Fairytale lesson with nanotubes in thermal pastes: EC360 Ruby, Nuomi SYY-157 and Thermalright TF4 Review – Stupid lies vs. modesty

Today I’m writing about two pastes that I noticed very negatively during the database expansion because of their downright outrageous marketing and, for comparison, I’m comparing them with a cheap paste that doesn’t need such deception but has other weaknesses. But you have to ask yourself how stupid the brands think you are when they market cheaply purchased pastes with silly high-tech jargon, as long as it sounds complicated and implies nano fairy dust filled by mermaids with one hand through diamond sieves. This kind of thing always triggers me immensely, because it is demonstrably a deliberate misleading of customers. We simply have to put a stop to this and protect the end user from such evil practices. Do these providers believe that nobody will find out about them? Or do they themselves not know any better? If they did, they would not be allowed to market these products in Germany.

The brazen lie of carbon nanotubes and sensational thermal conductivity

Both the EC360 Ruby (Jaden Technologies) and the SYY-157 (Nuomi Chemical) advertise full-bodied ingredients that are not in them at all, because that is exactly what I have tested extensively in the laboratory. But what are the so-called carbon nanotubes (CNTs) actually? Due to their exceptional thermal properties, they have great potential as an additive in thermal pastes, because carbon nanotubes have an extremely high thermal conductivity that can exceed that of traditional materials such as silver or copper, making them particularly suitable for significantly increasing the efficiency of these pastes.

The integration of CNTs in thermal pastes, if they are indeed included, aims to increase thermal conductivity and improve heat dissipation. The nanotubes act as thermally conductive bridges in the thermal paste between the solid surfaces of the electronic components and the heat sink. Another advantage of carbon nanotubes in thermal pastes is their flexibility and mechanical stability, which can help to maintain the structural integrity of the paste even under thermal cycling.

This means that the thermal paste retains its performance even after multiple heating and cooling cycles, which is very important for the long-term reliability of electronic devices. However, using CNTs in a thermal paste is not easy: apart from the exorbitant price, the biggest hurdle is probably the even distribution of the nanotubes in the paste, as they tend to clump together. This is precisely the reason why such pastes are rarely found that do not improve with a second filling. But then there would have to be a lot of detectable carbon in the material, which would have to be proven today. I am happy to provide this proof, negative or positive. I would also like to preface my comments with a quote from the product descriptions of these two legendary thermal wonder weapons:

Nuomi (distributed in Germany by Like Sun GmbH) is no slouch either and advertises with:

BETTER THAN LIQUID METAL:
Thermal Conductivity 15.7W/m-k, it is composed of carbon particles and has extremely high thermal conductivity. It ensures that the heat generated by the CPU or GPU is effectively dissipated.
THERMAL COMPOUND:
SYY thermal paste Edition 2020 formula has excellent component heat dissipation performance and has the stability to push the system to the limit.
EASY TO APPLY:
SYY thermal paste has ideal consistency and is very easy to use even for beginners.
HIGH DURABILITY:
In contrast to metal and silicon thermal conductive adhesives, SYY thermal paste 2020 will not compromise over time. After applying, you do not need to apply again because it will last at least 5 years.

I see. I’m curious, especially when it comes to the claimed thermal conductivity, which in my measurements corresponds exactly to the data sheets of the major manufacturers such as Dow Chemical / Laird, Shin Etsu, Boyd, Parker etc.. A feat, because we use the same method and usually the same equipment. However, the values given for the three pastes of 13.4 W/(m-K) for the EC360 Ruby, 15.7 W/(m-K) for the Nuomi SYY-157 and unfortunately also the 9.5 W/(m-K) of the Thermalright TF4 are incorrect and misleading. But at least Thermalright doesn’t advertise false ingredients like lactose-free fairy dust and vegan miracle carbon.

An important preface to “bulk thermal conductivity” and false marketing promises

I am now deliberately adding two quotes that not only speak to me from the heart, but also absolutely agree with my laboratory measurements. Much more than 4 to 5 W/(m-K), or even 6 W/(m-K) with very, very good pastes, is not possible at all with conventional means under the usual conditions on a GPU or CPU in terms of layer thickness, temperature and pressure. Because these quotes are honest and unfortunately correspond to reality, I will use this part from now on as a standard quote in all paste tests of all manufacturers and put it in front. You can’t bend physics.

For those who wonder how you can even arrive at figures above this limit, it should be noted that test conditions can certainly be adapted to achieve astronomically high figures. However, testing in a bucket has nothing to do with reality, even if a known measurement method is used. Without knowledge of the exact circumstances, such values are completely misleading and meaningless. You could give many suppliers credit for simply not knowing any better and just copying the OEM’s data sheets, but it doesn’t make misleading consumers any better.

Real long-term simulations (3000 hours in 1000 cycles up to 90°C) are not feasible in terms of effort. That’s why I can only make predictions, but I want them to be understood as such. It is virtually impossible to make scientifically sound statements in just a few days. Yes, you can identify a trend and scale it as a forecast based on existing data, but this is not something that allows you to make really reliable statements. Therefore, I am sorry to say that I have to leave out this important point. However, as far as time permits, I will take community feedback into account and add the comments and long-term experience of third parties to the database as a note in due course, if it seems necessary. In both a positive and negative sense. However, this is a subjective value that has no place in a comparative database.

Jaden Technologies EC360

At currently around 9 euros for 4 grams, this paste is certainly still relatively cheap, but it definitely does not contain CNT, as this would not be possible for this price. The light color also speaks against carbon, but I will look for it later, this time even with the strongest laser that can generate plasma here. Let’s see… The paste is very fluid and also pulls strings easily, which indicates a fairly high silicone content. I would be a little more cautious about the pump-out and reliability. But the test is still to come, so I’ll leave out the manufacturer’s information today. I can lie to myself if necessary.

Nuomi SYY-157

At a hefty 16 euros for 4 grams, SYY-157 is the most expensive paste in the test, but here, too, they advertise things that aren’t actually in it. It will be interesting to see where the 15.7 W/(m-K) is supposed to come from and what it really contains. And I’ll spoil it for you: there are no post-apocalyptic UFO granules made of carbon in the finest tubular guise here either. It’s exactly what’s always inside, only completely average and boring.

Thermalright TF4

I’m filling up today’s charts with a very cheap paste, which is slightly inferior to the other two pastes in terms of performance, but at an almost shockingly low 3 euros for 4 grams, it shows that even then you can still achieve an almost four-digit margin. Conversely, this makes you feel really sick when it comes to nano-fibbling, because the SYY-157 costs more than five times as much and the EC360 Ruby three times as much! And in terms of long-term durability, all three pastes should be the same, because the tear-off images after the measurements all looked very similar (modest).

 

Further links and basics