Artic Silver 5 vs Artic Ceramique

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nil Einne
  • Start date Start date
Most every thermal compound dries out eventually - a
completely irrelevant number that well exceeds computer life
expectancy. Again perspective. If that 'cheap' thermal
commend dries out faster, then one also provides numbers. How
long before it dries out? 20 years? Who cares? Completely
irrelevant once a number is applied. Perspective changes as
soon as numbers are applied. Myths cannot live in a world
where numbers are provided.

Myths survive where humans don't first demand that an
'information source' provide numbers. Demand numbers. If one
'feels' the Radio Shack thermal compound dries out too
quickly, then that one must have aggressively demanded numbers
from his source. Numbers, sir. Where are your numbers?
Numbers are what too many don't know when they recommend
thermal compounds such as the grossly overpriced and overhyped
Arctic Silver products. Propaganda is easily promoted to
maximize profit when the consumer does not demand numbers -
big and obviously on every package.

If Arctic Silver was so good, then those numbers would be in
very large print on every tube. One must 'search' for those
numbers for good reason. 'Hard to find' numbers are better to
empower myth purveyors who cannot be bothered to cite numbers.
 
Most every thermal compound dries out eventually - a
completely irrelevant number that well exceeds computer life
expectancy. Again perspective. If that 'cheap' thermal
commend dries out faster, then one also provides numbers. How
long before it dries out? 20 years? Who cares? Completely
irrelevant once a number is applied. Perspective changes as
soon as numbers are applied. Myths cannot live in a world
where numbers are provided.

Myths survive where humans don't first demand that an
'information source' provide numbers. Demand numbers. If one
'feels' the Radio Shack thermal compound dries out too
quickly, then that one must have aggressively demanded numbers
from his source. Numbers, sir. Where are your numbers?
Numbers are what too many don't know when they recommend
thermal compounds such as the grossly overpriced and overhyped
Arctic Silver products. Propaganda is easily promoted to
maximize profit when the consumer does not demand numbers -
big and obviously on every package.

If Arctic Silver was so good, then those numbers would be in
very large print on every tube. One must 'search' for those
numbers for good reason. 'Hard to find' numbers are better to
empower myth purveyors who cannot be bothered to cite numbers.
Click to expand...

I have seen computers with compound that has dried out completely, but
they were 5 to 10 years old, and the amount that was applied was
enough to glue the heatsink to the processor ( P1's ).
If a correct amount is used ie: a small thin film, then this will not
be a problem.
Dried out compound efficiency on a properly machined and fitted
heatsink is not going to be a problem.

Taff.............




www.sounds-pa.com | www.thecomputerworkshop.com
 
w_tom said:
1) Where does almost all heat transfer from CPU to heatsink?
At the center. If any thermal compound appears in outer half
of a CPU, then a human has applied far too much thermal
compound. As Jon notes, the most minimal film is a best
application. Thermal compound only fills microscopic holes.
Additional thermal compound only obstructs heat transfer.

Most heat transfers where heatsink makes direct contact with
CPU. Any thermal compound obstructing larger areas of direct
'CPU to heatsink' contact only makes CPU warmer. Thermal
compound makes a single degree improvement when using properly
machined heatsinks AND compensates for inferior heatsinks that
are not even machined. Thermal compound makes microscopic
holes conductive - which is why a minimal film is required -
and only in center half of a CPU.

2) From an Intel engineering paper on this subject - even no
thermal compound is quite sufficient for CPU cooling. Again,
most heat is transferred where the 'change of medium' is
less. 'CPU to heatsink' is more thermally conductive than
'CPU to thermal compound to heatsink'. This becomes obvious
once arithmetic in simple thermal equations is calculated.
Unfortunately most advocates of thermal compound have never
calculated thermal conductivity. They just know - numbers be
damned. As Conors notes -

Why? Too many recommendations come without first doing the
numbers. No numbers means junk science reasoning. Notice how
many thermal compound recommendations come with junk science
reasoning - or no supporting data whatsoever. It's called
propaganda.

