Arctic Cooling MX-3 vs Tuniq TX 3

I am getting confused while selecting the thermal paste. So thought that you members will give some suggestions regarding this. Please tell me which is better in between Arctic Cooling MX-3 and Tuniq TX 3. Quasi sent simultaneously AC and its two successors Tuniq Thermal Grease MX-3 and TX-3 in the running for the coolest places. Some of my friends told me about Arctic, which became known to the public for its products that offer excellent value for money and for finding innovative solutions in both the heat dissipation (for CPU, GPU, etc) is that the search for quiet operation counting of collaborations with brands like PC as Inno3D, ECS, Galaxy, Sapphire, Powercolor and ATI. Also want to know that thermal paste is necessary? Please help me out.

Due to the frequent changing the cooler, we decided to open up. The cooler and the CPU heat spreader to be cleaned thoroughly. Then, in the middle of the CPU, where a drop of thermal paste (or down the pad on the CPU) and attached to the radiator. This is a bit pressed and rotated to spread it. If the cooler is installed, Windows will boot and utilized the CPU with Prime full. After 45 minutes the load is "Last-temperature" and noted Prime terminated. After 30 min, then idle again, the temperature recorded. This process is repeated twice with each paste to compensate for errors in applying the paste. For the test, the fan controller on the motherboard, and would Cool'n'Quiet disabled. Our current two candidates can not change the image that has been shown in our last roundup, particularly. Although the two pastes put at the forefront, but they can also build no greater distance from the competition. Thus, the whole field romps in a range of 3°C and was at the top a little tighter.

The two subjects can compare to their predecessors, minimally improved, but they still are not at the Arctic Silver 5 over. The performance gains promised AC show only minimally, and by far not presented to the extent as on the packaging. Also can handle the new paste significantly more difficult than just their predecessors. Whether a marginal performance increases three times more than a cheaper, everyone must decide for themselves. Also according to me, both are worse than the AS5. However, it was with our earlier tests on thermal compounds are very close. Is also the question whether a difference <1 ° is a difference yet or measurement uncertainty. My favorite is still the AC MX-2, 30g Tube is simply unbeatable rates to the gram seen but still offers very good performance.

Arctic Cooling MX-3 - Arctic Cooling reaches us the successor of the already tested MX-2, which in our test did quite convincing. The MX-3 has a thermal conductivity of 8.2 W / mK and comes in a tube to 4g. The white paste is quite dry and is difficult to distribute aid, such as spatula or check card be recommended. The new paste is due to carbon particles reduce the temperature significantly. On the blister pack is advertised with a chart showing a difference of 2.5° to the older MX-2. We'll see if the paste can keep the promises. :whistling

Tuniq TX-3 - The predecessor of the TX-3 was already with us in the test and gave a thoroughly positive picture. Now Tuniq has sent us its successor. The paste comes in a syringe with a capacity of 1 ml or 3g. The paste has a thermal conductivity of 6.2 W / mK. The rather dark paste is very dry and it is very evenly distributed shear. A tool like a small spatula or a credit card is definitely recommended. Moreover, with each application, a relatively high loss was associated, since a large part of the paste on the tip of the tube remains and moves up to this.

While talking about the Arctic Cooling MX-2, so thought to discuss about it. The sample arrived in the syringe is 30 grams. Among the features include low thermal resistance, is non-corrosive, does not run and does not conduct electricity (it did not contain metal particles). This is important because if they fall a bit 'during the application there would be no problem of short circuits (although we recommend, however, attention). Another important feature is that, according to Arctic Cooling, the dough does not lose its performance with the passage of time (under 8 years), and then there is no need to reapply. The sample is in the syringe 4 grams. Among the features we, as his sister, a low thermal resistance, non-conductivity, it is not corrosive and does not drip. The new dough is made from carbon microparticles that enhance performance over previous versions.

We performed the test on an AMD Athlon 64 3200 + (Winchester core) resulted in a v-1.65V core and 2400 MHz frequency is used as a heat sink with fan Cooler Master TX3 Fractal Design FD-80. The remainder of the platform includes a motherboard DFI UT NF4 Ultra-D 2x1GB Ultra X PC3200 2-2-2-5, and an nVidia 9400GT card. Whether the processor that the heatsink were cleaned carefully before and after use of each dough. For mounting we used the method of "grain" that intends to put in place a small amount in the center of the processor (IHS in this case) and leave to sink the task of spreading the thermal paste properly. The temperature was kept constant at 21°C for all tests and the speed of the cooling fan has been maintained without constant varied with temperature. The temperature at rest (idle) will be considered by the PC on after 4 minutes of inactivity while in full load (full) are measured after a session of Orthos (mode SmallFTTs priority 9) one hour. In idle the benefit of only 0.5°C while in full you come down to 1°C. The slight difference but it is actually considered to be enhanced if you think that these are two high quality thermal paste (the Arctic Cooling MX-2 were considered among the "top" world) and then compared to a normal silicon paste we can expect an even bigger difference that can reach several degrees.