Artic Silver 5 vs Artic Ceramique

[Nil Einne]

Hey all,

Anyone have any links to reviews comparing Artic Ceramique (Arctic
Ceramique) with Artic Silver 5 (Arctic Silver 5)? I'm unable to find
any, only AS5 vs AS3.

Thanks all

 

[Cuzman]

" Anyone have any links to reviews comparing Artic Ceramique (Arctic
Ceramique) with Artic Silver 5 (Arctic Silver 5)? I'm unable to find any,
only AS5 vs AS3. "


Reading all of these may help:

AS3 vs Nanotherm Blue II vs Nanotherm Silver XTC vs Nanotherm EXP vs
Spire Stars 700 vs Akasa ShinEtsu TIM Pads:
http://www.modsynergy.com/Review 32.htm

AS3 vs AS Ceramique: http://www.modsynergy.com/Review 54.htm

AS5 vs AS Ceramique vs Nanotherm PCM+ version 1:
http://www.modsynergy.com/Review 109.htm

 

[Top-poster]

I use both - for different purposes.
Ceramique is much coarser than Silver, so suits less critical/greater volume
applications - like filling the large concavities in a NB or SB, or where
the sink is not mirrored.
For the CPU I use the finer Silver.

 

[w_tom]

The very first thing you want is thermal conductivity for
both thermal compounds. If useful numbers are not provided up
front, then what are they hiding. Arctic Silver prefers you
don't know which is why those numbers are not on every tube.
Their products are not superior to most every other thermal
compound that costs less money. Furthermore, thermal compound
is about shaving pennies of heat in the cooling system when
heat is on the order of dollars. Worrying so much about
thermal compound is being "penny rich and pound foolish".

Not only little difference between thermal conductivity of
thermal compounds, but thermal compound only reduces CPU
temperature by single digit degrees compared to no thermal
compound when the heatsink is properly designed. Worry about
decreasing temperature by tens of degrees - which is also why
a heatsink must provide important numerical specs such as
'degree C per watt'. Again, many heatsinks don't even bother
to machine the important surface - and would rather not
discuss 'degree C per watt'. They would rather you fix their
defective surface with expensive thermal compounds or the
inferior heat tapes and heat pads.

In each case, the review means nothing without specific
thermal conductivity specifications. Even temperature
reduction numbers can be fudged if the experiment is not
detailed. When a manufacturer must commit to a spec number,
he then has legal obligations - which reviewers do not.
Demand those numerical thermal conductivity numbers. And
don't get blurry eyed over the name Arctic Silver which really
means more money for equivalent products.

 

[Conor]

Hey all,

Anyone have any links to reviews comparing Artic Ceramique (Arctic
Ceramique) with Artic Silver 5 (Arctic Silver 5)? I'm unable to find
any, only AS5 vs AS3.

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.

 

[taff]

It makes a pleasant change to hear some sensible answers on this
subject.

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

The very first thing you want is thermal conductivity for
both thermal compounds. If useful numbers are not provided up
front, then what are they hiding. Arctic Silver prefers you
don't know which is why those numbers are not on every tube.
Their products are not superior to most every other thermal
compound that costs less money. Furthermore, thermal compound
is about shaving pennies of heat in the cooling system when
heat is on the order of dollars. Worrying so much about
thermal compound is being "penny rich and pound foolish".

Not only little difference between thermal conductivity of
thermal compounds, but thermal compound only reduces CPU
temperature by single digit degrees compared to no thermal
compound when the heatsink is properly designed. Worry about
decreasing temperature by tens of degrees - which is also why
a heatsink must provide important numerical specs such as
'degree C per watt'. Again, many heatsinks don't even bother
to machine the important surface - and would rather not
discuss 'degree C per watt'. They would rather you fix their
defective surface with expensive thermal compounds or the
inferior heat tapes and heat pads.

In each case, the review means nothing without specific
thermal conductivity specifications. Even temperature
reduction numbers can be fudged if the experiment is not
detailed. When a manufacturer must commit to a spec number,
he then has legal obligations - which reviewers do not.
Demand those numerical thermal conductivity numbers. And
don't get blurry eyed over the name Arctic Silver which really
means more money for equivalent products.

www.sounds-pa.com | www.thecomputerworkshop.com

 

[Nil Einne]

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.

Actually, the primary reason why most people choose a certain thermal
paste over another is because of it's longevity and ease of
application. Most people are not professionals so a thermal paste
which is good but hard to apply probably will perform badly for them
as it is badly applied. Of course, a quality thermal compound will
provide slightly better performance in the short run to a crap thermal
compound but this is secondary to the primary purpose.

Perhaps this page will help you understand
http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm

Again, even though tooth paste may perform nearly as well in the short
run as Artic Silver 5 or Artic Ceramique, it is not likely to do so in
the long run.

 

[LBJGH]

I've used cheap $5 radio shack thermal compound for the paste two years on
my AMD cpus with excellent results. 1700+ @ 2500mhz 1.85v @ 47c idle, 54c
full load.

 

[William W. Plummer]

You might want to consider the electrical conductivity in addition to the
thermal conditivity. I used Arctic Silver on an XP1800+ and a few months
later the machine began acting strangely, more and more so each day.
Eventually, a computer shop looked at it and showed me how the the thermal
glop had run down the (vertically mounted) processor and was shorting out
the signal pins. Cleaning did not work.

 

[Nil Einne]

The very first thing you want is thermal conductivity for
both thermal compounds. If useful numbers are not provided up
front, then what are they hiding. Arctic Silver prefers you
don't know which is why those numbers are not on every tube.
Their products are not superior to most every other thermal
compound that costs less money. Furthermore, thermal compound
is about shaving pennies of heat in the cooling system when
heat is on the order of dollars. Worrying so much about
thermal compound is being "penny rich and pound foolish".

Not only little difference between thermal conductivity of
thermal compounds, but thermal compound only reduces CPU
temperature by single digit degrees compared to no thermal
compound when the heatsink is properly designed. Worry about
decreasing temperature by tens of degrees - which is also why
a heatsink must provide important numerical specs such as
'degree C per watt'. Again, many heatsinks don't even bother
to machine the important surface - and would rather not
discuss 'degree C per watt'. They would rather you fix their
defective surface with expensive thermal compounds or the
inferior heat tapes and heat pads.

In each case, the review means nothing without specific
thermal conductivity specifications. Even temperature
reduction numbers can be fudged if the experiment is not
detailed. When a manufacturer must commit to a spec number,
he then has legal obligations - which reviewers do not.
Demand those numerical thermal conductivity numbers. And
don't get blurry eyed over the name Arctic Silver which really
means more money for equivalent products.

Actually, the primary reason why most people choose a certain thermal
paste over another is because of it's longevity and ease of
application. Of course, a quality thermal compound will provide
slightly better performance in the short run to a crap thermal
compound but this is secondary to the primary purpose.

Most people are not professionals so a thermal paste which is good but
hard to apply probably will perform badly for them as it is badly
applied. This has great relevance to reviewers as well. While
certainly, some reviewers may fail to take as much care as is
necessary with the 'lower' quality thermal compound then they will
with the 'higher' quality thermal compound and while certainly some of
them may purposely not apply the cheaper stuff as well as the more
expensive stuff and some may even make up numbers, assuming that every
single reviewer is going to do is this stupid. In actual fact, a
consistent difference implies that either the cheaper compound is
lower quality or that it is simply a lot harder to apply and as such,
most amateurs will get less performance from it at they do not apply
it properly.

Perhaps this page will help you understand
http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm

Again, even though tooth paste may perform nearly as well in the short
run as Arctic Silver 5 or Arctic Ceramique, it is not likely to do so
in the long run.

If you really want the specs, they are not hidden. The fact is, Artic
products are not some unbranded products for which all information
needs to be on the tube itself or else there is no way you can get the
information. The information is available on their websites and as
this is the information they publish on their websites about their
products, they do have a legal obligation for it to be true.

http://www.arcticsilver.com/as5.htm
http://www.arcticsilver.com/ceramique.htm

Furthermore, even though a quality heatsink has a much better,
smoother surface then a low quality heatsink, it is impossible with
out current tech level to get a perfectly smooth surface.

Of course, I'm not denying a unbranded cheap product may be just as
good in performance, longevity and ease of application then a branded
product, the fact that there is an unbranded product and that there is
no real method to measure ease of application or longevity means that
it is difficult to ascertain the quality of a product you are buying.
Bear in mind that I never suggested I lived in the US or in any such
area with perhaps more refined laws of commerce and business and as
such, even with branded products, care must be taken that you are
getting what you pay for not something else. This can be quite
difficult with products that are not well known and often, you will
end up paying as much as a branded product with a well known name like
Arctic products for the service.

 

[Nil Einne]

Perhaps this page will help you understand
http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm

Again, even though tooth paste may perform nearly as well in the short
run as Arctic Silver 5 or Arctic Ceramique, it is not likely to do so
in the long run.

If you really want the specs, they are not hidden. The fact is, Artic
products are not some unbranded products for which all information
needs to be on the tube itself or else there is no way you can get the
information. The information is available on their websites and as
this is the information they publish on their websites about their
products, they do have a legal obligation for it to be true.

http://www.arcticsilver.com/as5.htm
http://www.arcticsilver.com/ceramique.htm

Furthermore, even though a quality heatsink has a much better,
smoother surface then a low quality heatsink, it is impossible with
out current tech level to get a perfectly smooth surface.

Of course, I'm not denying a unbranded cheap product may be just as
good in performance, longevity and ease of application then a branded
product, the fact that there is an unbranded product and that there is
no real method to measure ease of application or longevity means that
it is difficult to ascertain the quality of a product you are buying.
Bear in mind that I never suggested I lived in the US or in any such
area with perhaps more refined laws of commerce and business and as
such, even with branded products, care must be taken that you are
getting what you pay for not something else. This can be quite
difficult with products that are not well known and often, you will
end up paying as much as a branded product with a well known name like
Arctic products for the service.

Perhaps I should add/clarify that even a product with a thermal
conductance and thermal resistance listed on the product packaging or
on the tube itself should not be trusted in the area I live unless it
is a branded product which is def the product it claims to be and the
performance ratings are also published on their website and the
product is sold in countries where the will be required to publish
accurate statistics.

 

[Bob Troll]

Some of that cheap Radio Shack "grease" is the white type stuff that does
have a tendancy to dry out and lose it's good qualities. It is a very
prudent idea to at least check on if not "regrease" the heatsink at least
every couple of months. Most of the other types stay in a somewhat moister
state for considerably longer periods of time and therefore maintain their
heat conducting/transferring abilities.

Regards, Bob Troll

 

[Nil Einne]

You might want to consider the electrical conductivity in addition to the
thermal conditivity. I used Arctic Silver on an XP1800+ and a few months
later the machine began acting strangely, more and more so each day.
Eventually, a computer shop looked at it and showed me how the the thermal
glop had run down the (vertically mounted) processor and was shorting out
the signal pins. Cleaning did not work.

Yes that is one fear/problem with Arctic Silver products. The
Ceramique products are designed to have an extremely low conductivity.
However, I have not yet seen any evidence that this is a problem if
the paste is applied properly...

 

[Jon Danniken]

Yes that is one fear/problem with Arctic Silver products. The
Ceramique products are designed to have an extremely low conductivity.
However, I have not yet seen any evidence that this is a problem if
the paste is applied properly...

Well said. Regarless of thermal compound used, only an incredibly thin film is required to be
applied, and that is probably too much anyway. If anyone thinks they need more than this, they
need to spend five minutes with some wet/dry and a piece of glass to lap the bottom of their
heatsink.

Jon

 

[Martin]

You might want to consider the electrical conductivity in addition to
the thermal conditivity. I used Arctic Silver on an XP1800+ and a
few months later the machine began acting strangely, more and more so
each day. Eventually, a computer shop looked at it and showed me how
the the thermal glop had run down the (vertically mounted) processor
and was shorting out the signal pins. Cleaning did not work.

Reading the instructions might have worked. If you had gloop running
down the processor, you clearly used too much.

w_tom's advice should be viewed with caution. I have seen him advocate
using neither pad or paste, which in some cases could lead to a dead
CPU. This constant carping for thermal conductivity figures is a red
herring. These materials will have different conductivities at
different temperatures, and do not take into account the nature of the
interface between paste and CPU\Heatsink (ref AS3\AS5 v Ceramique).
The thermal conductivity figures do not reflect other (arguably more
important) properties such as longevity. Of course, it is true that
only single digit temperature reductions will be achieved. But anyone
who actually builds systems and overclocks them, will tell you that a
difference of 5C under load is very welcome, and makes a difference in
acheiving stability at a given FSB.

My admittedly general advice is as follows;

If you are not going to overclock, just use the thermal pad supplied
with the CPU.

If you do want to overclock, do not use a thermal pad, but instead use
a very thin layer of a reputable thermal paste (I happen to use AS3).
On two separate builds, I have found an improvement of 5C versus the
supplied thermal pad. By very thin, I mean scrape of all excess with
either your wife's credit card or a razor blade.

Be very wary of the advice you follow on NGs (including mine).
Personally, I prefer to see advice based on practical experience, but
that's just me.

Regards

Martin

 

[Adam Webb]

You might want to consider the electrical conductivity in addition to the

thermal conditivity.

ive coverd one of my cpus in AS2 and its still working fine today, AS does
not conduct electric.......

 

[Minotaur]

But then the world would be a boring place, if we all drove a Volvo...

 

[taff]

How did you know I drove a Volvo ??????????????????
:-=))

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

But then the world would be a boring place, if we all drove a Volvo...

www.sounds-pa.com | www.thecomputerworkshop.com

 

[Arthur Hagen]

Actually, the primary reason why most people choose a certain thermal
paste over another is because of it's longevity and ease of
application.

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?

I chose a certain thermal paste over another because of marketing,
availability and because it cost more (so it must be better, right?).
Even if I don't always believe the hype, I'm easily led into giving it a
try, especially when it's only a few bucks. Sometimes I get
disappointed[1], and sometimes I get pleased[2].
Yes, I'm an easily deceived consumer, and the very presence of so much
advertising means that I'm far from the only one. If it didn't work, and
people were using purely scientific and unbiased studies as basis for their
purchase decisions, there wouldn't be billions of dollars spent on
advertising.


[1]: Flops I've bought because I've believed the hype include:
- NEC/Mitsubishi DiamondPro 930SB monitor. It stinks compared to Sony.
- Arctic Silver 3. Not noticably better than any other goop, and too runny.
- Logitech MX700 mouse. Yes, it rocks when *using*, but the charger/base
sucks, and is a fire hazard. If the mouse is placed a tenth of an inch off,
you get an electric arc between the contacts -- in my case it melted part of
the plastic base of the mouse, and turned the mouse hot enough that it burnt
my finger when I took it out again. According to a CompUSA friend, this is
a *common* problem and reason for return. Class action lawsuit coming up?
Anyhow, my replacement mouse I had to drop 3-4 times into the cradle before
it made contact. Using an external charger is the solution. Even though
it's about the best mouse you can find, it's a badly designed cradle.

[2]: Good things I bought because I believed the hype include:
- Pentium III-S CPU. At the time, it outperformed most P4 CPU's running at
much higher frequencies. With no overheating problems.
- Zalman CNPS 6000Cu HSF for the above. A perfect match.
- Lian-Li case, special CompUSA PC7x-series version, 2 years ago. 2 speed
controlled front fans, 2 rear fans and a top hole fan (all included), plus
8+4 drive bays. No new Lian-Li case has matched that since then, which is a
shame, since I need another case.

Perhaps this page will help you understand
http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm

Again, even though tooth paste may perform nearly as well in the short
run as Arctic Silver 5 or Arctic Ceramique, it is not likely to do so
in the long run.

You don't know that. Of course, many of the ingredients in toothpaste are
rather volatile, and we all know that toothpaste tends to turn into a hard
powder. BUT SO DOES THERMAL GOOP TOO. Question is whether the silicate
remainders in the toothpaste are heat conductive compared to what's used in
thermal goop. Since the thermal goop is "designed for" and marketed for
prolonged use with heat sinks, you always have a legal recourse if the stuff
stops working as advertised.

If you really want the specs, they are not hidden.

I've never seen Johnson&Johnson advertise their long-term thermal specs for
toothpaste...

Furthermore, even though a quality heatsink has a much better,
smoother surface then a low quality heatsink, it is impossible with
out current tech level to get a perfectly smooth surface.

At a viable price. We can grow diamonds and other carbon structures with a
near perfectly smooth surface. But a perfectly smooth surface isn't ideal.
The surface area that actually touches is what matters, and the surface area
for a slightly rough material is *larger* than for a flat material, and the
touching area is also higher for a soft material than a hard one. Which is
why you probably never will see a heat sink with a carbon-molecule or
tungsten-coated base, while an alloy that becomes very soft at temperatures
from 50-100C would be near ideal, and might work well as a replacement for
thermal paste. Thing is, the current heat sink + paste/pad design is dirt
cheap, and easy to produce and apply. I doubt that people would spend big
money on something that only helped reduce temperature marginally, while
costing a small fortune, especially not when there's other cheap and simple
steps that can be taken to reduce temperature even more, like water cooling.

Regards,

 

[w_tom]

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 -

This Artic X vs Artic Y vs some other brand etc is all
overhyped rubbish

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.