Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra vs Liquid Pro - Page 5

Yeah, in the half dozen times I've applied each, the temps were the same in the first hour as they are three days later.

I did not post to argue with you or make you look like you are inexperienced, and I do think you deserve credit for taking the time to test the Ultra and Pro TIMs and for posting your results - the information it provides to other members is what OCN is all about in the end.

But you need to ease up on the tone of your replies mate, it's uncalled for.

I was simply agreeing with some of the earlier posts that Pro performed marginally better for me and in no way was trying to discredit you in any way. If you actually read my post again, you'll see we share similar findings about usage of both products anyway.

To take feedback from other OCN members, especially thopse who use the same product you have tested, will only make you better at testing products and providing useful results to OCN members in future.

stickg1, just get some hypodermic insulin syringes from anywhere (a lot of pharmacies sell single syringes). On .5ml sticks (not the 1ml sticks), you can pull off the needle tip.

Then simply put that on the tip of your liquid ultra.

Or, couldn't you take the cap off the pro and put it on the ultra (if it does come off)?

I knew that 80+ w/mk for pro was bs! I do think un-nerfer raises valid questions tw33k but that you are willing to do more tests show you are go above and beyond. Maybe pro or ultra is 1-2*C better but I think you've proven already that there's little real world difference between the two.

^ Yea i completely agree. 82w/mk sounds like bs, and yea the same thing about why would a company release an update that is inferior (it's happened before... but it's still weird).

It's not like Liquid Ultra is Ceramique 2 vs AS5, ultra is supposed to be a straight up update to pro. Most TIMs these days are moving less towards performance, and more towards ease of use - less thermal conductivity, less corrosive, easier to spread, less viscous, cheaper, etc, but they make sure to at least keep the same thermal properties as their predecessors (ie pk-2 is no better than pk-1 but it's one of the easiest pastes out there to work with, and then pk-3 is harder to work with but much better than both).

w/mk is don't think is everything when it comes to thermal pastes, either. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I would think other things affect cooling properites (i mean granite has the best w/mk but you don't see granite pastes for a reason), and then some stuff might cool worse but just make a better connection or some other desirable property (ie nickel isnt as good as copper, barely, but it's many times more durable, hence why all heatsinks are nickel plated copper instead of copper, i mean you'll never see a true 120 copper type of heatsink again).

I'd love to see you retest with the higher overclocks. I mean it's near impossible to use too little thermal paste, I think especially when it comes to spread method, people use too much paste, think they have to cover everything or have a layer on there. You should be able to see through the paste (maybe liquids are different, but with spreading ceramiques that's the idea at least).

Dwood test bench for sale in market place --> cases

Nice review. I might soon be in the market for Liquid Ultra to delid my 3770K, and this will prove invaluable.