Today is the requested follow-up test with the ARCTC TP-3, after I had already tested the predecessor model TP-2 against an Amazon product last week. The ARCTIC TP-3 and the APT2560 (better known as the TP-2) differ primarily in terms of material composition, softness and thermal conductivity. The TP-3 is particularly soft and flexible, which makes it ideal for compensating for uneven surfaces and height differences between chips. This property makes it ideal for applications where precise adaptation to uneven surfaces is required.
The TP-2 (APT2560), on the other hand, is harder and offers less adaptability to uneven surfaces, but is still described as a solid thermal conduction solution. Both pads are based on silicone with special fillers, although the TP-3 can also be stacked to bridge larger gaps due to its softness. In terms of thermal conductivity, the TP-3 is also said to perform better outside of my test, although ARCTIC no longer provides exact W/mK values for either pad and those for the TP-2 were also misleading. The availability in different thicknesses and formats makes both variants versatile, although the TP-3 is recommended for more demanding applications.
The ARCTIC TP-3 thermal pad is characterized by its particularly soft texture, which makes it possible to effectively compensate for unevenness and height differences between chips. This flexibility makes it an ideal gap filler that easily bridges uneven surfaces and air gaps without stressing sensitive components. However, this also has disadvantages because, as I will show in a moment, you will probably always have to buy half a size larger.
The TP-3 is available in different thicknesses: 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm. The 0.5 mm version can easily be compressed to 0.3 mm and thus bridge height differences of up to 0.2 mm. However, due to its extremely low hardness, installation of the 0.5 mm pad requires particular care. In Germany, prices for the ARCTIC TP-3 vary depending on size and thickness. For example, the price for a 100 x 100 x 1.0 mm pad is around €8.99. Larger or thicker variants can be correspondingly more expensive. It is advisable to compare current prices from different suppliers, as these can also be subject to daily fluctuations, especially after tests such as this one.
The real test, however, was of course the performance. And lo and behold, the TP-3 actually delivers solid results, I can spoil that for you. The temperatures remained stable and were even slightly lower than those of some high-priced competitor products that like to adorn themselves with technical superlatives but hardly deliver in practice. Like many other TIMs, ARCTIC sources its thermal pads from external manufacturers. However, the specific suppliers are not named publicly. It is customary for companies to keep their supply chains confidential in order to maintain a competitive advantage. I don’t want to spoil anything…
Today there’s another duel for all those who are still looking for a good 1 mm pad and don’t dare to use thermal putty. But I can already spoil the fact that putties will be the future for our DIY stories and pads are de facto obsolete. I know who is currently working on good, easy-to-process putties for the end customer market or will launch them on the market after my tests of established industrial products. Both the internal testing of prototypes and pre-production samples for well-known brands on a fee basis and the cross-testing of industrial samples of products already on the market are resulting in an interesting trend away from pads and towards putty. But that’s a completely different story.
21 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Veteran
Veteran
Mitglied
Urgestein
Urgestein
Mitglied
Urgestein
Veteran
Veteran
Neuling
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Veteran
Urgestein
Urgestein
1
Urgestein
Veteran
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →