Test of “chewing gums”: 3× Arctic and Thermal Grizzly Minus Pads

Results

Thermal conductive pads are useful wherever a thermal paste cannot be reasonably applied. A good example are power supply circuit of graphics cards and processors, so the choice of test subjects was unambiguous. It was less clear, however, what thickness of pads is most effective, if it is better to pay for more expensive ones, and what improvement to expect.

Results

With the same thickness, Thermal Grizzly achieved higher efficiency than the Arctic pad. And the difference of -6 °C (from 86 to 80 ° C) is certainly not negligible. However, you would pay 0.6 € for one cm2, which is significantly more than Arctic (0.2 €/cm2).

Thermal Grizzly Minus Pad with prints of MOSFETs

There is also a cheaper trick to fix the temperatures – increase the thickness of the pad. Temperatures with Arctic 1.5 mm are similar to those with TG 1 mm. This is obviously due to a combination of several factors. After compression, there is more material (with higher concentration/absorption) for the heat transfer, the MOSFETs are better “submerged“ in the pad, which leads to heat transfer from the edges too, and also more pressure plays its role. For example, when using a pad with a thickness of 0.5 mm, the pressure is relatively low (the VRM prints were rather weak), which probably also contributed to the weakest results. However, it also depends on the distance between the contact area of the heatsink and the surface of the VRM casing. It is usually about 0.4 mm. Original pads used by Gigabyte were of better quality and you could even make thigs a little bit worse by replacing them with Arctic.

After removing the heatsink, the temperatures reached 100 ° C in three minutes (and kept rising). The standard time of all tests was 15 m.




If you would like to give us a tip for a review, feel free to do so in the comment section.
We will be grateful for any feedback! 

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

Arctic Freezer 33 tasting different heat intensities

From the previous tests, you already know that Freezer 33 loses its breath quite quickly in tower cases. But it does not have to be always like that – the distinctive performance difference between the vertical and the horizontal position appears only with certain cooling efficiency requirements. At 90 W, the cooler performs differently than at 180 W. Interesting is also the comparison on the “big” Haswell-E and on the “small” Kaby Lake. Read more “Arctic Freezer 33 tasting different heat intensities” »

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Arctic Freezer 33 face-to-face with SilentiumPC Fera 3 v2 (bonus)

Cooling the processor is one thing, but cooling its power supply circuit is another. How will the coolers handle this task? We specially focused on testing the heatsinks with Noctua reference fans. Notably, the weird Freezer had some real difficulties. We know where the problem is. We made some tests without fans too, and on this occasion we decided to include top-notch passive cooler Zalman FX70. Read more “Arctic Freezer 33 face-to-face with SilentiumPC Fera 3 v2 (bonus)” »

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Arctic Freezer 33 face-to-face with SilentiumPC Fera 3 v2

With the i/A32 cooler series, Arctic made a really good impression and created a decent opponent for the excellent Fera 3. In the meantime, Swiss have strengthened their ranks and advanced to battle with Freezer 33. However, the expected drama with fight for every detail did not happen. Because of a design mistake of one of the players, the winner is quite dominant under standard circumstances. Read more “Arctic Freezer 33 face-to-face with SilentiumPC Fera 3 v2” »

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

One comment Add comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *