Graphene thermal pad for AMD CPUs promises 17X better conductivity than thermal paste, 2X improvement over Thermal Grizzly

GPE-01
(Image credit: Coracer)

Chinese manufacturer Coracer has introduced the GPE-01 graphene thermal pads for AMD's AM5 processors, which are currently some of the best CPUs you can buy. Previously, the GPE-01 was compatible only with Intel's LGA1851 and LGA1700 chips.

Traditional thermal paste has existed for decades. While it may not be the most exciting component, it effectively fulfills its purpose. In recent years, however, enthusiasts have developed a preference for alternative materials to fill the gap between the processor and CPU cooler. As a result, options like liquid metal and thermal pads have become more common in the market and on our page of the best thermal paste and TIM we've tested.

Segotep introduced the GPE-01 (21 x 44mm) at the end of last year, tailored for the elongated designs of Intel's LGA1851 and LGA1700 processors. While Segotep is a well-established brand in the Chinese market, we were unaware of Coracer. A Google search brought no results, leaving us uncertain whether Coracer is a new sub-brand of Segotep or if the original manufacturer licensed the GPE-01 to another brand.

Regardless, the AM5 variant of the GPE-01 measures 32 x 32mm and aligns perfectly with the processor's integrated heat spreader (IHS). While AM5 chips feature an unconventional design, the GPE-01 adopts a square shape that covers the entire IHS but doesn't overreach to the corners.

According to Coracer, the GPE-01 utilizes a combination of graphene and silicon to achieve an eye-popping thermal conductivity up to 130 W/m·K. The thermal pad is encased in an isolating material that stops the graphene from creating a short circuit with the processor. Graphene is known for its excellent conductivity. As a result, manufacturers increasingly utilize this material in thermal pads and paste.

GPE-01 Graphene Thermal Pad Specifications

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Brand

Thermal Conductivity

Pricing

GPE-01

130 W/m·K

?

Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut

73 W/m·K

$12.43

Honeywell PTM7950

8.5 W/m·K

$19.99

Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet

7.5 W/m·K

$18.13

Arctic MX-6

7.5 W/m·K

$7.99

The GPE-01 boasts an impressive thermal conductivity of 130 W/m·K. This figure is nearly 2X higher than Thermal Grizzly's Conductonaut liquid metal thermal paste. Additionally, it exceeds the thermal conductivity of Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet graphene thermal pads and Arctic MX-6 carbon filler-based thermal paste by more than 17X, and the Honeywell PTM7950 phase change thermal pad by 15X.

As with any claims regarding thermal conductivity, we advise being skeptical of figures provided by vendors. There have been instances where manufacturers inflate the thermal conductivity values to promote their products. While we are not alleging that this is the situation with the GPE-01, it is wise to approach the numbers with caution. Research has shown that graphene is a thermally conductive material that can reach levels up to 4,000 W/m·K, so there may be some credence to the GPE-01's high conductivity figures.

In addition to its astronomical conductivity values, Coracer states that the GPE-01 can last up to 10 years. This assertion is more credible, given that the performance of thermal paste diminishes over time and ultimately dries out. Thermal pads, in contrast, have a longer lifespan, eliminating the need to repaste your processor every few years like with regular thermal paste. With the GPE-01, users likely won't need to replace the pads until their next upgrade, unless they keep their system for over a decade.

We haven't come across any online reviews for the GPE-01, so we are unable to assess the performance of the graphene thermal pad. Coracer has not disclosed the price or availability of the GPE-01, while the Intel version is priced at approximately $15 on the Chinese e-commerce site Taobao. This price is similar to that of Thermal Grizzly's KryoSheet graphene thermal pads.

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.

Zhiye Liu
News Editor and Memory Reviewer

Zhiye Liu is a news editor and memory reviewer at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • thestryker
    Thermal conductivity by itself doesn't mean a whole lot because thickness is equally important. Roman (der8auer) went through how they test TIM at Thermal Grizzly and what all goes into making a good material: 1BfSx5IG42cView: https://youtu.be/1BfSx5IG42c?si=_Bz0ZSLLz7gLkRCX
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I don't pay too much heed to manufacturers' claims about thermal conductivity. What really matters is test results. This shows Thermal Grizzly's KryoSheet is truly in a different class than pastes like Arctic MX-6:

    Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/thermal-grizzly-kryosheet-amd-gpu/5.html
    It's a pity I haven't seen it tested on Toms. Ideally, we'd see a review that tried it on both an AM5 and Intel CPU with an air and water cooler.

    P.S. Some people tout the reusability of graphene pads, but Thermal Grizzly themselves advise against this. You can look at that cynically, if you wish. And yes, I know the reviewer at TPU (above) got better performance, the second time around. That's a sample of 1 (would be nice to have more data points... hint, hint).
    Reply
  • John Nemesh
    I am completely disinterested in a product that 1) hasn't been thoroughly tested by independent reviewers and 2) is unobtainable through normal channels in the US.

    It could be the best thing ever, but until it has been tested and the results PROVEN, AND it's easily ordered through major retailers here in the US, I won't give it a 2nd thought.
    Reply
  • SheLikesMeForMyClock
    bit_user said:
    I don't pay too much heed to manufacturers' claims about thermal conductivity. What really matters is test results. This shows Thermal Grizzly's KryoSheet is truly in a different class than pastes like Arctic MX-6:
    Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/thermal-grizzly-kryosheet-amd-gpu/5.html
    It's a pity I haven't seen it tested on Toms. Ideally, we'd see a review that tried it on both an AM5 and Intel CPU with an air and water cooler.

    P.S. Some people tout the reusability of graphene pads, but Thermal Grizzly themselves advise against this. You can look at that cynically, if you wish. And yes, I know the reviewer at TPU (above) got better performance, the second time around. That's a sample of 1 (would be nice to have more data points... hint, hint).
    Agreed. I'm currently using a Kryosheet on my 9950X. Granted I have open loop cooling, but with PBO and DDR5-8000 (I'm still getting my more custom OCs dialed in) my idle temps are ~10°C below average, and my multi-core Cinebench run tops out 18°C below TJMax at 100% load. I'm obviously working now to rid myself of that headroom in place of some extra benchmarking points, but I was pretty blown away that I even had that much headroom on a modern 16C/32T CPU to begin with. Most people would undervolt, but I'm just gonna raise TDP/PPT until it either asks for more cooling or more voltage, and then go from there. I have to think that Kryosheet has at least *something* to do with it.
    Reply
  • psyconz
    John Nemesh said:
    I am completely disinterested in a product that 1) hasn't been thoroughly tested by independent reviewers and 2) is unobtainable through normal channels in the US.

    It could be the best thing ever, but until it has been tested and the results PROVEN, AND it's easily ordered through major retailers here in the US, I won't give it a 2nd thought.
    Good thing Tomshardware is available worldwide and not just the USA! ;P
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    bit_user said:
    P.S. Some people tout the reusability of graphene pads, but Thermal Grizzly themselves advise against this. You can look at that cynically, if you wish. And yes, I know the reviewer at TPU (above) got better performance, the second time around. That's a sample of 1 (would be nice to have more data points... hint, hint).
    I went with Roman Hartungs liquid metal on an Erying made G660 board with a mobile Alder Lake i7-12700H, since its original paste caused it to throttle before the die sensor ever reported more than 60°C.

    It seemed like perfect conditions, with the board horizontally mounted and the (naked mobile) die not having any resistors or similar on top, which could short out when metal escaped. The die carrier also featured a ring on its outside, much like a tiny wall around the laquered swimming pool or basin the die sat on.

    Results were fantastic, too, I got desktop-class results at 90-120 Watts yet the very low idle typical from mobile chips.

    But a few months later, throttling returned and inspection found the metal had all escaped into that basin on the sides of the chip on the die carrier, creating a void between the die surface, the cooling shim that effectively replaced the IHS and the cooler.

    It hadn't escaped further (until I treid to remove it), but it certainly could no longer cool the chip. You really need a seal around the liquid metal, it won't just stick in place on its own even in a horizontal mounting position.

    Nvidia uses a three ringed seal on Blackwell, if I understand correctly...

    I also saw visible pitting on the die's top, which I wasn't very happy about.

    I replaced it with Kryosheet next, but the results were nowhere near what I had gotten with the liquid metal and when I checked for proper seat and alignment of the Krysheet, it teared and fell apart rather easily, perhaps because also the die and shim surfaces were no longer had a mirror sheen to them.

    I then also read up on testing reports from Igor Wallosek, who stressed that proper pressure was rather important for the correct functioning of graphene pads. My low-profile Noctua cooler doesn't offer much pressure control, and I felt it was simply adding another variable I didn't want to care for.

    For a moment I even considered mixing the graphene pad and liquid metal to keep it from running out under pressure, but reconsidered just how smart I had been when it came to cooling things (and that evidently nobody else was doing this).

    And if the pitting were to be on top of one of the CPU cores, chances are neither sheet nor paste will properly fill it creating a gap. And Alder Lake doesn't do per-core individual turbo limits, yet, that came with Raptor. So any further pitting and deterioration of a single core would thottle or kill the entire chip.

    For the moment I've returned to paste, which gives me identical results to the graphene pads, mostly a turbo limit near 45 Watts while reported die temperatures remain around 60°C. To me that indicates rapid throttling action, but at least a system that still works as designed (for mobile TDP) and with all cores.

    I've also ordered a phase change pad which I plan to mount next time I take the system apart, just for sake of curiosity and because I'm not about to delid one of my really expensive workstation CPUs: the G660 was cheap enough to be victimized for the sake of cooling science, if it should come to that. Being phase change it might just be liquid enough to fill some pits, yet not creep out like the liquid metal did, at least that's what I aim for.

    But yeah, when I reported my disappointment at the graphene pad's endurance to their customer service, Thermal Grizzly confirmed that it wouldn't support multiple applications, something that Linus unfortunately hinted at in one of his videos.

    I guess there is quite a few good reasons, why paste is still so popular!
    Reply
  • bit_user
    abufrejoval said:
    For a moment I even considered mixing the graphene pad and liquid metal to keep it from running out under pressure, but reconsidered just how smart I had been when it came to cooling things (and that evidently nobody else was doing this).
    Inspired by a side-comment made by the TechPowerUp reviewer of the graphene KryoSheet pad, I am planning to try this. I already have some Conductonaut Extreme, for the purpose. I am planning on using less than the normal amount of liquid metal, and hoping the porosity of the KryoSheet helps to hold it in place, along with the slight concavity of the loaded LGA1700 IHS (even when used with a contact frame!). The conductivity of the KryoSheet might also help the liquid metal stick to it. I have two KryoSheets, so that I can test without and with liquid metal, each time with a fresh sheet.

    abufrejoval said:
    And Alder Lake doesn't do per-core individual turbo limits, yet, that came with Raptor.
    Mine does. The i9-12900 supports Turbo Boost 3.0. Two of my P-cores can boost up to 5.1 GHz, while the rest report they can only boost up to 5.0.

    abufrejoval said:
    I've also ordered a phase change pad which I plan to mount next time I take the system apart, just for sake of curiosity and because I'm not about to delid one of my really expensive workstation CPUs:
    You might profit from a quick read of my misadventure with it.
    https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/thermal-grizzly-phasesheet-fail.3880520/
    I plan to try again, this weekend. I'll be updating that thread, whether I succeed or suffer another failure.

    abufrejoval said:
    Being phase change it might just be liquid enough to fill some pits, yet not creep out like the liquid metal did, at least that's what I aim for.
    I've read they recommend 10 heating/cooling cycles, before you should expect to see its best performance.

    Also, note that they claim it's not as "low maintenance" as the KryoSheet. I suspect that means it's susceptible to some amount of pump-out or drying.

    abufrejoval said:
    I guess there is quite a few good reasons, why paste is still so popular!
    I just used some Artic MX-6 with an old Cooler Master "direct-touch heatpipe" heatsink and found I had to use quite a lot of it! I ended up using an "asterisk" pattern and then spent like 5 minutes working it back & forth (the mounting mechanism limited my range of motion).

