ARCTIC MX-6 (4 g, incl. 6 MX Cleaner) - Ultimate Performance Thermal Paste for CPU, consoles, graphics cards, laptops, very high thermal conductivity, long durability, non-conductive, non-capacitive

Product Information

I appreciate the work that has been put into this test, where one can see comparison for most known products.

ZoneDymohere's hoping for some tests of this on the forum or by TPU themselves, GN is I think Thermal Grizzly sponsored so its a bit off for them to test itGN doesn't test thermal compounds. Running ads doesn't mean they are biased towards TG. Just look at their coverage of LGA1700 frames. BjørgerssonHow is the MX-5 EOL already? :OCertain batches had problems with material separation that Arctic was apparently unable to solve.And yeah they were not sponsored by/for the frame, but they repeatedly were sponsored by/for the thermal paste. Remember that the Tom's Hardware legacy TIM chart shows all conventional thermal greases (non liquid metal) to be in a very, very narrow performance range about 3-4 degrees Celsius. I installed a CPU yesterday and I had to use my MX-4. A couple hours later the MX-6 arrived and I'm certainly not in the mood fo reapply paste if it's not going to be a 5-10C improvement. I haven't added mx-6 to my x299 rig yet but it's on my todo list plus some loop adjustments/ flush the loop and use mayhems XT-1 clear fluid to it's custom loop no air cooler on this rig. In terms of specifications, the Cooler Master MasteGel Regular thermal paste has a thermal conductivity of 5 W/mk, which is more in line with a lot of other options mentioned in this collection. The company also sells a premium version of this particular paste with thermal conductivity of 11 W/mk. This paste is grey in color and its density is 2.5 g. We had absolutely no issues applying the paste on the CPU. The overall performance of the solution has also been pretty solid as we've encountered no abnormalities in the CPU temps. We've used this particular paste for many of our builds and it's been a reliable option.

Many competitors quote values above 4 W/mK to suggest better performance. It often leads to false expectations and dissatisfied users. I have a comment, NT-H1 was slightly shorter lived paste than others, at least in my testing in laptops mx4's laptop started to show thermal issues (system throttles, palm rest is getting hot) similar to default paste after ~1.5y whole MX holds without noticeable changes for at least 3years now.We do have new testing equipment for our updated tests, such as a more modern CPU, motherboard, and coolers for our tests, but we adhered to the same test methodology employed in these prior tests. That means that you can use these legacy tests as a decent approximation of how the newer pastes compare to the older pastes, too.

I de-dusted this 3 times in the meantime, so it's not a dust clog effect, and fresh paste made it again into a comfortable palm rest.We'll go into our breakdown of how we test these thermal pastes below, but the key takeaway here is that a single thermal compound can perform differently based upon several variables, such as what type of cooler and mount you use. To cover all the bases, we've tested every thermal paste with three variables: I've found MX-4 and NT-H1 to stay effective for longer before needing repasting. And honestly between all high performance thermal pastes I don't think you are looking at that much of a difference in performance, and its more about how long it lasts, if you get pump-out effect, etc. Thermal compounds might always be compared and debated over, but the simple fact remains: PC system building needs thermal compounds to effectively dissipate thermal loads. Without them, our beloved gaming and content-producing machines would struggle to keep components cool during heated frag sessions, heavy workstation computations, or just simply browsing the web. The XTM50 paste by itself has low viscosity, so can also just use the 'Dot method' to apply the paste and let the mounting pressure do its thing. But if you're too worried about applying using that method, then the bundled stencil and spreader make it very easy to get things done. In theory, you can use any application method for a compound with low viscosity, but the stencil makes it that much easier to apply. It's for new builders who don't necessarily have the technical know-how of properly applying thermal paste and how improper application can have a lasting impact on the overall performance of the CPU. I've now started using a line down the longer length of the CPU instead and the spread comes out much better.

For a compound that costs less than half as much as leading competitors , Phobya's Liquid Metal Compound LM offers impressive performance, often besting the the CoolLaboratory Liquid Pro or Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut in our tests. As shown in the slides above, the outcome of the different testing scenarios resulted in some interesting comparisons among the compounds. We’ll look at the overall thermal load averages for each, as well as the relative performance value of each in terms of price-per-gram. regarding the thermal aste application, I used the 'rice grain size' in the middle for so long. It never spreads to the corners when you do so. The results for gpu applications would be different though, as the more viscous pastes would have an edge here - at least from what I've read so far.Wow, how's things have improved! I've used MX-4 for like the last decade. Good to know there's something better and not overly expensive. The modus operandi has been the same: spread out a grain of rice with thermal paste, mount a heatsink, leave it on for 20 minutes at rest, Prime95 for 10 minutes, turn off the computer for 10 minutes and, with this, the paste is settled. Then we turn on the PC again and stress the processor with Prime95 for 10 minutes, capturing the maximum temperature that any of the cores has had.