CPU: Mainly Arctic MX-2 cause I decided it was a good idea to get a 65g tube in 2015. I might get through 10% of it by 2022.
GPU: Thermalright TF8
Can't remember why the MX-2, the TF8 kept coming up as recommended for GPUs. Non-conductive was a must (iMessy)
Related: does anyone use thermal pads? Used Thermalright 12.8W/mK recently on a 3200g build; thermals are OK, cost comparison to paste is not.
Do you mean conventional thermal pads (i.e. the thick, sticky, fragile type)? Or those CPU-oriented graphite sheet "pads"? I could see the latter being useful for anything where ease of maintenance or long-term untouched operation is desirable, but I don't have any builds where that has fit the bill. Normal thermal pads ... nah, I would never put that on a CPU. Expensive, fragile, often come in strips far too narrow for a CPU, and thermal transfer will be terrible compared to paste, both due to the lower conductivity and the much thicker interface. It would likely work on a low power CPU, but I don't see any reaosn to go that route, ever.CPU: Mainly Arctic MX-2 cause I decided it was a good idea to get a 65g tube in 2015. I might get through 10% of it by 2022.
GPU: Thermalright TF8
Can't remember why the MX-2, the TF8 kept coming up as recommended for GPUs. Non-conductive was a must (iMessy)
Related: does anyone use thermal pads? Used Thermalright 12.8W/mK recently on a 3200g build; thermals are OK, cost comparison to paste is not.
Thanks - I did mean both pastesMX-2 is also non conductive, don't worry
I used Thermalright Odyssey 1.5mm, so the former. It was left over from replacing the thermal pads on my GPU (thanks NVIDIA for cheaping out).Do you mean conventional thermal pads (i.e. the thick, sticky, fragile type)? Or those CPU-oriented graphite sheet "pads"? I could see the latter being useful for anything where ease of maintenance or long-term untouched operation is desirable, but I don't have any builds where that has fit the bill. Normal thermal pads ... nah, I would never put that on a CPU. Expensive, fragile, often come in strips far too narrow for a CPU, and thermal transfer will be terrible compared to paste, both due to the lower conductivity and the much thicker interface. It would likely work on a low power CPU, but I don't see any reaosn to go that route, ever.
Pads on low thermal loads like VRMs and VRAM are absolutely fine. Often they are also entirely necessary, as coolers are engineered to contact the GPU die first and best, with the tolerances for everything else being much looser. Anything else, like the cooler hitting the VRAM before it properly contacted the die, could lead to catastrophic results after all. So pads are used to fill the gaps inevitably left between these secondary/tertiary heat sources and the cold plate, as paste simply can't build up very thick in a stable way. And engineering a cooler with paste-thin tolerances for all available components is essentially impossible due to manufacturing variance.The GPU block I bought came with a couple strips of (very, very thin) Kingbali pad for the VRMs.
Dunno if those pads are fine or too poor quality ?
For the GPU & memory chips proper, well I have some rather fresh MX-4 around...
Dunno if it's alright, but I might give TF8 a first try.
This GPU will see some workload, I hope for a reliably long-lasting solution, like ~3 years of peace would be nice.
TL;DR is it maybe better to put TF8 on everything on the GPU and forget about VRM pads ?
W/mK figures can't really be compared between manufacturers, as there is no accepted standard for measuring these values. As such, real-world testing is the only trustworthy way of comparing pastes. That being said, the vast majority of thermal pastes perform within a very narrow range, so differences aren't huge. Anyrhing that seems to perform decently and is easy to spread and clean up is good enough IMO.While building my ITX early this year I found the Phobya NanoGrease Extreme which has 16W/m which was quite higher than most of the other pastes I have seen/used so far.
I only used it on the CPU so far and I had no issues. But I do not really run anything really demanding or stress test my computer.
Ah, I assumed/hoped that this was standardized. Not very helpful then. So I guess as long as nothing catches fire its "good".W/mK figures can't really be compared between manufacturers, as there is no accepted standard for measuring these values. As such, real-world testing is the only trustworthy way of comparing pastes. That being said, the vast majority of thermal pastes perform within a very narrow range, so differences aren't huge. Anyrhing that seems to perform decently and is easy to spread and clean up is good enough IMO.
Pretty much, yesAh, I assumed/hoped that this was standardized. Not very helpful then. So I guess as long as nothing catches fire its "good".