You are rapidly making yourself out to be a bit of a fool,no one cares what chip it is or what volts are used,its just a test rig,a baseline control for the test,paste doesnt magically become a better conductor at higher temps,the transfer rate is constant,W/(m·K) doesnt alter.
And cherry picked? Hardly,I just used the first one google threw up. Perhaps the others here that also disagree are cherry picking?
Speak for yourself, god forbid people have a nice conversation around here and have to resort to name calling
It matters, when people think that 'thermal pastes dont matter' because they read bad reviews that test stock voltages and near-stock powers, they think there's only a 1C difference between the best and worst paste, and it's simply not true. These same review sites would have you believe water cooling is only a 5-10C difference between air too.
At higher temps, the differences become exaggerated
. What's a 3C difference on Tomshardware, is more like a 9-12C difference when you push a high overclock, like 99% of the people in this club are doing. At the very least, the vast majority of OCN'ers and overclockers in general are pushing far harder overclocks than toms or hwsecrets stock voltage overclocks. We aren't paying thousands for custom loops, high end motherboards, all to push stock voltage 10% overclocks, we're pushing the same 4.4-5ghz as most people do with a moderate increase in voltage.
Pick a better thermal paste review. I'm sure you are well aware of the fact that most review sites are garbage and do not do critical reviews that fully explore the products used.
A big problem with thermal paste and heatsink reviews is that they want to put the worst TIM or heatsink on the same page as the best. In the real world, you'd have 60-70C on a custom water loop and a Hyper 212 would be like 150C and just not even usable, but for such a heatsink review, they gotta put them on the same graph so you see a 60-70C Hyper 212 and a 50C custom water loop. That leads people to think things like 'Well water isn't worth it', or 'the hyper 212 aint so bad', but you do a real world overclock on a real world CPU and the difference becomes massive.
I'm not saying test 1.55v on a 4960x, but at least test an i7 at email@example.com. These hardware reviews really need to be more voltage
than real world usage, not less, to fully push this stuff and exaggerate the differences, not less.
The GPU test that TH did is at least useful and relevant, and it's exactly consistent with everything I stated.
While iv'e heard CLU can dry i'm wondering if extreme temp is what causes it. I just pulled apart my 9 month old 3570k de-lid & the CLU was still very liquid. On the other hand the CLU between the nickel block & IHS was a different story. It looked like the CLU had absorbed into the crappy soft copper of the IHS, but what was on the nickel block was still pretty fluid.
I think CLU is a mix of liquid (gallium likely) and solids suspending in the solution. I've had tubes dry out and like I couldn't push it all out because all the solids just clump up at the end of the tube. I think it does stain in a bit and that's where some of the liquid goes, but that's also how it gets such a solid contact and works so well.
You can find hegrease right now on PFPC (or xoxide? one of those sites...) for $1.99 for a 1g tube, which is basically a lifetime supply for most users. There's just no excuse to be using something as crappy as MX-4 or AS5 when you can get the best ceramique in the world for only $2
And CLU for $15, I mean that's literally the best value in cooling anywhere in the world, no where else will $15 go so far and give you such a temp drop. It's just silly for people with $300 cpus, $500 custom loops, etc, to cheap out on thermal paste.
As long as the die that CLU is being applied to is glass there should be no issues. Personally when I moved away from CLU I moved to MX-4 and quite honestly the temp differences are ~1C not significant enough to deal with re applying CLU when it dries out and repolishing the block.
What was it being used on and the overclock? If you only saw a 1C difference that sounds more like just not really needing a high end thermal paste in the first place rather then CLU being bad or MX-4 being good. If you run stock clocks or a low overclock then there's no point in getting different paste.Edited by Belial - 12/17/13 at 1:51pm