3) Some also think a heatsink must be lapped perfectly
flat. Again, not true. But myths about heatsinks are so
common. Heatsinks, properly machined, maximize contact
between CPU and heatsink where the heat transfers. Proper
pressure - in pounds per square inch - must be applied which
defines how a heatsink is manufactured. Some heatsink
manufacturer engineering notes even chart PSI as it varied
across the heatsink face. But then this information is only
provided by serious heatsink manufacturers - who also provide
numerical specs. Some even explain why too much pressure may
cause less thermal conductivity. But again, demonstrated is
what one learns from serious heatsink manufacturers -
manufacturers that provide specifications even on the
product's box or tube. Again, many heatsinks are not
machined. And so they also don't dare provide the 'degree C
per watt' parameter.

4) A properly machined heatsink requires no thermal
compound. But when so many don't even demand the numerical
specs called 'degrees C per watt', then a good CPU
manufacturer best recommends every amateur use thermal
compound. Many amateurs then assume that means thermal
compound is always required - and they need not first learn
the numbers. Again, even an Intel engineering paper compared
heatsinks with various thermal compounds and no thermal
compound. Even with no thermal compound, thermal conductivity
was quite sufficient.

5) Some still use the Home Improvement concept of mass
application - "more power". Any thermal compound that leaks
out onto CPU pins is degrading CPU signals. It does not just
cause electrical conductivity. It also causes leakage due to
higher capacitance - which also degrades CPU signals.
Excessive compound may or may not cause intermittent CPU
operation. Just because one CPU had too much compound and
works does not prove anything. It is the same reasoning that
killed seven Challenger astronauts. Every thermal compound -
even low conductivity types - form undesirable capacitors
between CPU pins. Thermal compound must not get on any CPU
pins.

If any thermal compound leaks out between CPU and heatsink,
then the human is clearly a threat to reliable computer
operation. At a minimum, he did not read directions. More
typically, does not understand the concept or purpose of
thermal compound. Any thermal compound on CPU pins is totally
unacceptable - decreases CPU reliability. Compound is only
applied in center half where heat transfers.

6) How to determine if a heatsink is properly machined and
applied? Simple experiment. Apply heatsink with no thermal
compound. Measure CPU temperature on CPU - not on heatsink.
Then reapply heatsink, this time using thermal compound. If
CPU temperature drops more than 10 degrees, then return to
newsgroups to report a defective heatsink manufacturer.

Therein lies the purpose of thermal compound - to lower CPU
temperature by single digit degrees. If too much is applied,
then thermal compound spreads to outer half of CPU - where no
thermal compound should be. Too much thermal compound is even
worse thermal conductivity than no thermal compound.

7) Did Martin run 'the numbers' before posting a warning?
Numbers were posted previously. Numbers are what myth
purveyors never provide. If one cannot show a fallacy in
those numbers, then one has no idea what and how effective
thermal compound really is. Too many computer assemblers just
blindly worship thermal compound without first learning how or
why it works - and especially the numbers. Too many only
apply thermal compound because others say they should; reasons
for thermal compound be damned.

In the meantime, because so many don't even know how to
identify a minimally acceptable heatsink, then CPU
manufacturers would rather the amateur apply thermal compound
- so manufacturer does not hear about the amateur's mistakes.
There is no appreciable difference between most thermal
compounds - no matter how many myths (without numbers) are
posted in the newsgroups. Especially overhyped is Arctic
Silver which lasts just as long as cheaper brands from serious
heatsink and thermal compound providers - because too many
recommend without even first learning the perspective called
numbers.
Click to expand...


Why is there a thick chunk of thermal compound on a stock AMD retail HS?
Why do they require that a compound is used? Do not get me wrong, I am
not disagreeing with your statements, I am just wondering why AMD's
guidelines insist on thermal compound. Swiftech recommended that I use the
Arctic Silver I had rather than the Arctic Alunmina supplied with the HS.
Their HS's appear to be very well machined although I did not take it to
work & measure the actual surface finish.

Again let me state very clearly that after reading your very well composed
message, I DO believe your opinions are correct.
 
Why is there a thick chunk of thermal compound on a stock AMD retail HS?
Why do they require that a compound is used? Do not get me wrong, I am
not disagreeing with your statements, I am just wondering why AMD's
guidelines insist on thermal compound. Swiftech recommended that I use the
Arctic Silver I had rather than the Arctic Alunmina supplied with the HS.
Their HS's appear to be very well machined although I did not take it to
work & measure the actual surface finish.

Again let me state very clearly that after reading your very well composed
message, I DO believe your opinions are correct.
Click to expand...
The chunk of thermal compound is for people who build a system from a
kit by reading the handbook.
I mean people who know nothing apart from the fact that A plugs into
B.
Since it is a pad rather than a grease, it will not run onto the CPU
and it is better than nothing.

Taff.........



www.sounds-pa.com | www.thecomputerworkshop.com
 
taff said:
The chunk of thermal compound is for people who build a system from a
kit by reading the handbook.
I mean people who know nothing apart from the fact that A plugs into
B.
Since it is a pad rather than a grease, it will not run onto the CPU
and it is better than nothing.

Taff.........



www.sounds-pa.com | www.thecomputerworkshop.com
Click to expand...

After several retail boxed AMD CPU's, it is not a pad, but a thick, kind of
dry, material. I agree, I don't think it would run. Actually after messing
with various compounds, changing out CPUs & HS's, I can't imagine putting so
much of the crap on there that it would actually run off the CPU & get
under it into the socket!
 
After several retail boxed AMD CPU's, it is not a pad, but a thick, kind of
dry, material. I agree, I don't think it would run. Actually after messing
with various compounds, changing out CPUs & HS's, I can't imagine putting so
much of the crap on there that it would actually run off the CPU & get
under it into the socket!
Click to expand...
Getting compound in the socket is not the problem, there are some
small components mounted on the top side of some CPU's, and compound
on here can cause unwanted capacitance effects, or even be slightly
conductive, which will ruin the performance of the CPU. And in a
really bad case, can actually damage it.

Taff..............



www.sounds-pa.com | www.thecomputerworkshop.com
 
1) Where does almost all heat transfer from CPU to heatsink?
At the center. If any thermal compound appears in outer half
of a CPU, then a human has applied far too much thermal
compound.
Click to expand...

This is true with cpu's that have a heat spreader like the P4 where the
core is under the spreader, but not with an Athlon (XP) cpu. You want
compound over the whole core, which is in the center of the package.
holes conductive - which is why a minimal film is required -
and only in center half of a CPU.
Click to expand...
And if you do this with the Athlon core, you're likely to fry the cpu
unless it spreads out over most of the core, which it probably will. The
Athlon core produces heat all over the top simply because there are
components under every bit of it, not just the center.
2) From an Intel engineering paper on this subject - even no
Click to expand...

This is not an Intel NG.
4) A properly machined heatsink requires no thermal
compound.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you will rarely find a perfect match between the
core and the HS base.
6) How to determine if a heatsink is properly machined and
applied? Simple experiment. Apply heatsink with no thermal compound.
Measure CPU temperature on CPU - not on heatsink. Then reapply heatsink,
this time using thermal compound. If CPU temperature drops more than 10
degrees, then return to newsgroups to report a defective heatsink
manufacturer.
Click to expand...
And when you burn your new cpu up you might as well throw it in the trash
since it will not be covered by any warranty, Even suggesting installing a
HS without a thermal interface on an Athlon core should be criminal.
compound should be. Too much thermal compound is even worse thermal
conductivity than no thermal compound.
Click to expand...
While too much may cuse a little loss incooling and cuase a mess, it's
certainly much better than using no interface material on an AMD core.


Getting tired of reading this. The Athlon has an exposed core and can't be
treated the same as in Intel P4 that has a heat spreader where a small
amount in the center would be correct.

Christ. WHy in hell is this cross posted everywhere. Please remove any AMD
NG's before replying. I don't want to see it. It doesn't apply to AMD
cpu's.
 
Bruin said:
Why is there a thick chunk of thermal compound on a stock AMD retail HS?
Click to expand...

So that it will spread and cover the entire surface. Pressure should thin it.

It's larger than the area to allow application tolerances, in both the
machine applying it to the heatsink and the user mounting it. And to allow
for different core locations, and sizes, on the target CPU.
Why do they require that a compound is used? Do not get me wrong, I am
not disagreeing with your statements,
Click to expand...

You might as well because there's as must misinformation in it as anything
else.
I am just wondering why AMD's
guidelines insist on thermal compound. Swiftech recommended that I use the
Arctic Silver I had rather than the Arctic Alunmina supplied with the HS.
Their HS's appear to be very well machined although I did not take it to
work & measure the actual surface finish.
Click to expand...

Even a highly polished surface will still have microscopic defects, and
that's both the heatsink and CPU surface.
 
Wes said:
This is true with cpu's that have a heat spreader like the P4 where the
core is under the spreader,
Click to expand...

It's not true there either. Why do you think they put a "heat SPREADER" on
it if one is going to ignore the heat spread by it?
but not with an Athlon (XP) cpu. You want
compound over the whole core, which is in the center of the package.



And if you do this with the Athlon core, you're likely to fry the cpu
unless it spreads out over most of the core, which it probably will. The
Athlon core produces heat all over the top simply because there are
components under every bit of it, not just the center.




This is not an Intel NG.




The problem here is that you will rarely find a perfect match between the
core and the HS base.
Click to expand...

What he SHOULD have said was "a theoretical 'near perfect', cost is no
object, heatsink" (and CPU core, alignment, etc).

The problem is we have to live in the real world.

And when you burn your new cpu up you might as well throw it in the trash
since it will not be covered by any warranty, Even suggesting installing a
HS without a thermal interface on an Athlon core should be criminal.
Click to expand...

I've told him that before but he still says it.

While too much may cuse a little loss incooling and cuase a mess, it's
certainly much better than using no interface material on an AMD core.


Getting tired of reading this. The Athlon has an exposed core and can't be
treated the same as in Intel P4 that has a heat spreader where a small
amount in the center would be correct.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be disastrous for a P4 to put thermal compound in only the
center but it wouldn't give the best thermal interface either.
 
Most every thermal compound dries out eventually - a
completely irrelevant number that well exceeds computer life
expectancy. Again perspective. If that 'cheap' thermal
commend dries out faster, then one also provides numbers. How
long before it dries out? 20 years? Who cares? Completely
irrelevant once a number is applied. Perspective changes as
soon as numbers are applied. Myths cannot live in a world
where numbers are provided.
Click to expand...

20 years for what? A complete dry out? You're right, who cares?

Can you show me some evidence which shows that cheap thermal compound
does not dry out enough to start to show noticable effects within 2
years or so? While for some, they would have since replaced their
computers, I never indicated that this was me.

The trouble is, personally anyway, I can't think of a way in which how
fast a compound dries out can be accurately described with a single
number. A graph may work. Then of course, the conditions need to be
considered. A product undergoing stress, e..g continually being heated
up then cooled down a lot will probably dry out fast. Similarly,
humidity, the temps it undergoes etc are going to change things. These
need to be considered. It does not matter to me if a cheap thermal
compound lasts for 20 years when kept at 20C with a max change of +-5C
since I will not be using the compound at this temp. If you can show
me an accurate example of how long the crappiest thermal compound
lasts, under conditions my compound is likely to encounter, then you
may have something. If not, you are just speculating based on the
clearly inaccurate assumptions.
 
How do you know? Has there been a statistical poll?

*Honestly*, guys, how many of you chose brand X over brand Y because you had
studied unbiased research on longevity and ease of application between
various brands?
Click to expand...

I did not suggest most people studied such data. I simply suggested
that that is the reason why people do buy a certain thermal compound
over the other. Perhaps, as wtom claims, it is all hype. But the
again, as I've said, unless he can show that the cheap thermal
compound I am likely to get where I live, which is probably going to
be one of the crappies available since as I have already explained, it
is very difficult to be certain what you are getting if it is not a
branded product where I live, is as good for 5 years under conditions
my compound is likely to undergo as arctic silver or arctic ceramique,
his claims are just as bad as hype. Yes maybe radio shack grease is as
a good for 3 years under his conditions as arctic stuff but what does
it matter to me if the compound I will get is as not as good for 3
years under my conditions as artic stuff? It does not. An arctic may
not be necessary but if you have no way to obtain a less but still
okay product then you just have to choose the acrtic product.

I believe I have seen him before and it is not the first time he has
assumed everyone lives in the US...
 
1) Where does almost all heat transfer from CPU to heatsink?
At the center. If any thermal compound appears in outer half
of a CPU, then a human has applied far too much thermal
compound. As Jon notes, the most minimal film is a best
application. Thermal compound only fills microscopic holes.
Additional thermal compound only obstructs heat transfer.

Most heat transfers where heatsink makes direct contact with
CPU. Any thermal compound obstructing larger areas of direct
'CPU to heatsink' contact only makes CPU warmer. Thermal
compound makes a single degree improvement when using properly
machined heatsinks AND compensates for inferior heatsinks that
are not even machined. Thermal compound makes microscopic
holes conductive - which is why a minimal film is required -
and only in center half of a CPU.

2) From an Intel engineering paper on this subject - even no
thermal compound is quite sufficient for CPU cooling. Again,
most heat is transferred where the 'change of medium' is
less. 'CPU to heatsink' is more thermally conductive than
'CPU to thermal compound to heatsink'. This becomes obvious
once arithmetic in simple thermal equations is calculated.
Unfortunately most advocates of thermal compound have never
calculated thermal conductivity. They just know - numbers be
damned. As Conors notes -

Why? Too many recommendations come without first doing the
numbers. No numbers means junk science reasoning. Notice how
many thermal compound recommendations come with junk science
reasoning - or no supporting data whatsoever. It's called
propaganda.

3) Some also think a heatsink must be lapped perfectly
flat. Again, not true. But myths about heatsinks are so
common. Heatsinks, properly machined, maximize contact
between CPU and heatsink where the heat transfers. Proper
pressure - in pounds per square inch - must be applied which
defines how a heatsink is manufactured. Some heatsink
manufacturer engineering notes even chart PSI as it varied
across the heatsink face. But then this information is only
provided by serious heatsink manufacturers - who also provide
numerical specs. Some even explain why too much pressure may
cause less thermal conductivity. But again, demonstrated is
what one learns from serious heatsink manufacturers -
manufacturers that provide specifications even on the
product's box or tube. Again, many heatsinks are not
machined. And so they also don't dare provide the 'degree C
per watt' parameter.

4) A properly machined heatsink requires no thermal
compound. But when so many don't even demand the numerical
specs called 'degrees C per watt', then a good CPU
manufacturer best recommends every amateur use thermal
compound. Many amateurs then assume that means thermal
compound is always required - and they need not first learn
the numbers. Again, even an Intel engineering paper compared
heatsinks with various thermal compounds and no thermal
compound. Even with no thermal compound, thermal conductivity
was quite sufficient.

5) Some still use the Home Improvement concept of mass
application - "more power". Any thermal compound that leaks
out onto CPU pins is degrading CPU signals. It does not just
cause electrical conductivity. It also causes leakage due to
higher capacitance - which also degrades CPU signals.
Excessive compound may or may not cause intermittent CPU
operation. Just because one CPU had too much compound and
works does not prove anything. It is the same reasoning that
killed seven Challenger astronauts. Every thermal compound -
even low conductivity types - form undesirable capacitors
between CPU pins. Thermal compound must not get on any CPU
pins.

If any thermal compound leaks out between CPU and heatsink,
then the human is clearly a threat to reliable computer
operation. At a minimum, he did not read directions. More
typically, does not understand the concept or purpose of
thermal compound. Any thermal compound on CPU pins is totally
unacceptable - decreases CPU reliability. Compound is only
applied in center half where heat transfers.

6) How to determine if a heatsink is properly machined and
applied? Simple experiment. Apply heatsink with no thermal
compound. Measure CPU temperature on CPU - not on heatsink.
Then reapply heatsink, this time using thermal compound. If
CPU temperature drops more than 10 degrees, then return to
newsgroups to report a defective heatsink manufacturer.

Therein lies the purpose of thermal compound - to lower CPU
temperature by single digit degrees. If too much is applied,
then thermal compound spreads to outer half of CPU - where no
thermal compound should be. Too much thermal compound is even
worse thermal conductivity than no thermal compound.

7) Did Martin run 'the numbers' before posting a warning?
Numbers were posted previously. Numbers are what myth
purveyors never provide. If one cannot show a fallacy in
those numbers, then one has no idea what and how effective
thermal compound really is. Too many computer assemblers just
blindly worship thermal compound without first learning how or
why it works - and especially the numbers. Too many only
apply thermal compound because others say they should; reasons
for thermal compound be damned.

In the meantime, because so many don't even know how to
identify a minimally acceptable heatsink, then CPU
manufacturers would rather the amateur apply thermal compound
- so manufacturer does not hear about the amateur's mistakes.
There is no appreciable difference between most thermal
compounds - no matter how many myths (without numbers) are
posted in the newsgroups. Especially overhyped is Arctic
Silver which lasts just as long as cheaper brands from serious
heatsink and thermal compound providers - because too many
recommend without even first learning the perspective called
numbers.
Click to expand...

You once again, seem to have made the flaw of assuming I live in the
US or similar area. As I have already explained, I CANNOT GET A
CHEAPER BRAND WHERE I AM FROM. At least, I might be able to but it
will not be cheaper. Furthermore, with most brands, except bar a few
like CoolerMaster and Arctic, assuming I will get what I pay for is
fallacy. Therefore, it does not matter what the situation is like in
the US as I am not in the US nor have I ever stated I was. Also, I am
not planning to use a Intel P4 processor (nor have I ever stated I
was), which are know to radiate a lot less heat then AMD processors,
especially and AMD processor which is overclocked. Not to mention AMD
processors (bar the new 64 ones) do not have a heat spreader like most
new Intel processors. So I am highly suspicious of how reliable this
Intel paper is for my situation. In fact, I must wonder if the heat
transfer in centre bit applies to AMD CPUs either. To my best
knowledge, the AMD CPU core heats up rather evenly. As the core is
visible, the compound needs to be placed throughout the core. Not just
in the centre. While in Intel CPUs with heat spreaders, it might be
true the compound only needs to be applied in the centre of the heat
spreader but as AMD CPUs don't have a heat spreader this is
irrelevant. Once again, you perhaps make the mistake of assuming you
know about my situation.

Finally, I should add that an Aero 7 Lite has a machines surface but I
have no idea if it meets your requirements. However, if it does not,
do no tell me to get something better as something better costs a lot
more where I live, even if you take the thermal paste into account.

(Actually, it's all irrelevant now, since I found out my friend has
Arctic Silver 3 which he is going to lend me.)
 
IThis Artic X vs Artic Y vs some other brand etc is all overhyped
rubbish. The difference between any two half decent brand names is so
marginal that it could be put down to tolerances. You'll get a couple
of degrees difference at most. You'll not get a 10 degree difference
which is what many people seem to think will happen.
Click to expand...

I am using Ceramique. My local PC shop had run out of everything else. I
doubt it makes much difference.
 
I am using Ceramique. My local PC shop had run out of everything else. I
doubt it makes much difference.
Click to expand...

Golly, what a long and informative thread! (More than one needs to
know?:))
Me, I'll fork out the 8 bucks for AS5 and forget it..<grin> <Lo
 
Martin said:
Reading the instructions might have worked. If you had gloop running
down the processor, you clearly used too much.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever went to jail for stating the obvious. Thanks for trying to add
information, however.
 
Golly, what a long and informative thread! (More than one needs to
know?:))
Me, I'll fork out the 8 bucks for AS5 and forget it..<grin> <Lo
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it...
 
Golly, what a long and informative thread! (More than one needs to
know?:))
Me, I'll fork out the 8 bucks for AS5 and forget it..<grin> <Lo
Click to expand...

Just be careful if you decide to use something like Artic Silver Epoxy
on anything and then later want to remove it. Check out the pictures
near the end of the article when the guy decided to remove some
heatsinks to sell his board after he used the epoxy stuff! ;p
http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=71&pgno=0

Cheers,
Ed
 
It's not true there either. Why do you think they put a "heat SPREADER" on
it if one is going to ignore the heat spread by it?
Click to expand...

IMHO the "heat spreader" is there more for mechanical reasons than thermal
effeciency. There's just no way it's more effecient than putting the
heatsink in direct contact with the core.
 
Ray said:
IMHO the "heat spreader" is there more for mechanical reasons than thermal
effeciency. There's just no way it's more effecient than putting the
heatsink in direct contact with the core.
Click to expand...

I didn't say a thing about one or the other being more or less 'efficient'
because it's irrelevant to the rather obvious point that if you only make
thermal contact with the center of the P4 heat spreader then you're
defeating the heat spreading feature of it.
 
Back
Top