Comparison of ingredients and performance data
All four pastes contain fantasy specifications and values for content and bulk thermal conductivity. Either the supplier was deliberately lied to by the OEM in this respect or they made it all up themselves. Both variants are reason enough not to market these products with these declarations. However, only Jaden Technologies itself knows why they did not produce their own, realistic data sheets and register the pastes properly. But this does not reflect well on the company and the other products.
Microscopy and particle sizes
If you spread a paste with a spatula on a smooth surface (glass slide) and then pull it off thinly until the layer tears off, you can already draw two conclusions. You can see how well the paste adheres to a smooth surface, such as a GPU die, and you can see how it tears off at the resulting edges. The particle test also shows that Emerald, for example, relies on larger particles and a thinner matrix. It is the larger and cheaper particles that tend to slow down the minimal BLT. Something like this does not usually last very long.
The EC360 Ruby still makes a pretty good impression, while the EC360 Diamond tries to compensate for the lower fill level with larger particles. This is somewhat more pronounced than with the EC360 Emerald, but the EC360 Carbon is obviously trying to set a very inglorious size record. The fact that the Ruby performs so poorly must also have something to do with the siloxanes used, because the rest still looks quite usable.
36 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
1
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Veteran
Mitglied
Urgestein
1
Urgestein
Mitglied
Mitglied
1
1
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →