The goddess of thermal pastes has a name: Noctua NT-H2

Measurement results

The initial skepticism about the NT-H2 subsided very quickly. We have exposed this thermal paste to various tests and it gives excellent results across the whole spectrum of them. The original NT-H1, which Noctua will continue to offer as a cheaper option, served well as a reference point for comparison. The new NT-H2 already belongs to the high-end as it should. See for yourselves in a detailed review.

Packaging

So far, the offer of Noctua pastes has been quite limited. In fact, only one was available, weighing just 3.5g. That is changing now. Above all, a completely new paste (NT-H2) has been added to the offer and with NT-H1, they both will be supplied in larger (10g) and smaller, traditional, 3.5g packages.

MSRPs for the NT-H2 are 12.90 and 24.90 euros. The “old” NT-H1 is 40% cheaper, i.e. 7.90 euros for a smaller and 14.90 euros for a larger package. Next, there are new cleaning wipes (15 × 12cm) NA-CW1 in the game which are sold separately for 7.90 euros (20 pieces). At the beginning, Noctua attempts to deliver them with some packages (3 pcs with a 3.5g package and 10 pcs with a 10g package) for free, at no extra charge. You will usually find such a promotional event at the initial distributors which are Amazon and Ebay. As these wipes please the enthusiasts, the good thing is that Noctua doesn’t force them on anyone and so far they’re probably just figuring out what the real interest in them is.

A redesign of the thermal pastes packaging came with this wave of new products. The original plastic blister pack, nipped against hard paper with technical specifications print, is replaced by more convenient boxes that are easier to conceal, better to archive/stack and used paste can be returned inside them more comfortably. The design of the syringes themselves has not changed functionally, just visually. This is perhaps a bit of a pity, especially because of the cap that becomes really stiff after proper screwing in and the sharp wrinkles that are on top of it do not help either. One would need pliers to unscrew it.

It would be better to use a less stiff screw, for example with rubber seal, such as Thermal Grizzly has. Those are more premium syringes overall. Noctua saves on syringes and ignores the applicator, too. And now we’re not thinking of an applicator for spreading the paste over the entire surface but rather a more accurate dispenser, whether in terms of seeing the amount of paste squeezed out, or for improved control and more even squeezing out, where a system that would allow less paste flow through the throat at higher pressure would be sufficient. Even in such details, premium pastes could be distinguished from ordinary ones.

Composition structure

Although Noctua really goes into detail when presenting its products, they do not go into full detail in this case. Thus, we know in what properties and why the NT-H2 should be better than other pastes, but in terms of the “ingredients” and the production methodology, Noctua, for obvious reasons, is cagey and only talks about mixtures of metal oxide microparticles. Functionally, however, these microparticles should be finer and reach spots even where in other circumstances (for example directly above the core) weaker heat transfer could arise.

This new structure also has a lower viscosity. Note how the NT-H2 (left) does not hold the tip when squeezing the sample, while the NT-H1 is quite “stiff”. Interestingly, although the NT-H2 is thinner, it has better compressibility at the same weight. We did not need to come to this fact by any special methods – the plunger in the NT-H2 syringe about half a centimeter deeper than that in the NT-H1 immediately reveals this. In other words, with the same TIM thickness, more mass (and finer) will be available, which is only good.

At an extremely high even pressure between two straight glass slides, as you can see in the photo below, both pastes spilled to the same extent, without any cracks or other defects. Equally convenient is spreading, in which the mass of none of the pastes gets torn. Here we can also answer the competition question from yesterday. We asked which of the two samples represented the NT-H2 and which the NT-H1. Noctua NT-H2 is brighter: in this review it was the left picture, in the competition it was on the right (unsuccessful catch :)). We’re sending a small package of the NT-H2 to Matúš G. (… gmail.com) for the correct answer. Congratulations!

The initial skepticism about the NT-H2 subsided very quickly. We have exposed this thermal paste to various tests and it gives excellent results across the whole spectrum of them. The original NT-H1, which Noctua will continue to offer as a cheaper option, served well as a reference point for comparison. The new NT-H2 already belongs to the high-end as it should. See for yourselves in a detailed review.

Testing methodology

The heating element is Threadripper 1950X. We’ve chosen it for several reasons. On the one hand, it allows simulation of a wide range of thermal loads (we will get to specific modes later), on the other hand, it has more efficient heat transfer from the die to the IHS and, last but not least, it has a large heat spreader area which also contributes to significant differences between a better and a worse paste.

As for the application itself, Noctua suggests a multi-dot pattern for AMD TR4 or Intel LGA 3647 sockets. One larger dot above each die (i.e. four with a diameter of 3 – 4 mm) and then nine smaller ones (~ 2 mm) spread somewhat evenly into the rest of the area. With all due respect to Noctua, we used a more conventional and, above all, more economical application of the thermal paste in the X shape in real tests. Of course, we also tried the recommended Noctua method exactly according to the instruction. This way, you will really cover 100% of the IHS area, but this is not necessary. With the X shape method (and about half the amount), while a total of about 5% of the blank space remains on the sides, this has only a minimal effect on the result. But that is another topic… The aim of this test was to secure identical conditions for both pastes which is one of the reasons why we have guiding lines indicated on the IHS and a precisely regulated amount of paste using a measuring cup. And the accuracy test was performed by repeating the assembly, when we checked the conformity of the measured results.

The results and differences can also be easily disturbed by fluctuations in the entry air temperature (typically by heat accumulation) in front of the fan. For this reason, the entry temperature is constantly monitored and is in the close range of 21 – 21.1 °C so that no unwanted rounding of the measured values occurs even by accident across the tests. By the way, we read these from the internal sensor via HWinfo, at the end of a 900-second “torture” marathon in Prime95 with a constant FFT of 128 K.

Cooling takes place on a bench table, i.e. without system cooling, and the processor cooler used is Noctua NH-U14S TR4-SP3 with two high-speed fans NF-F12 industrialPPC-2000@24 V (i.e. 2× 2000 rpm).

We created five profiles for testing purposes with a total power consumption of the test set of 240, 290, 340, 390 and 440 W. Of these values, other active components unrelated to the processor make about 50 W and the power supply efficiency must be taken into account, so the graphs show the wattages of 175, 225, 275, 325 and 375 W. But even this is not the most accurate, because VRM losses are still included. This is one of the reasons why the “CPU Power Package” usually reports an even 10% lower “net” consumption. For a rough orientation, however, this is enough, gradation and a wide range of performance loads in the range of 200 W are important.

Note: after assembly, before a real test, we’re burning-in for half an hour in the 375 W mode. This, of course, is not enough for the paste to “break in”. However, Noctua claims that thermally conductive properties do not change in any way with the time of use. Full-featured results are achieved from the beginning of use. In our case then, we are only talking about some kind of basic warm-up and putting the paste into working form.

The initial skepticism about the NT-H2 subsided very quickly. We have exposed this thermal paste to various tests and it gives excellent results across the whole spectrum of them. The original NT-H1, which Noctua will continue to offer as a cheaper option, served well as a reference point for comparison. The new NT-H2 already belongs to the high-end as it should. See for yourselves in a detailed review.

Measurement results

The initial skepticism about the NT-H2 subsided very quickly. We have exposed this thermal paste to various tests and it gives excellent results across the whole spectrum of them. The original NT-H1, which Noctua will continue to offer as a cheaper option, served well as a reference point for comparison. The new NT-H2 already belongs to the high-end as it should. See for yourselves in a detailed review.

Rating

The unit price of the NT-H2 is significantly higher than that of the NT-H1. It is difficult to say whether intentionally, in any case, it is obvious that, in the case of top products, the price goes up rapidly and profitability ratios are not so thought of. And it’s a fact that the NT-H2 is a top product.

Noctua NH-T2 is 1 – 3 ° C ahead of its cheaper sister for less demanding folks (but with less power hungry processors). In conditions of extreme overclocking, it would be even more, we are, however, always more interested in everyday life, and there the differences are in the range of three degrees Celsius. After looking into an older thermal pastes test it is interesting to see how much the NT-H1 lost to Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut at a given load of 225 W (on Ci7-5930K) – the only more serious competition of NT-H2 (if we do not count Phobya HeGrease Extreme, which is almost unavailable today). The Thermal Grizzly paste is leading by 1 °C under such conditions compared to the NT-H1. And especially now that the NT-H2 (as opposed to NT-H1) is in the lead by 1.2 °C at TR@225 W.

However, we definitely do not want to declare winners or losers based on such an indirect comparison. But there is a high presumption that Noctua NT-H2 is a better paste than TG Kryonaut. Also because a larger difference (than TGK) compared to NT-H1 is achieved by NT-H2 at lower end temperatures (at similar consumption). Of course, comparing the situation on a modular Threadripper against Haswell-E is not the most ideal, but so far it is the only clue until the two pastes are pitted against each other under identical conditions. However, we are going further than is necessary for now.

In any case, the effectiveness of the new NT-H2 is significantly higher than that of the NT-H1 which has always been close to the best. For each case, we also compared the NT-H1 pastes, to find out whether the modification of the tube sticker is the only thing that has changed. This seems to be the case, because the results and the consistency are the same. Thus, it is demonstrable that a better-performing NT-H2 really belongs to the elite. And it costs less per unit volume than the Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut. Although you get a Noctua paste in a less luxurious tube, the content is number one priority here. Noctua, on the other hand, has a more suitable box for long-term storage (TG uses resealable plastic bags as packaging).

English translation and edit by Lukáš Terényi

• Contents
• Details
• Testing methodology
• Measurement results
• Rating