It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:03 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am
Posts: 253
http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/ind ... mitstart=1

I am just reading the above link. If carbon based TIM is better, and assuming we are comparing the end carbon based TIM vs. top end Ceramic based, so say we have:

Arctic Cooling MX-4
TIM Consultants TC Grease 0098
Shin Etsu MicroSi G751
Cooler master Fusion 400

Now, they all seems to be at the top quality level, if so, would you pick MX-4 as it's carbon based vs. the others ceramic based TIM?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:17 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Posts: 4637
Location: Monterey Bay, CA
He tested 80 different compounds. If you toss out the worst 5, then the temperature difference between the best and the 75th ranked is 2.45C difference over a ~40C rise in temp. Don't get me started on test repeatability... The answer is it just doesn't matter unless you are a crazed over-volter. Just pick one that:
- is easy to apply/remove
- doesn't cost a fortune

I like the electrically non-conductive pastes (like Arctic Silver Ceramique) so I never have to worry if/when a string of it accidently goes somewhere it shouldn't.

_________________
1080p Gaming build: i5-4670K, Mugen 4, MSI Z87-G45, MSI GTX 760 2GB Gaming, 8GB 1866 RAM, Samsung Evo 250GB, WD Red 2TB, Samsung DVD burner, Fractal Define R4, Antec True Quiet 140 (2 front + rear) case fans, Seasonic X-560. 35-40W idle, 45-55W video streaming, 170-200W WoW, 200-230W Rift, 318W stress test (Prime95 + Furmark)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am
Posts: 253
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/ ... 012/1490/5

but take a look at this test from hardware secrets, the range is from 47 to 63 deg. C w/ various different TIM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 165
Location: London
:lol: They tested things like Chocolate, pink lipstick, toothpaste, and butter. Surprisingly some really odd things done alright, i mean who would have thought that cream cheese would be only 37c rise from ambient :shock:

EDIT: Damn emotes i miss you..

_________________
Case: P182, Fans: 4xNF-P12@800Rpm, MoBo: GA-EX58-UD4, CPU: i920, GPU: GV-N670OC-2GD, PSU: Seasonic 760 platinum, HDD: HD203WI, SSD: VTX4-25SAT3-128


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Posts: 11873
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Olin Coles, the author of the amazingly well done Benchmark Reviews Study, had this to say about choosing TIM: "My conclusion clearly states my future intentions. [Which is not to do any more TIM reviews.] It doesn't matter how many new TIMs come to market, if you properly prepare the surfaces and ensure great mounting/clamping force, they'll all perform nearly the same."

Happy Hopping: Read more carefully; the 63C high you mention from the Hardware Secrets roundups is WITHOUT ANY TIM. The real range they found is 32-40C, based on a quick scan, and they state their error margin as 2C, which means anything less than that is meaninless (ie, the relevant temp variance is thus merely 6C). I also don't think they were quite as meticulous in following manufacturers' application recommendations as closely as Olin Coles, which makes their results less reliable.

Anyway, in essence, I concur 100% with CA_Steve.

_________________
Mike Chin,
Editor/Publisher, SPCR
Support SPCR with your donations!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:24 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Posts: 1525
Location: Sweden
AS Ceramique is my TIM of choice, but I would probably get some of the very high end stuff if I were to do advanced things like delidding CPUs.

_________________
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock H81M-ITX | Pentium G3420 | 4GB DDR3 | Intel 520 120GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 11.2W
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 750 Ti | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 520 120GB | TJ08-E | G-360 360W
Server: Intel DH77DF | i3-2100T | 4TB+3x3TB | picoPSU | Idle 24W AC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:22 pm
Posts: 1920
Location: Guatemala
Personally i just like to buy none conductive and none capacitive compunds, for the same reasons as CA_Steve, my preferred due to the before and cheap is Artic MX-4. Lately i been using IC Diamiond 7, and good results, but barely any difference over MX4.

_________________
GameMi >> MSI Z87-GD65 | Intel Core i7-4790K | Thermalright Silver Arrow IBE + 3x Noctua NF-A15 PWM @500rpms| Crucial Ballistix Sport 32GB DDR3 1600 | nVidia GTX780 + ARCTIC Accelero Xtreme IV | Samsung SA850 27'' 2560x1440 | Samsung 840pro 512GB | Hitachi 7K1000 1TB | Fractal Design Define R4 + 4x Noctua NF-A14 PWM @450rpm | SeaSonic SS-860XP2
Other builds ---> ServeMi | CamMi | MiniMi | HTPCMi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am
Posts: 253
Abula wrote:
Personally i just like to buy none conductive and none capacitive compunds, for the same reasons as CA_Steve, my preferred due to the before and cheap is Artic MX-4. Lately i been using IC Diamiond 7, and good results, but barely any difference over MX4.


I was leaning on MX-4, as I am running out of AS5. But I am confuse about this:

From this link, it is clear that Silver has a much higher conductivity than MX-4.

http://wccftech.com/review/thermal-grease-shootout/

now from this link:

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=71658&page=2

AS5 is at 1134 w/ m *k

MX 4 is at 8.5 W/m*k

So the conductivity is a lot less on MX4, and how does it better than AS5?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am
Posts: 253
MikeC wrote:
Happy Hopping: Read more carefully; the 63C high you mention from the Hardware Secrets roundups is WITHOUT ANY TIM. The real range they found is 32-40C, based on a quick scan, and they state their error margin as 2C, which means anything less than that is meaninless (ie, the relevant temp variance is thus merely 6C). I also don't think they were quite as meticulous in following manufacturers' application recommendations as closely as Olin Coles, which makes their results less reliable.


Mike, I am well aware line 1 is w/o TIM. But I was looking at column 2, under Core temperature:

igoring line 1 and item like chocolate, we are talking about a core temperature of 47 deg. C (for e.g., Prolimatech PK1) to 63 deg. C. (ThermalRight The Chill Factor) i.e., some TIM can do a core temperature of 47 deg. C, and yet some other can only do 63 deg. C. That's a 16 deg. C between different product, and that's quite serious.

I much prefer my CPU at 47 deg. C vs. 63 deg. C. Anyhoo, do you have any insight to my question, 1 post up about silver conductivity vs. others?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:18 am
Posts: 497
Location: London, UK
Happy Hopping wrote:
igoring line 1 and item like chocolate, we are talking about a core temperature of 47 deg. C (for e.g., Prolimatech PK1) to 63 deg. C. (ThermalRight The Chill Factor) i.e., some TIM can do a core temperature of 47 deg. C, and yet some other can only do 63 deg. C. That's a 16 deg. C between different product, and that's quite serious.

I much prefer my CPU at 47 deg. C vs. 63 deg. C. Anyhoo, do you have any insight to my question, 1 post up about silver conductivity vs. others?
You can't just look at core temperature in isolation, as the room temperature varied. So if you like 47°C, I'm afraid you'll have to move somewhere with bad heating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 165
Location: London
Happy Hopping wrote:
(for e.g., Prolimatech PK1) to 63 deg. C. (ThermalRight The Chill Factor)

Prolimatech PK1 = 34c above ambient
ThermalRight The Chill Factor = 37c above ambient

As Cistron said you have to look at the rise from ambient (room temprature), i had trouble finding anything more than 10c

_________________
Case: P182, Fans: 4xNF-P12@800Rpm, MoBo: GA-EX58-UD4, CPU: i920, GPU: GV-N670OC-2GD, PSU: Seasonic 760 platinum, HDD: HD203WI, SSD: VTX4-25SAT3-128


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am
Posts: 253
Okay, I miss that. I didn't realize they have room temp. that low. So in the end, it's a handful of degree of temperature only. From the low to the high, about 6 deg. C

6 deg. C is not that serious, but if my CPU can drop 6 deg. C, it would still be a very good thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:58 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Posts: 1302
Location: en.gb.uk
Happy Hopping wrote:
6 deg. C is not that serious, but if my CPU can drop 6 deg. C, it would still be a very good thing.


Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 345
Location: Australia
nutball wrote:
Happy Hopping wrote:
6 deg. C is not that serious, but if my CPU can drop 6 deg. C, it would still be a very good thing.


Why?

Lower CPU temps are always good surely? Whether it's worth bothering with, depends on how much effort and money it takes. :)

The liquid metal kits void your CPU warranty, cost a fair bit, and take extra effort to apply. Hardly worth it for most of us when decent thermal paste is only a few degrees behind, but certainly worth it when going for overclocking records.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am
Posts: 253
I would never do liquid metal. What a headache that would be. MX-4 I would do. Does any1 knows how many Xeon CPU can 4 gram do?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:18 am
Posts: 497
Location: London, UK
Now I'm starting to wonder how Mercury would fare ... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:00 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 1864
Location: Northern California.
Happy Hopping wrote:


Lower CPU temps are always good surely?

simply not true. if its cooled quietly and still below spec temp, and not throttling then there is no gain in lowering temps.

_________________
“America, its a continent, not a county!”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:41 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Posts: 1525
Location: Sweden
Sometimes indirectly allows for fans to be turned down a bit though.

_________________
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock H81M-ITX | Pentium G3420 | 4GB DDR3 | Intel 520 120GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 11.2W
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 750 Ti | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 520 120GB | TJ08-E | G-360 360W
Server: Intel DH77DF | i3-2100T | 4TB+3x3TB | picoPSU | Idle 24W AC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 345
Location: Australia
xan_user wrote:
simply not true. if its cooled quietly and still below spec temp, and not throttling then there is no gain in lowering temps.


IMO there is a gain, in the form of increased thermal headroom for anything from overclocking, to seesawing ambient temps, to dust buildup over time and gradually increasing system temps. It may also allow you to run your fans that little bit quieter while maintaining the same target temperature. That's surely worthwhile? 8)

Still, it's a moot point really, as the difference between the pastes is pretty negligible. But if the price difference is tiny (per gram of thermal compound, not just per tube), then I think it's worth it to choose the best value paste.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:45 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 1864
Location: Northern California.
all im saying is; if your cpu/gpu are at your preferred clock speed(s) and under spec temps, with your fan(s) quiet enough to not hear over your ambient noise level, then 6 degrees less give no benefit. i see it all the time, -some one is happy with the noise of their rig at 65*C when maxed out in prime 95/furmark ect. , but for some reason they still want to lower cpu temps. (and often their real usage would never reach that kind of stress anyway.. :| )

BTW, if you're really worried about a couple of degrees, you should probably look into lapping your CPU heat spreader or removing it all together.

_________________
“America, its a continent, not a county!”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 345
Location: Australia
xan_user wrote:
all im saying is; if your cpu/gpu are at your preferred clock speed(s) and under spec temps, with your fan(s) quiet enough to not hear over your ambient noise level, then 6 degrees less give no benefit. i see it all the time, -some one is happy with the noise of their rig at 65*C when maxed out in prime 95/furmark ect. , but for some reason they still want to lower cpu temps. (and often their real usage would never reach that kind of stress anyway.. :| )

BTW, if you're really worried about a couple of degrees, you should probably look into lapping your CPU heat spreader or removing it all together.

Ah yeah I see what you mean. You're talking about after you're built the PC, it not being worth opening up the rig, removing the cooler and re-pasting just for a few degrees.

My view is from the initial purchase of the aftermarket CPU cooler, when you're doing research and deciding what thermal compound to buy (if any). If two pastes are the same price or close enough, and one will give you 2-3 degrees lower temps on average, then of course you'd get the better paste. No extra effort or cost, and something small to gain. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 91
Location: Youngstown, OH
I have used 2 TIM's in my time. Years ago I always used arctic silver 5. But arctic silver 5 has been out a long time so I got a new paste and did a simple test.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835426020 - Gelid GC-Extreme. Heard good things about it so I decided why not give it a go. On a Sandy bridge 2600k system and a noctua u12s the gelid gc extreme was 4!!! degrees!!! cooler than AS5. I was actually able to lower my fan 200 RPM and get the same temp as AS5. I can 100% confidently sat Gelid GC extreme is in the top 10% of TIM's and it's 12.99 for a 3.5g syringe, not the cheapest but isn't 13 dollars worth it to be able to turn your cpu cooling fan down a bit? I've heard coollaboratory liquid metal is supposed to be the ultimate best but just look around at all the problems people have had with it. It's not viable for long term stability.

Just giving my personal 2 cents on what I've experienced with the 2 TIM's I've used. I don't think anyone here would be disappointed with gelid gc extreme.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:54 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Posts: 1525
Location: Sweden
I'm well into my second 22g syringe of Arctic Silver Ceramique. A 25g syringe is $7.99 @ Newegg and AS Ceramique also outperforms AS5. Might not be quite as good as Gelid GC-Extreme but a whole lot cheaper.

_________________
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock H81M-ITX | Pentium G3420 | 4GB DDR3 | Intel 520 120GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 11.2W
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 750 Ti | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 520 120GB | TJ08-E | G-360 360W
Server: Intel DH77DF | i3-2100T | 4TB+3x3TB | picoPSU | Idle 24W AC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 165
Location: London
How well or how badly TIM is applied probably has more influence than the actual TIM, AS5 tends to be very viscous so can be difficult to get a good application imho.

_________________
Case: P182, Fans: 4xNF-P12@800Rpm, MoBo: GA-EX58-UD4, CPU: i920, GPU: GV-N670OC-2GD, PSU: Seasonic 760 platinum, HDD: HD203WI, SSD: VTX4-25SAT3-128


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:47 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Posts: 1864
Location: Northern California.
Spoon Boy wrote:
How well or how badly TIM is applied probably has more influence than the actual TIM, AS5 tends to be very viscous so can be difficult to get a good application imho.

With AS5 i use a brand new razor blade to squeegee the thinnest coat possible. works way better than a credit card.

_________________
“America, its a continent, not a county!”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 91
Location: Youngstown, OH
Highly recommend gelid gc extreme. My personal experience is it dropped a sandy bridge system 3C cooler than Arctic silver 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 165
Location: London
When it comes to applying AS5 it depends on the CPU you are using on how best to apply it.
http://www.arcticsilver.com/intel_application_method.html#
I have seen temps vary by 6-7c from a poor to good application i guess its why some people find other TIM's to be better, AS5 can be a real PIA to get right. It took me three tries a load of reading and watching YouTube clips to eventually get a result i was happy with. There is a lot to be said for TIM's with better spread and easier application than AS5.

_________________
Case: P182, Fans: 4xNF-P12@800Rpm, MoBo: GA-EX58-UD4, CPU: i920, GPU: GV-N670OC-2GD, PSU: Seasonic 760 platinum, HDD: HD203WI, SSD: VTX4-25SAT3-128


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am
Posts: 253
xan_user wrote:
all im saying is; if your cpu/gpu are at your preferred clock speed(s) and under spec temps, with your fan(s) quiet enough to not hear over your ambient noise level, then 6 degrees less give no benefit. i see it all the time, -some one is happy with the noise of their rig at 65*C when maxed out in prime 95/furmark ect. , but for some reason they still want to lower cpu temps. (and often their real usage would never reach that kind of stress anyway.. :| )

BTW, if you're really worried about a couple of degrees, you should probably look into lapping your CPU heat spreader or removing it all together.


but if the CPU temperature can be lower by 6 deg., that CPU last longer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:23 am
Posts: 18
Location: Bucharest, Romania
I have an Athlon XP CPU has happily lived for 8 years at ~52C in idle(target temp in speedfan), survived an overtemp shutdown(a bit of roasted electronics smell included) and that CPU has lower tolerances than Intel's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am
Posts: 595
Removing the IHS as pointed out would be the approach if you're serious about dropping temps, that said, there are risks involved and you will void the warranty.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group