Roundup: Cooler Master CryoFuze 7, CryoFuze 5 Violet, MasterGel Maker and Pro V2 Review – Thermal compound from gray to colorful

Today we’re doing a Cooler Master special with a total of four pastes, because unfortunately Cooler Master doesn’t offer any other pastes in Germany. Amazon also sells the various pastes as imports from North America and so I will perhaps update this when the pastes are available. Let’s just be surprised at a later date. I still have to compile all these tests by hand, but the database is already in its final stages, then I can finally publish pastes on a daily basis and the overall comparison will also be easier for you. Today, however, I have to put together another really old-school roundup.

But even four pastes want and need to be tested first, so I’m just going to get to work without much preamble. And I also have to point out the article numbers in advance, as the packaging itself usually doesn’t have an immediately recognizable imprint with the version numbers, which could cause some confusion. The article numbers are only printed in small letters and hidden on the back of the packaging. Here is the internal coding for you, because I also fell for it at first:

Cooler Master CryoFuze 7

Let’s start at the top end of the food chain this time with the CryoFuze 7, which is clearly superior to the other pastes in terms of performance. I can’t and won’t comment on the prices at the moment, as there were only a few offers, some of which were over 18 euros for 2 grams. I think this is completely exaggerated, but I can’t change it. Let’s wait and see if anything happens and let the facts speak for themselves. The stated 14 W/m-K is of course another fairy tale, but everyone seems to do it that way. More on this later.

Cooler Master CryoFuze 5 Violet

The CryoFuze 5 Violet is significantly cheaper, but it is also significantly worse than the paste without the colored name suffix and therefore also the weakest of all four pastes tested today. I had the pleasure of using it once before, but at least the paste is now complete and it also contains Al2O3, which used to be missing. Nevertheless, the advertised 12.6 W/m-K is misleading and false. As for the violet version, we’ll see that in a moment. It currently costs from around 7 euros for 2 grams, which is around 3.50 euros per gram.

Cooler Master MasterGel Maker V2

This paste with the bulky name comes to the customer in an eye-catching wide-gauge tube, which is more reminiscent of a fat marker. You are supposed to be able to leave a broad trace of thermal paste on the cooling object of your hot dreams, but in everyday practice this is really just a waste. Because the layer is always a little too thick and nothing can be placed precisely with it. And if you only need a little bit: too much always comes out and the tube empties faster than you can earn the money to buy more. The 4 gram tube is available from around 10 euros. At 2.50 euros per gram, this may just about be enough, even if the advertised 11 W/m-K is of course outrageous nonsense.

Cooler Master MasterGel Pro V2

This paste is in the middle of the thermal field, neither top nor flop. And even if the stated 9 W/m-K seem more modest for the other three pastes, they are also grossly exaggerated if you measure correctly. However, even if it is nominally the weakest paste according to the label, it is better than the actual bottom of today’s roundup. And at around 2 euros per gram, it is also the cheapest. But I don’t want to get ahead of the conclusion.

An important foreword on “bulk thermal conductivity” and false marketing promises

I am now deliberately including 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.

The data sheets, as far as they exist, are quite useless. But that’s what the measurements are for, and it’s precisely these that are really interesting. Let’s go!

Further links and basics