Artic Silver 5 vs Artic Ceramique

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

"Nil Einne" wrote in message
...

" 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%2032.htm

AS3 vs AS Ceramique: http://www.modsynergy.com/Review%2054.htm

AS5 vs AS Ceramique vs Nanotherm PCM+ version 1:
http://www.modsynergy.com/Review%20109.htm

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.


"Nil Einne" wrote in message
...
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

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.


Nil Einne wrote:
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

In article , nil_einne1
@email.com says...
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.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

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

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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:24:23 -0500, w_tom wrote:

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.


Nil Einne wrote:
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




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

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 00:04:24 -0000, Conor
wrote:

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.

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.


"Nil Einne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 00:04:24 -0000, Conor
wrote:

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.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 12/23/2003

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.


"taff" wrote in message
...
It makes a pleasant change to hear some sensible answers on this
subject.

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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:24:23 -0500, w_tom wrote:

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.


Nil Einne wrote:
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




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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:24:23 -0500, w_tom wrote:

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.