difficult to find reliability/longevity testing info! To me it's the only differentiating feature available. It would be interesting to see someone do a chemical analysis and an extreme heat test to see which one dries up first. It may not be applicable to CPU usage but it would definitely be interesting to see. I was sold on MX4 because it has so many great anecdotal reports on this, plus a manufacturer claim of 8 years on top. Noctua's claim for N1-H1 on their site is 3 years. Pretty good and because they're one of 2 who actually make a claim on longevity, it's my 2nd and only possible alternative at this time. Just them willing to stick their neck out on a claim like that tells me it'll last a good while.

I'm sure N1-H1 is great, but in the 80 paste roundup it was beat by MX-2 (results vary of course), and given MX-4 is better than MX-2, and it has an 8 year claim vs 3 year claim, it makes sense to use it.
 
housecat said:
Did you read my hwbot.com link? If not, there's quite a massive gap in conductivity between Kryonaut and other options under liquid nitrogen / extreme liquid cooling.

I can confirm it's very difficult to find reliability/longevity testing info! To me it's the only differentiating feature available. It would be interesting to see someone do a chemical analysis and an extreme heat test to see which one dries up first. It may not be applicable to CPU usage but it would definitely be interesting to see. I was sold on MX4 because it has so many great anecdotal reports on this, plus a manufacturer claim of 8 years on top. Noctua's claim for N1-H1 on their site is 3 years. Pretty good and because they're one of 2 who actually make a claim on longevity, it's my 2nd and only possible alternative at this time. Just them willing to stick their neck out on a claim like that tells me it'll last a good while.

I'm sure N1-H1 is great, but in the 80 paste roundup it was beat by MX-2 (results vary of course), and given MX-4 is better than MX-2, and it has an 8 year claim vs 3 year claim, it makes sense to use it.
Click to expand...

That's why I mentioned air/water only, and the temp range of 0-150C. When you start going with sub-ambient systems, it's a very different story, because many TIMs are not designed with <0C conditions in mind.
 
You can clearly go too far and bork the job though, as Intel has with IvyBridge or newer by using cheap TIM between the die<->IHS. I've seen reports that with a 7700K you can drop 20-25C by delidding and replacing Intel's toothpaste with anything else. Before I bought my 1800X I was going for a 7700K and planning on delidding it because it seemed like gross negligence that I have to delid to fix that.. it borders on being defective IMO.

I was very happy to see Ryzen be soldered as with previous AMD chips, and helped encourage me to build knowing I didn't have to fix their bad work like with Kabylake. Reports from delidding Ryzen and replacing the solder with something else has shown a 1-3C drop tops, making it pointless.
 
The other elephant in the room that no one mentions too often: curing. Give me the longest lasting paste that performs like the rest and performs the same without curing concerns.
The recommendation to cure it is why I discarded the idea of using AS5 again with this build.

Another exceptional link from benchmarkreviews, for future travelers. Really great work from those guys, may have to start referencing that site regularly.
http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=1
 
Not sure how long it lasts but Ive been using shin etsu X23-7783D lately. Also stopped using AS5, which is what I used before understanding the cure period which I thought was useless.
 
housecat said:
You can clearly go too far and bork the job though, as Intel has with IvyBridge or newer by using cheap TIM between the die<->IHS. I've seen reports that with a 7700K you can drop 20-25C by delidding and replacing Intel's toothpaste with anything else. Before I bought my 1800X I was going for a 7700K and planning on delidding it because it seemed like gross negligence that I have to delid to fix that.. it borders on being defective IMO.

I was very happy to see Ryzen be soldered as with previous AMD chips, and helped encourage me to build knowing I didn't have to fix their bad work like with Kabylake. Reports from delidding Ryzen and replacing the solder with something else has shown a 1-3C drop tops, making it pointless.
Click to expand...

Most of the testing I've seen (with people who actually tested the TIM itself) show that Intel's TIM is fine, something around 3.1W/mK, which is right in the pack with your typical TIM. The problem is the gap between the die and the underside of the IHS. When you delid and relid, you have a much smaller gap than the factory mounting. And on your "toothpaste" comment, go look for reviews, and you can find guy who tested with ACTUAL toothpaste, and it only cost them a few degrees C. The TIM is fine on Intel's stuff, the mounting could be better. That being said, the chip still operates within it's design limits and the specs Intel provides, so....

The whole "Intel and their crap TIM" thing is a pet peeve of mine...Everyone seems to know that going from crap to good TIM will only save you a couple degrees...yet somehow Intel's TIM is SO BAD that you can get a 30C jump by just changing the TIM. It makes no sense from a heat transfer point of view, or an engineering point of view, or even a marketing point of view. They're not saving millions on TIM. They're probably saving money by loosening the assembly clearances on the IHS to reduce the number of parts that fail testing. You make that clearance too tight and you end up with damaged dies...too loose and you have the problem they're seeing here. Which isn't even a PROBLEM, since the chip still runs in spec. Could it be better? Sure. But it does exactly what it was advertised to do.

Curing is over-rated and overhyped IMO. Again it depends on the humidity of the location, but in most cases you're not going to see more than 1-2C change either way from "fresh" to "fully cured". And some of that will be due to the mounting mechanism and IHS relaxing and "settling" once the mount is firmly attached.
 
Damn that's useful to know. Someone looking around this forum with the same question should find this thread very helpful.

Makes me wonder though, why not keep soldering them if they're not saving much on the TIM?
 
housecat said:
Damn that's useful to know. Someone looking around this forum with the same question should find this thread very helpful.

Makes me wonder though, why not keep soldering them if they're not saving much on the TIM?
Click to expand...

I would guess they're saving money on the assembly process. And using solder is more complex than a simple TIM. And honestly, if the solution keeps the temps within design spec, why change it?
 
Intel's HEDT line uses solder, so no matter if there's auxiliary reasoning, yeah it's ultimately going to come down to adding pennies to their margins.

A friend of mine is a major investor in Intel and he actually asked about this. He said Intel's response was that it was simply already validated and worked. Essentially what you're saying, met the spec they set for themselves. They did seem to produce better results with the 4790K, and it also used TIM. That would be an interesting chip to check into the TIM used and to know how that was put together vs a 7700K.

Being as widely sold in the numbers that Intel sells at, with no competition for a long time I'd probably do it too. The only reason they wouldn't do it is because I don't want it. But Intel is unlikely to change when they sell a lot more mass market than enthusiast.
Still, it was a huge factor in me discarding the 7700K in favor of Ryzen for sure. While you can tell when someone like myself is looking for the longest lasting, most reliable TIM with no cure time, I may not seem like a likely suspect to care about that. But I do hate the idea of buying "within spec" gimped hardware out of the box. A quadcore I have to delid to fix on day one, throwing my warranty out the window or 8 cores with soldered IHS. No brainer and I hope AMD ends up doing well with it.
 
housecat said:
Intel's HEDT line uses solder, so no matter if there's auxiliary reasoning, yeah it's ultimately going to come down to adding pennies to their margins.

A friend of mine is a major investor in Intel and he actually asked about this. He said Intel's response was that it was simply already validated and worked. Essentially what you're saying, met the spec they set for themselves. They did seem to produce better results with the 4790K, and it also used TIM. That would be an interesting chip to check into the TIM used and to know how that was put together vs a 7700K.

Being as widely sold in the numbers that Intel sells at, with no competition for a long time I'd probably do it too. The only reason they wouldn't do it is because I don't want it. But Intel is unlikely to change when they sell a lot more mass market than enthusiast.
Still, it was a huge factor in me discarding the 7700K in favor of Ryzen for sure. While you can tell when someone like myself is looking for the longest lasting, most reliable TIM with no cure time, I may not seem like a likely suspect to care about that. But I do hate the idea of buying "within spec" gimped hardware out of the box. A quadcore I have to delid to fix on day one, throwing my warranty out the window or 8 cores with soldered IHS. No brainer and I hope AMD ends up doing well with it.
Click to expand...

The important part here is that it's better for overclocking, not for the operation of their chips as designed and spec'd.

And even most 7700k's will operate with REALLY high OCs and the poor IHS mounting and STILL be within spec. Could it be better? Sure. But WHY? Just so the lower temps make you feel better? If a chip can hit 5Ghz at 85C, and replace the IHS/TIM and it still hits 5Ghz, but now at 70C, who cares? Do the temps need to be lower for any actual engineering reason?
 
It's good to know that they used acceptable TIM, but it's still not good enough for most of us to ignore this issue. They don't sign my checks so I don't care.. I'm going to tell it like it is. Intel has been doing a crappy job here and continue to do so. An unnecessary 25C because it's in spec is still unacceptable, that's what my link was all about. The 7700K being poorly engineered here is just bad engineering. Ultimately, the consumer decides if it's ok and they're not happy.

Intel charges extra for the K SKU saying it's for overclocking and now says to not overclock your 7700K.
 
I like Gelid GC Extreme. Consistently places very high, if not highest, in comparison tests.

Easy to apply. Lasts a long time.

I used to be a fan of Arctic Silver Ceramique. GC Extreme is better.
 
I have Ceramique, MX4, AS5 and NT-H1. All 4 work very well and I've not had any breakdown or dry out from any of them. I've also notice that temps are within 1-2c between the four. I just redid the TIM on both my Cpu and Gpu. Gpu temps dropped 3C from stock TIM. Cpu is delidded. Used NT-H1 on both.
 
housecat said:
It's good to know that they used acceptable TIM, but it's still not good enough for most of us to ignore this issue. They don't sign my checks so I don't care.. I'm going to tell it like it is. Intel has been doing a crappy job here and continue to do so. An unnecessary 25C because it's in spec is still unacceptable, that's what my link was all about. The 7700K being poorly engineered here is just bad engineering. Ultimately, the consumer decides if it's ok and they're not happy.

Intel charges extra for the K SKU saying it's for overclocking and now says to not overclock your 7700K.
Click to expand...

I'm not working for Intel either, but I do think this is a bit overblown.

"Unnecessary" 25C is really the question. Who says it's not necessary? Could it be cooler? Sure. Does it NEED to be cooler? No. If Intel sold it to me telling me it'd be 25C cooler, and it wasn't, I'd be pissed. But they sold me a processor with a list of specs and capabilities, and it meets or exceeds all those. They didn't lie or deceive anyone.

It'd be wrong to claim "poor engineering" here, when no one really knows WHY the IHS mounting or TIM issue is even occurring. Could have been a change in the assembly equipment that has looser tolerances. Could have been done intentionally to improve yield on completed CPUs. It could have been done for cost savings. It could be a damn accident. There's a ton of speculation, but no actual engineering answer. Considering again that no actual specs are being violated, I still think it's wrong to jump to those conclusions.

Regarding the "K" SKUs, you have to read exactly what Intel said before and after. Nothing has changed, as they've ALWAYS said don't operate outside design specs. For EVERY CPU they've ever sold. Nothing changed.
 
housecat said:
As long as you're ok with it, that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't even own one of these CPUs, so I don't have a dog in the fight. As a EE, I hate to see people jumping to conclusions about poor engineering when there's no evidence one way or the other.
 
If you say so buddy, seems to be a problem here given all the complaints. Guess everyone except yourself are all just a bunch of fools. I've been on the internet long enough to have seen this before.
 
housecat said:
If you say so buddy, seems to be a problem here given all the complaints. Guess everyone except yourself are all just a bunch of fools. I've been on the internet long enough to have seen this before.
Click to expand...

Complaints don't mean there's an actual problem. I've been on the internet long enough to see that before.
 
Bandalo said:
Complaints don't mean there's an actual problem. I've been on the internet long enough to see that before.
Click to expand...
Cool glad to hear you're both not an owner of said product and also disregard people who are, in favor of a multinational corporation. That's great. You seem like you would like the last word so have at it. Let me guess, there's no evidence of a problem here and Intel is meeting spec.
 
housecat said:
Cool glad to hear you're both not an owner of said product and also disregard people who are, in favor of a multinational corporation. That's great. You seem like you would like the last word so have at it. Let me guess, there's no evidence of a problem here and Intel is meeting spec.
Click to expand...

There's complaints. There's unhappy customers. That's something Intel will need to deal with in one way or another.

There's NOT any evidence of an actual PROBLEM, other than an image/marketing problem. If the CPU is within spec, it's within spec. The question we don't know is if this is something Intel can explain as "operating as designed", or if they have another explanation for this behavior.

All the current reports with the actual issue here (temp spikes) are related to auto-voltage adjustments on certain motherboards, NOT the CPU itself anyway. I'd love to see a detailed white paper on this issue personally, kinda like Samsung did with the Note 7 battery issue.
 
Nebulous said:
I have Ceramique, MX4, AS5 and NT-H1. All 4 work very well and I've not had any breakdown or dry out from any of them. I've also notice that temps are within 1-2c between the four. I just redid the TIM on both my Cpu and Gpu. Gpu temps dropped 3C from stock TIM. Cpu is delidded. Used NT-H1 on both.
Click to expand...

I used AS5 last time and was surprised researching for Ryzen how AS5 in some tests has really fallen behind. Since there's a lot of good stuff today, I'll probably be using MX4 from here on out just based on their 8 year longevity claim. Having found people individually claiming 6 years at least in person, I'm sold! That's one advantage of being on the market for such a long time. Being able to set it and forget it is a great feature. I got my 4g tube sitting right here ready to go for tomorrow (build day). It's probably difficult for some people with the brand loyalty flaw to get away from Noctua products, they are good but miss the mark here.

I will likely be swapping out my Cryorig cooler for a Scythe when AM4 gets some better options for mITX setups like mine, but sticking with MX4 when that time comes.
 
I also use mx4. benchmarks don't really show significant differences other than the liquid metal stuff which is hard to apply and remove. marginal results at best. keep using mx4, it's as good as it gets for now.
 
sweets3450 said:
I also use mx4. benchmarks don't really show significant differences other than the liquid metal stuff which is hard to apply and remove. marginal results at best. keep using mx4, it's as good as it gets for now.
Click to expand...
Another big advantage I found for MX4 over NT-H1 is that you can get larger quantities easily and cheaply. 20G for $19 http://a.co/h6gwyea or if you're really doing work can go to MX2 and get 65G for $29. That's crazy, while the NT-H1 you have one choice of the smaller size. Much of the NT-H1 love is coming from all the people who buy their heatsinks. I'm a mITX guy so I use whatever I can but my favorite general air cooler is the Scythe stuff, especially the Big Shuriken 2 RevB. If that lands for AM4 one day I'm definitely tearing my system apart to get one in.
That's alongside the other huge win for the MX4.. 8+ years guarantee vs 3 years maximum stated by Noctua.

MX-4 "Once applied, you do not need to apply it a second time as it will last at least for 8 years"
NT-H1 "Recommended usage time ( on the CPU ) : up to 3 years"

Pretty potent combo for many people here. Top performer as good or better than anything else, available in large quantities for a fair price and once you do leave it on, you don't have to think about it again ever again. A decade covers most of us for any piece of hardware. I've kept hardware in use for a decade though, especially stuff for family.

I'm going to stick with the 8-year+ MX4 MasterRace for the foreseeable future, it's such a no brainer for a lot of reasons. I'm not surprised it's the #1 seller on Amazon, the 4G/8G/20G/30G/65G sales combined are probably impossible to beat. AS5 is still pretty popular but it makes me wonder if MX4 has become the new 500lb gorilla of thermal pastes. But I think if I were to dig deep into anything other else, I'd check further into the Gelid and Shin Etsu. Especially the Gelid stuff. Depending on what I was trying to do, they look pretty good.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top