    I think a PTM pad would be perfect, for that sort of application. Maybe we'll find out!
    ; )
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    bit_user said:
    Inspired by a side-comment made by the TechPowerUp reviewer of the graphene KryoSheet pad, I am planning to try this. I already have some Conductonaut Extreme, for the purpose. I am planning on using less than the normal amount of liquid metal, and hoping the porosity of the KryoSheet helps to hold it in place, along with the slight concavity of the loaded LGA1700 IHS (even when used with a contact frame!). The conductivity of the KryoSheet might also help the liquid metal stick to it. I have two KryoSheets, so that I can test without and with liquid metal, each time with a fresh sheet.
    That's the thing, the Kryosheet shouldn't really be porous, once the proper pressure is applied: real pores would be air and thus not conduct terribly well.

    As far as I recall, the fibres aren't just a horizontal cross-weave, but supposedly angled somewhat upright, because their best conductivity is end-to-end, not from the side. And then they are supposed to bend and pack tight with pressure, with mostly round-to-square gaps left to fill. Carbon fibers aren't really compressible so the slight compressibility or surface adaptability required needs to come from the adjustable weave and filler material.

    That filler material isn't discussed by Roman Hartung and only briefly debated by Igor Wallosek and likely occupies the same round-to-square space that the liquid metal could. That may also be the reason, multiple applications don't really work, because the filler material is no longer optimally distributed between the fibers, while their short length causes easy untangling and separation.

    I didn't dig much beyond that, Roman Hartung can't go into too many details for IP reasons and I don't have the type of material, tools and know-how that Igor Wallosek has at his disposal.

    Nor did I want to create another mess on a hunch, even if I still have all the raw materials left over.

    You may want to read Igor's test reports or search a little further, but if you have an IHS on the CPU, the risks are much lower anyway. The corrosive and pitting effects of the liquid metal on both the naked die and the metal surfaces of the IHS-shim and the cooler had me reaffirm that I really don't like liquids in my systems.

    I'm really not an overclocking guy, it's only that at 60°C the CPU obviously wasn't even trying. Now I'm just not sure it's really just not measuring fast enough and throttle kicks in long before permanent damage can be done in that tiny hotspot that no longer gets contact cooling in the pit.

    Thanks for the link on the phase change experiences, I'll try to keep that in mind and perhaps wait until Summer is over.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    abufrejoval said:
    The corrosive and pitting effects of the liquid metal on both the naked die and the metal surfaces of the IHS-shim and the cooler had me reaffirm that I really don't like liquids in my systems.
    What was the material of the shim? Since most high-end heatsinks are nickle-plated (as is the one I'm planning to use), I'm assuming I won't have much to fear from it. They do explicitly caution against using with aluminum.

    abufrejoval said:
    I'm really not an overclocking guy, it's only that at 60°C the CPU obviously wasn't even trying.
    Me neither, but I like to get the most out of my heatsink and fans, as well as promoting better hardware stability. About the furthest I venture towards the realm of overclocking is raising power limits, which won't void your warranty. Of course, that places more demands on your cooling, which is another reason I'm interested in the subject.

    Now I'm just not sure it's really just not measuring fast enough and throttle kicks in long before permanent damage can be done in that tiny hotspot that no longer gets contact cooling in the pit.

    abufrejoval said:
    Thanks for the link on the phase change experiences, I'll try to keep that in mind and perhaps wait until Summer is over.
    Oh, I'd say that's overkill. My plan is simply to peel off the first layer of plastic immediately after removing it from the refridgerator. I will also have a sharp hobby knife handy, in case it needs a little encouragement detaching from one sheet or staying attached to the other. Once that first sheet is removed, I think the rest should go fine.

    Like I said, I'll update the thread with the outcome of the second attempt.
    Reply
  • Elusive Ruse
    I have been using a Kryosheet for over a year now and I’m quite pleased with its performance over the MX-5 I was previously using. I highly recommend it to anyone who is thinking of making the switch.
    Reply