Arctic mx-4 and Arctic Silver 5. Which will be better for my rig?

grandgalaz · Jun 24, 2017

Hi, I am about to buy a thermal paste for my 2 years old machine. I have been using CoolerMaster ThermalFusion 400 ever since. Are the mx4 and silver5 any better than the thermalfusion400?

I am using CoolerMaster Hyper412s. Rest of the computer setup is given below. I need to know what will produce best result among the three for my particular machine?

jossrik · Jun 24, 2017

At this point in the game, all three are in the medium to low end category for TIM. If you're about to buy, look around for some nano diamond, that's currently my favorite for every day use, a lot more expensive would be the Thermal Grizzly, that would be your high bar to reach. On the upside, of the three you mentioned there's only going to be a degree or two at most difference, within margin of error difference.

clutchc · Jun 24, 2017

The CM TIM is fine. But if you are out and need to buy new TIM, then either of those you mentioned is an excellent choice. The MX-4 has the added benefit of being non electrically conductive if you get sloppy. I have used both and like both, but settled on MX-4 because I use a lot and am bound to get careless eventually.

grandgalaz · Jun 27, 2017

jossrik :

There is not much noise about diamond based TIMs. Why do you think it's better than Arctic MX-4? Please explain.

jossrik · Jun 28, 2017

grandgalaz :

Mostly personal preference. Physics wise diamond has good thermal transfer properties, in fact, it's one of the better non synthetics, but as far as TIM goes it performs similarly enough to the rest of that price range. There have been experiments where they have tested stuff like peanut butter and toothpaste as TIM and it comes out similarly to the low end stuff. The stuff I've seen on application is that you can't have too much as long as you don't short anything, but you can have too little, so you want *a* paste (not terribly important which one) and good pressure between the heatsink and the processor, least until you start to get into more expensive cooling, the good pastes can be 5 - 7 C difference from the poor pastes. Not necessarily expensive/cheap though.

clutchc · Jun 28, 2017

I don't know if even too little TIM is a problem. I played around a bit and wiped the once-used paste off both cooler and CPU surfaces with the edge of a credit card, leaving just what remained in the microscopic pores of the metal. (What Arctic Silver refers to as 'tinting' in their instructions)

After putting it back together, idle and load temps were still normal. And that's with a 125W CPU.

jossrik · Jun 28, 2017

clutchc :

Don't feel bad, I've done that as well in the past, the test I saw (youtube, so not necessarily repeatable or scientific beyond the one test), too little wasn't enough to get any coverage between the sink and the processor, and by that, you can infer very very little was used cause good pressure will press even a very small amount over most of the processor.

grandgalaz · Jul 4, 2017

jossrik :

grandgalaz :

Mostly personal preference. Physics wise diamond has good thermal transfer properties, in fact, it's one of the better non synthetics, but as far as TIM goes it performs similarly enough to the rest of that price range. There have been experiments where they have tested stuff like peanut butter and toothpaste as TIM and it comes out similarly to the low end stuff. The stuff I've seen on application is that you can't have too much as long as you don't short anything, but you can have too little, so you want *a* paste (not terribly important which one) and good pressure between the heatsink and the processor, least until you start to get into more expensive cooling, the good pastes can be 5 - 7 C difference from the poor pastes. Not necessarily expensive/cheap though.

If that's the case then I think mx-4 too can show some good results. Although, diamond TIMs , well I will have my eyes on them. If somewhere I get to know some dramatic results then I will try them out too.

One more question. Which process (pea/cross/ zig zag etc.) can produce best result individually with mx-4 and diamond TIMs?

jossrik · Jul 4, 2017

grandgalaz :

jossrik :

If that's the case then I think mx-4 too can show some good results. Although, diamond TIMs , well I will have my eyes on them. If somewhere I get to know some dramatic results then I will try them out too.

One more question. Which process (pea/cross/ zig zag etc.) can produce best result individually with mx-4 and diamond TIMs?

With the thicker pastes I use a small pea in the middle, then when it's mostly tightened down I twist the heatsink a little in each direction, just not too much. With the thinner pastes I use the multiply and plus signs across the whole thing in very light lines.

clutchc · Jul 4, 2017

For Intel Processors, I tend to use the Arctic 5 method. But I've found the line or pea spot works about the same. The theory is to have a film that fills in the microscopic pores of the metal surfaces so that air (poor thermal conductor) isn't present when the parts mate.

jossrik · Jul 4, 2017

clutchc :

That's what I gathered, you technically don't want paste between the heatsink and the processor at all, but you want it where the two don't quite meet up. Air is an insulator. I've had them heatsinks where the heatpipes are just pressed into the heatsink and you need to fill the gaps with paste, but that was a long time ago, not sure what heatsinks look like now in the budget range.

grandgalaz · Jul 5, 2017

jossrik :

Whichever procedure you follow there will be some uncovered area (a procedure will result more uncovered area than the other and vice versa) where the heatsink and paste "don't quite meet up". Then, what about that uncovered area? There too will be microscopic pores and air in between.

jossrik · Jul 5, 2017

grandgalaz :

Two things to note. 1st is that there are hot spots on the processor, what you see on top isn't the chip it's the heatspreader and the chip underneath is quite a bit smaller in most cases, you only really need contact where the chip is. This varies from one model to the next so the safe way is to have as much coverage as you can without going over too much. The 2nd note is that if you use non conductive paste, have good pressure, and use the proper amount, the paste will spread over *most* of the heatspreader, with the pea method there's usually just the very corners. With the asterisk method, it will cover the entire heatspreader easily. If you check out Youtube for videos of glass on heatspreader so you can see what covers what you'll see what I mean, I forget what to search for though so you're on your own for this particular research.

grandgalaz · Jul 6, 2017

jossrik :

grandgalaz :

Two things to note. 1st is that there are hot spots on the processor, what you see on top isn't the chip it's the heatspreader and the chip underneath is quite a bit smaller in most cases, you only really need contact where the chip is. This varies from one model to the next so the safe way is to have as much coverage as you can without going over too much. The 2nd note is that if you use non conductive paste, have good pressure, and use the proper amount, the paste will spread over *most* of the heatspreader, with the pea method there's usually just the very corners. With the asterisk method, it will cover the entire heatspreader easily. If you check out Youtube for videos of glass on heatspreader so you can see what covers what you'll see what I mean, I forget what to search for though so you're on your own for this particular research.

Those are some really valuable and in depth info mate. I will search for what you suggested and will get back to you

helpstar · Jul 6, 2017

the discusion is quite interesting but because you won´t overclock your CPU and have a quite good cooler, you won´t see any differences between these TIMs.
Personally I´ve got MX-2, cheaper and nearly identical to MX-4

grandgalaz · Jul 7, 2017

helpstar :

Not as overclock, but I guess my system gets into turbo mode as I do hardcore graphic design and sometimes I use to open 2-3 heavyweight applications, plugins at once... and then, there are play times with some modern video games too

(Not more often). Hence I am expecting to see difference of at least a degree or two (may be more, fingers crossed

) with a better thermal paste than I am using now.

grandgalaz · Jul 7, 2017

jossrik :

Ok, so I did some research and found something interesting. A lot of guyz are suggesting X method which is quite fine. Now, CISCO has come up with a modified version of X method. Take a look at their page and let me know what you think http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/unified_computing/ucs/c/hw/C220M4/install/C220M4/replace.html

helpstar · Jul 7, 2017

Well, you won´t see more than 2K difference

Your CPU just draws 77W at max.

The cisco suggestion is for a XEON v4 (Socket 2011) CPU and will work like most other suggestions over the net with the same result.

Arctic mx-4 and Arctic Silver 5. Which will be better for my rig?

Distinguished

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Distinguished

Titan

Share this page