Arctic launches its best thermal paste yet for chips of all types — claims new MX-7 formulation runs 3% cooler than its predecessor
Arctic has a well-earned reputation for its thermal pastes, with its MX-6 being one of the best thermal pastes on the market. The company has introduced the MX-7 to stay ahead of the competition. It claims the MX-7 is the company's coolest thermal paste to date, with prices ranging from $6-10.
Having launched three years ago, the MX-6 still feels quite new, but in a competitive market where new products come out every year, staying relevant is key. The MX-7 features a new formula that Arctic understandably keeps under wraps. Still, the company shares that the MX-7 boasts low adhesion for even distribution, high viscosity for flow resistance, and high cohesion for more durable bonding.
- Arctic MX-7 2 grams: $6.89
- Arctic MX-7 4 grams: $7.39
- Arctic MX-7 4 grams with six MX-Cleaner wipes: $9.59
- Arctic MX-7 8 grams: $8.59
Arctic takes a different approach from other thermal paste brands by not emphasizing thermal conductivity values for its products. As detailed in the specification sheet, the MX-7 is up to 22% less viscous than the MX-6 and approximately 12% denser than its predecessor. In Arctic's own testing, using a Core Ultra 9 285K at 4.5 GHz and drawing around 284W in an ambient temperature of 25 degrees Celsius, the MX-7 managed to deliver temperatures about 3% cooler than the MX-6 and up to 6% cooler than the MX-4.
Arctic MX-7 Specifications
Specification | MX-7 | MX-6 | MX-5 | MX-4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Viscosity | 35,000 - 38,000 Poise | 45,000 Poise | 550 Poise | 870 Poise |
Density | 2.9 g/cm³ | 2.6 g/cm³ | 3.2 g/cm³ | 2.5 g/cm³ |
Continuous Use Temperature | -50~150 ℃ | -50~150 ℃ | -40~180 ℃ | -50~150 ℃ |
Volume Resistivity | 1.7 X 10¹² Ω-cm | 1.8 X 10¹² Ω-cm | 1.9 X 10¹² Ω-cm | 3.8 X 10¹² Ω-cm |
Breakdown voltage | 4.2 kV/mm | 7.5 kV/mm | 250 V/mm | N/A |
Rest assured, the thermal paste is completely safe to use with direct-die cooling solutions because it's not electrically conductive or capacitive. This means you don't need to worry about any risk of short circuits or discharges that could damage your devices.
While the MX-7 is less thick than the MX-6, it still has a nice, viscous consistency. Arctic suggests avoiding spreading the paste with a spatula. Instead, applying it in a simple cross pattern is best, and let your CPU cooler do the magic. The pressure from the cooler will evenly spread the MX-7, filling in any gaps and giving you complete coverage. This helpful tip also works well for coolers with direct-touch heat pipes.
Since the MX-7 is non-capacitive and non-conductive, it's simple to wipe away excess or old applications with ease. Arctic also offers a separate MX Cleaner wipe that's perfect for cleaning thermal paste. Plus, these wipes can be purchased together as an MX-7 bundle for added convenience.
You can easily find the MX-7 for sale on Amazon. The latest thermal paste isn't much pricier than the previous version. To give you an idea, the 2-gram and 8-gram syringes cost just about $1.40 more, while the other MX-7 options are less than $0.50 more expensive than their older versions.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
With so many Arctic knockoffs out there, it's a good idea to buy your MX-7 from trusted retailers. Arctic has also improved its MX Authenticity Check system, allowing you to easily verify your product’s authenticity using a unique QR code for each item. This helps ensure you get the real deal and have peace of mind with your purchase.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.
-
bit_user Ugh. ...and I just purchased a tube of the latest version of MX-6, only a few weeks ago!!Reply
BTW, my MX-6 says "Rev. 4" on the panel of the box with the QR code and barcodes. I don't know if all versions said which they were, but read all of the small text on that panel and you'll see it, if it's there. Here's a full review of Rev 4:
https://www.igorslab.de/en/arctic-mx-6-new-formula-2025-thermal-paste-test-is-the-new-formula-really-better/ -
bit_user Reply
Depends on whether the base has lots of gaps. For older coolers featuring direct-touch heat pipes, I've found a heavier application is needed for full coverage. I've used an asterisk pattern. When I tried an X and then removed it, the coverage was far from complete.The article said:Instead, applying it in a simple cross pattern is best, and let your CPU cooler do the magic. The pressure from the cooler will evenly spread the MX-7, filling in any gaps and giving you complete coverage. This helpful tip also works well for coolers with direct-touch heat pipes.
Yes, I know it's bad to apply too much, but the only thing worse than too much heatsink compound is applying not enough! -
thestryker Been largely using Arctic MX-5/6 paste for all of my recent builds and they've been good (I got some of the good batch of MX-5). I wonder how the viscosity on this one will play out. I'm assuming the low adhesion part is why they say to not use a spatula.Reply
Whenever I use those now, because I spread paste very thin, I actually apply paste to the bottom of the heatsink as well to fill any gaps.bit_user said:Depends on whether the base has lots of gaps. For older coolers featuring direct-touch heat pipes, I've found a heavier application is needed for full coverage. -
passivecool "What is the best paste?" Anyone who says anything other than: "it depends..." is probably BS you.Reply
If you want to make a more informed decision, check igors lab for the paste & pad analysis database.
Scientific almost to a fault - for an evaluation of a (relatively small but growing) selection of thermal pastes and pads. True conductivity across multiple applications / thicknesses? Ease of use? Durability (pump-put)? Incl. microscopic and chemical composition analysis. Everything you never wanted to know and more.
IL has a database of the great (but unobtainable), the good, (/solid mainstream), the bad, and the ugly ( "it contains diamond nanotubes, really!").
Nothing is better than a solid data basis!
Okay, for most of us, at least. 🦊
pc -
bit_user Reply
The current Amazon price for 8g is about $8.60. I bought an 8g tube of MX-6 (v1 or v2) over 2 years ago, which I've used quite a few times and it's still about half full. So, I'd say the typical application is about 0.5g or less. For a DIYer, that's a pretty negligible cost, compared to basically any other part of your build.TechieTwo said:As long as the price isn't stupid, it's all good. :)
https://www.amazon.com/ARCTIC-MX-7-Conductivity-Non-Conductive-Non-Capacitive/dp/B0FT2TC2NW/
They also list a 4g size, but it's only about $1.20 cheaper. Still, that's an ample amount for a few builds/rebuilds.
https://www.amazon.com/ARCTIC-MX-7-Conductivity-Non-Conductive-Non-Capacitive/dp/B0FT2XSPSN/ -
uplink-svk Nice. Stopped using MX at an unknown iteration of general v4 . Was using NT-H1 and NT-H2 for years, besides that whole folio of TG TiM solutions incl. LM. Loved the purple one, Extreme was it?Reply
Anywho, now it's flat KryoSheet and PTM. KryoSheet for all high pressure low risk with no naked SMDs exposed on the substrate and PTM everywhere where it's otherwise. In particular high risk of SMD exposure to TiM, low pressure scenarios like notebooks and when I'm on a budget.
Am honestly looking forward for a new PTM revision. It's a miracle TiM. If You didn't have a pleasure yet to use it, try it. No need to use the TG one, You can use the one from automotive directly , the OG 7950. -
bit_user Reply
I have admittedly only tried it with one heatsink that was an older 5-pipe Cooler Master direct-touch, on an AM4 (5800X), but found TG PhaseSheet to work slightly less well than Arctic MX-6 paste. It's also a little tricky to work with. Definitely follow their directions to a T!uplink-svk said:Am honestly looking forward for a new PTM revision. It's a miracle TiM. If You didn't have a pleasure yet to use it, try it.
Tried TG Kryosheet on the same CPU (different heatsink). I also compared it to MX-6 on that heatsink and also found MX-6 to work slightly better, but KryoSheet is easy to work with if you're gentle and use the supplied silicone oil to help it stay in place (I used two dots at the edge of the IHS, since they weren't specific about where to apply it) and take comfort in knowing its performance will never degrade.uplink-svk said:now it's flat KryoSheet and PTM. KryoSheet for all high pressure low risk with no naked SMDs exposed
BTW, I did not hold the KryoSheet with my fingers or even tweezers. It's packaged between a pair of plastic films and I just use one plastic film to position it and a corner of the other piece to slide it off the first. It's supposedly very brittle, like mechanical pencil leads. -
snemarch Reply
Eh, "too much" will just end up being pushed out and leave a mess on your motherboard – which is harmless, unless you're using something electrically conductive (which you shouldn't be doing).bit_user said:Yes, I know it's bad to apply too much, but the only thing worse than too much heatsink compound is applying not enough!
I'm on team "spread it sorta evenly, even if lazily, with a spatula" – it's wasteful both in time and amount of thermal paste used, but it totally eliminates the risk of under-applying, and doesn't really have any other disadvantages if you're not in the extreme overclocking segment.
I'll be looking into graphene pads and PTM79xx for my next builds. My initial impression is that PTM isn't a super good choice for regular modern-CPU builds, since it requires cycles of **really** high temperatures (like > 90C) to settle in, so it mostly interesting for GPUs or delidded direct-die CPU cooling? -
thestryker Reply
I used a V1 Thermalright Heilos pad (near as I can tell the difference between V1 and V2 is V1 is thinner and application is slightly different) with a 14700K and Royal Pretor 130 and it's been fine (haven't run all core loads yet). If you're doing heavy workloads it'll cycle enough, and if you aren't doing heavy workloads it won't matter anyways. I used it simply because I don't plan on ever taking it apart down the road.snemarch said:My initial impression is that PTM isn't a super good choice for regular modern-CPU builds, since it requires cycles of **really** high temperatures (like > 90C) to settle in, so it mostly interesting for GPUs or delidded direct-die CPU cooling?