Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Cooling Processors quietly

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:54 pm

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?

CA_Steve
Moderator
Posts: 7446
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Monterey Bay, CA

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by CA_Steve » Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:17 pm

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, Asrock Z97 Anniversary, MSI GTX 1660 Gaming X, 8GB 1866 RAM, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB, Crucial MX100 256GB, WD Red 2TB, Samsung DVD burner, Fractal Define R4, Antec True Quiet 140 (2 front + rear) case fans, Seasonic SSR-550FX. 35W idle, 45-55W video streaming, 170-200W WoW, 318W stress test (Prime95 + Furmark)

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:34 am

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

Spoon Boy
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Location: London

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Spoon Boy » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:18 am

: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

MikeC
Site Admin
Posts: 12283
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by MikeC » Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:41 am

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, SPCR Editor/Publisher
Support SPCR by buying your gear through this link: Amazon

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Vicotnik » Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:24 am

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 535 120GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 11.2W
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

Abula
Posts: 3612
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:22 pm
Location: Guatemala

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Abula » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:14 am

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 - Intel i9 9900K + Gigabyte Z390 AM + Asus RTX2080Ti Strix | MiniMi - Intel i7 8700K + ASRock Z370ITX + MSI RTX2080Ti
StreaMi - Intel i9 7940X + AsRock X299 Taichi + Asus GTX1080Ti Strix | WorkMi - AMD 1950X + AsRock X399 Taichi + MSI GTX1080
ServeMi - Intel Xeon E3-1230 + Supermicro X9SCM-F + 144TB | StoreMi - Intel Xeon E3 1240v5 + Supermicro X11SSM-F + 42TB | CamMi - Intel i7 4770K + MSI H81i + Blue Iris

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:30 pm

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?

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:24 pm

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?

Cistron
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:18 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Cistron » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:13 am

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.

Spoon Boy
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Location: London

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Spoon Boy » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:33 am

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

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:53 am

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.

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by nutball » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:58 am

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?

flemeister
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by flemeister » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:21 pm

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.

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:27 am

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?

Cistron
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:18 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Cistron » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:07 am

Now I'm starting to wonder how Mercury would fare ... ;)

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by xan_user » Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:00 pm

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.
Help SPCR keep the lights on, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Vicotnik » Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:41 pm

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 535 120GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 11.2W
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

flemeister
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by flemeister » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:17 pm

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.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by xan_user » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:45 am

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.
Help SPCR keep the lights on, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

flemeister
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by flemeister » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:14 pm

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)

laststop
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:37 am
Location: Youngstown, OH

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by laststop » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:32 pm

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.a ... 6835426020 - 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.

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Vicotnik » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:54 pm

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 535 120GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 11.2W
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

Spoon Boy
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Location: London

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Spoon Boy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:25 am

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

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by xan_user » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:47 am

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.
Help SPCR keep the lights on, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

laststop
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:37 am
Location: Youngstown, OH

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by laststop » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:34 am

Highly recommend gelid gc extreme. My personal experience is it dropped a sandy bridge system 3C cooler than Arctic silver 5.

Spoon Boy
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 pm
Location: London

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Spoon Boy » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:26 am

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_appli ... thod.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

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:24 am

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

Lucky Luciano
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:23 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Lucky Luciano » Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:52 am

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.
case CM Silencio 550 + Antec True Quiet 14 + Scythe SY1225SL12L | psu Super Flower Golden Green SF-550P14XE(GX)
mobo ASRock Z97M Pro4 | cpu Intel Pentium G3258 @ 4.2 GHz | cooler Scythe Kotetsu | ssd Intel 530 | hdd Seagate NAS

walle
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by walle » Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:45 am

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.

Post Reply