Summary and conclusion
Today I tested two generations of thermal pads from ARCTIC, the new TP-3 and the older TP-2, which is now EOL, in more detail and also compared their performance with the recently tested pad from AAirhut. The material properties, handling and thermal performance were also evaluated in detail and in summary. This revealed clear differences in quality and efficiency. Even though I now see pads on the decline in many areas and thermal putty is more state of the art, they are inexpensive and also reasonably foolproof to use as long as the thickness fits perfectly. But you have to be careful.
The material of the TP-3 is flexible, non-slip and stable, without the typical oily or crumbly feel of many cheaper alternatives. It is easy to cut to size without falling apart or leaving any residue. In direct comparison, the older ARCTIC TP-2 feels much more brittle and less elastic. Even during processing, it showed a tendency to crumble, which reinforced the impression of cost-optimized content and processing.
Both ARCTIC pads combine aluminum and zinc oxide, with the older TP-2 relying on a slightly higher filling and a significantly poorer matrix (polymer). The TP-2 has simply fallen out of time and has been replaced by the TP-3, and not without good reason. In practice, the TP-3 impressed with its outstanding performance, even if it falls slightly behind the inexpensive pad from AAirhut below 850 µm. But even with thinner layers far below one millimeter, the thermal conductivity of the TP-3 remained stable and efficient. The old ARCTIC pad, on the other hand, could only deliver acceptable results under high pressure, which is often impractical in use. Particularly impressive was the low interface resistance of the TP-3 and the AAirhut pad, which enables better adaptation to uneven contact surfaces and thus ensures more effective heat transfer.
In my test scenarios, which included simulation on graphics cards or VRMs, the TP-3 proved to be consistently superior to the TP-2. It kept the temperatures more stable and consistently achieved lower differences between the contact surfaces. The performance of the TP-2, on the other hand, was disappointing, especially at higher layer thicknesses. As far as the information on the packaging is concerned, ARCTIC has now dispensed with misleading information here too. Thank you for that.
Both the ARCTIC TP-3 and the AAirhut pad are consistently better than the TP-2 and both managed to achieve a higher thermal conductivity of up to or even well over 6 W/m-K with less pressure, depending on the actual layer thickness. In everyday use, the TP-3 and the AAirhut pad should therefore not be inferior to each other, and the decision will have to be based on price and availability. The TP-3 offers a pleasingly high level of quality and performance, especially for a product in this price range, as the TP-3 is not that much more expensive than the cheaper noname products. And it can even be stacked. Two 1 mm pads then become a 2 mm pad, which can also be used very well down to 1.5 mm.
The old ARCTIC pad in the form of the TP-2 simply can’t keep up in terms of price-performance ratio and is less convincing in all tested categories. Of course, the trend towards thermal putties, which could be an even better alternative in the future, remains interesting – but that’s another story. I have only published the requested follow-up test today and will be out again until the next article.
22 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 →