The effective thermal conductivity
Of course, we already know from the basic articles what role the interface resistance plays. That’s exactly why I’m leaving it in the calculation for now, because it’s much more relevant in practice. And, as in all my other reviews, if you already have Rth, you don’t really need λeff, i.e. the effective thermal conductivity. But it is a popular and often used reference value, so it has to be included.
Once again, we see how the values change over the BLT, although you can no longer expect a linear curve here due to the included area and BLT.
Of course, the whole thing is also shown again as a bar chart for the most important layer thicknesses:
Apart from the fact that I also have the temperatures of the heater and the water, which are of no use to us because they either adapt to the resistances or always remain constant, I have my measurement setup with temperature sensors 1 to 6 (see diagram on page 2). You can now use these values to make some very interesting considerations.
GPU simulation
Let us first take the values of T3 and T4, which show us the two temperatures at the respective contact surfaces between which the paste is located. These curves are no longer completely linear, as the interface resistance also changes slightly. And we no longer calculate with 6 points, but only with 2 absolute values for the temperature difference instead of a gradient as withTTim, whereby the sample temperature remains constant. And what is the point of all this? The behavior is similar to that of a graphics card, which has to manage without an IHS and where the delta is usually measured between the substrate and the water temperature.
This can be projected quite well, because I test the temperature difference on the two surfaces between which the paste is located. And where do the Thermal Hero Ultra and Quantum end up? Always look down at the bottom of the chart bars in shame.
CPU simulation
Now I compare T3 of each of the tested products. If we normalize the values for the heater, we already have sufficient thermal resistance in the copper reference block to simulate the CPU temperature and its differences with different pads in comparison with each other and in relation to the thickness of the paste replacement. It is precisely this variable evaluation that no test on a CPU can offer, because the respective CPUs are bent differently and it is therefore not really reproducible. But the TIMA5 test does, because I can measure all distances, which is simply not possible on a single CPU.
The result of the two pastes speaks volumes:
TIMA5 control result for the bulk values
The Thermal Hero Ultra is the less expensive of the two pastes, but still far too expensive for what it offers. A total of 2.8 W/mK is nothing to get excited about. Cheap Chinese paste for the price of a high-end Italian.
And now the highly praised Quantum, whose approximately 3 W/mK is almost devastatingly low when you consider the price. Here you are flushing your hard-earned money down the toilet, because at almost 15 euros per gram, this is a provocation.
55 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Urgestein
Veteran
Urgestein
Veteran
Urgestein
1
Mitglied
Veteran
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
1
Mitglied
Urgestein
1
Urgestein
Urgestein
Veteran
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →