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

The dispersion is quite good, denoting that it is not as viscous as it seemed to us in the first instance, especially when we have not applied as much pressure as a heatsink will apply to the processor and, in fact, we have put much more thermal paste on the paper of the which we will cast on the IHS of the processor normally. Zen 3 Rig (2022 - Present):AMD Ryzen 9 5900X | Nvidia RTX 3080 Ti FE | G.Skill Trident Z Neo 32GB DDR4-3600 | ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | 2x Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB | Crucial MX500 1TB | Corsair RM1000x | Lian Li O11 Dynamic | LG 48" C1

The differences would be slim when compared to the overall cooler solution and would vary with each installation. I don't know if it's very viable to do performance comparisons other than good/bad/terrible without very specific equipment. And yeah they were not sponsored by/for the frame, but they repeatedly were sponsored by/for the thermal paste.

Also, immediate performance doesn't reflect anything about long-term durability (which was the problem with MX-5). I've now started using a line down the longer length of the CPU instead and the spread comes out much better. ARCTIC made a conscious decision not to specify any values for the thermal conductivity of its thermal paste and thermal pads because many manufacturers invent, artificially inflate or embellish this value. Thermal paste has a thermal conductivity of 1 to 4 W/mK. Values outside of this range, such as 12.5 W/mK, are at odds with the truth. On top of that, liquid metals can't be used with aluminum heat sinks since the Gallium in them reacts with aluminum. That's not really an issue since most heat sinks (remember, not all) are made of copper which is nonreactive with the liquid metal. That being said, the high risk pays off in meaningful ways the liquid metal provides up to 73 W/(mK) thermal conductivity. It's much higher than the 0.5-12.5 W/(mK) thermal conductivity provided by conventional thermal pastes.

Arctic halts troublesome MX-5 thermal paste; MX-6 successor spotted at almost three times the price I'll see how screwed it is soon. I've got a 7700X with some RAM and mobo arriving tomorrow. For now, I just think all current-gen CPUs (both Intel and AMD) are driven way out of their ideal spot on the efficiency curve which can be fixed with Eco mode or some tweaking, but I'll see soon enough. 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.

And unfortunately with Ryzen 7000 CPUs delidding does 10 times better than the best thermal paste out there. 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. ChomiqGN doesn't test thermal compounds. Running ads doesn't mean they are biased towards TG. Just look at their coverage of LGA1700 frames.im not saying they are biased, its just not something, I would think even they themselves would say, that should be done by them, being in their position. watt HamsterCertain batches had problems with material separation that Arctic was apparently unable to solve.Still better than MX-3. :P That thing was just... something else. As you can see, the Arctic MX-6 is the winner of this comparison, taking 0.7 degrees from the excellent Noctua NT-H2 and 1.9 degrees Celsius from the CORSAIR TM30, which is not bad thermal paste either. Of course, in terms of performance, it seems that Arctic has done an excellent job again.