I actually didn’t want to test the PCGH Gear Carbonite Ultra at the beginning, because it is always difficult to objectively evaluate products from colleagues. Not because I lack objectivity, but because third parties are quick to assume the opposite. It doesn’t matter whether the result is good or bad, there is always a reason to complain. I do it anyway for two reasons: Firstly, it was the paste for which I received the most inquiries and for which there are the fewest reliable tests. Secondly, this paste is unlikely to be available in this form for much longer, so I have to hurry.
Why did they settle on exactly this name? I have no idea. Apart from the fact that Carbonite Ultra has been around for ages as an established brand product in the technology sector (video professionals know this), the risk of confusion with Carbonaut from Thermal Grizzly is certainly not to be dismissed out of hand. Action will certainly have to be taken. But at least it encourages curiosity. Because when a single gram costs almost 10 euros (now sold out) and two of them almost 16 euros, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. That’s a profit margin to dream about, although I’m very sure (ok, I know) that PCGH profits the least here of all those involved. I have to defend those involved at PCGH, because they definitely relied on the wrong person or persons.
I can already spoil the fact that the paste is really good for short-term use, which is probably also due to its optimized composition. However, usability and reliability are not its greatest strengths. It will have to be measured against the Arctic MX-6, both in terms of consistency and long-term behavior. The only difference is that the MX-6 is significantly cheaper in terms of weight. The Carbonite Ultra in the 2-gram tube costs more than four times as much! However, the 14 W/(m-K) stated for the thermal conductivity is once again the usual marketing fairy tale.
An important foreword on “bulk thermal conductivity” and false marketing promises
I am now deliberately prefacing this with two quotes that not only speak to me from the heart, but also absolutely agree with my laboratory measurements. Conventional pastes cannot achieve much more than 4 to 5 W/(m-K) 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 knowing the exact circumstances, such values are completely misleading and pointless. You could give many suppliers credit for simply not knowing any better and just copying the OEM data sheets, but it doesn’t make misleading consumers any better.
The mostly theoretically determined thermal conductivity values differ greatly depending on the application, as important factors such as contact pressure, temperature or surface cannot be taken into account uniformly. All our cooling products have therefore no longer given specific thermal conductivity values since the 4th quarter of 2020.We continue to rely on the test results of independent tests and reviews so that our customers can get a more realistic impression of the performance of our products in practice under comparable circumstances.
Arctic
ARCTIC has made a conscious decision not to provide thermal conductivity values for thermal pastes and thermal pads, as many manufacturers invent, artificially inflate or embellish these values. Thermally conductive paste has a thermal conductivity of 1 to 4 W/mK. Values outside this range, such as 12.5 W/mK, do not correspond to the truth. Many competitors state values above 4 W/mK to suggest better performance. This often leads to false expectations and dissatisfied users…
Unboxing
In addition to the paste, you receive two spatulas (one would have been enough) and two isopropanol pads with instructions. The initiated also like to use glasses cleaning cloths, which are much cheaper 🙂
Technical data
Let’s leave the marketing aside and look at the technical data of this paste, which is available in various containers and sizes. We can see that the information on thermal conductivity has nothing to do with reality. The green shaded columns contain measured values, the gray shaded columns contain the manufacturer’s data, which is usually missing
| Technical data | |
| Bulk thermal conductivity λ | 14 W/(m-K) (marketing) |
| Effective thermal conductivity λeff, | 3.383 W/(m-K) (Test method ASTM D5470-17) |
| Effective thermal resistance Rth 400 µm | 1.28900 mm²K/W (Test method ASTM D5470-17) |
| Effective thermal resistance Rth 200 µm | 0.68130 mm²K/W (Test method ASTM D5470-17) |
| Effective thermal resistance Rth 100 µm | 0.40036 mm²K/W (Test method ASTM D5470-17) |
| Effective thermal resistance Rth min | 0.18004 mm²K/W (Test method ASTM D5470-17) |
| Minimum layer thickness | 9 µm (at 60 PSI and 60 °C after 30 minutes) |
| Thermally conductive particles | Zinc oxide (ZnO), some aluminium oxide (AL2O3), silicone oil (Test method LIBS, Keyence EA-300) |
| Volatilization rate (volatilization) | n/a |
| Density | 3.74 g/cm³ |
| Viscosity | 110 to 170 Pa-s (1100 to 1700 poise), not plausible |
| Working temperature | -250°C / 350°C, not plausible |
| Breakdown voltage | n/a |
| Contact resistance | n/a |
| Maximum pressure | n/a |
| Color | blue |
| Accessories |
2 spatulas, Alko-Pads |
| Container |
Tube 1 g, 2 g |
Further links and basics
42 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Urgestein
1
Mitglied
Mitglied
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Veteran
Veteran
Veteran
Urgestein
Urgestein
Mitglied
1
Urgestein
Veteran
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →