{"id":4047,"date":"2017-10-12T23:26:05","date_gmt":"2017-10-12T21:26:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hwcooling.net\/test-zuvaciek-3x-arctic-a-thermal-grizzly-minus-pad\/"},"modified":"2022-05-15T15:49:20","modified_gmt":"2022-05-15T13:49:20","slug":"test-of-chewing-gums-3-arctic-and-thermal-grizzly-minus-pads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hwcooling.net\/en\/test-of-chewing-gums-3-arctic-and-thermal-grizzly-minus-pads\/","title":{"rendered":"Test of “chewing gums”: 3\u00d7 Arctic and Thermal Grizzly Minus Pads"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Thermal conductive pads are useful wherever a\u00a0thermal 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. <\/p>\n

Details<\/h2>\n

Heating of voltage regulators does not determine just lifespan, but also stability of the system. And we do not even have to think about extremes \u2013 it is enough to demand a high performance and low noise level at the same time. The final result can be improved with each Celsius degree.<\/p>\n

We have ordered probably the most popular thermal conducting pads for this test \u2013 from Arctic. They can be characterized by a relatively low price and great expectations. The manufacturer states on the website that they are significantly more effective than Phobya pads. They come in two sizes (we will be interested in the most common, for one or two uses \u2013 50 \u00d7 50 mm) and in three thicknesses: 0.5, 1, and 1.5 mm. We have tested all of them.<\/p>\n

Arctic has quite rich\u00a0specifications<\/a>\u00a0on the web, from which you can get a pretty good idea about properties of the material. Thermal conductivity (6 W\/mK) and thermal load (-40 ~ +200 \u00baC) are the key attributes for a\u00a0better orientation. The opponent from Thermal Grizzly, Minus Pad, should work well in frost (up to -100 \u00baC) too, making it attractive for extreme overclocking. The upper limit is also somewhat higher (+ 250 \u00b0 C), but difficult to fully exploit in real situations. In addition to the higher thermal range and thermal conductivity (8 W\/mK), the price is also higher. It costs about 15 \u20ac (120 \u00d7 20 mm), which is few times more than an Arctic pad with comparable size and thickness.<\/p>\n

Thermal Grizzly revealed its composition too \u2013 ceramic silicon and nano-aluminum. As well as Arctic pads, they have a relatively low elasticity and higher stiffness. On the other hand, default pads of our test motherboard, Gigabyte Aorus AX370 Gaming 5, are more flexible with lower density.<\/p>\n

Test procedures<\/h2>\n

We measured the temperatures in the CPU Vcore section (the next SOC circuit is heating half less) and subtracted them from four different sources. The first is the internal sensor on the board, the second is just above the base of the heatsink, where we installed a thermocouple, and the remaining two are surface temperatures captured via our thermal imager. Through Fluke SmartView, we were looking for maximum and average temperatures. Except for the temperatures from the internal sensor, the higher the temperature, the better<\/strong> (the more the pad transfers the heat into the heatsink).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In order to test pads properly, Vcore was set to 1.45 V (R7 1800X with 4.03 GHz). This time, tests took place in an open space on a benchtable, but with the powerful airflow of two Nocua NF-A12S fans with max. RPM (~ 1200). You can see the layout in the photo. As usual, we tested with constant air temperature 21 \u2013 \u00a021.3 \u00baC. The burn was simulated in IntelBurnTest (12 GB) for 900 seconds.<\/p>\n