Myth #1: You only have to let a burn-in run long enough
It is well known that good pastes are also defined by the fact that the differences between the first and the umpteenth cycle are as small as possible. The frequent temperature differences of less than one Kelvin in many GPU tests are certainly also defined by the high initial performance of some pastes, which, however, cannot be maintained for long over several cycles. For this very reason, I will now take both pastes and simply run through 6 cycles. At around one hour per cycle, that’s just over 6 hours for this paste for the following test.
At 30°C, the Thermal Hero Quantum loses a whopping 38 percent in thermal conductivity between the first and sixth run and at 100°C it still loses a good 9 percent! Of course, the changing layer thicknesses (BLT) also play a role here, because the cheap produced soup literally melts when cold, but I’ll come to that in a moment.
But you can definitely recognize a trend that lies outside the BLT changes, because the Thermalright TF8 is still doing well after 6 cycles. On the contrary, the performance at 100 °C even increases slightly by a good 3 percent. At 30 °C, the difference is only a good 15 percent, far less than half that of the Thermal Hero Quantum.
The BLT also plays an important role here, so in the next chapter I come to another myth that persists but is completely false.
However, we can already state that this myth would be destroyed. It is not the actual length of a measurement cycle that is decisive, but the frequency of the respective temperature changes, which unfortunately also take a lot of time. This is because the warming up and cooling down process does not take place abruptly, but rather slowly increases and decreases. Otherwise it is useless.
66 Antworten
Kommentar
Lade neue Kommentare
Veteran
Veteran
Veteran
Urgestein
1
Urgestein
1
Urgestein
Urgestein
1
Veteran
Urgestein
1
Veteran
Urgestein
Urgestein
Urgestein
Mitglied
1
Alle Kommentare lesen unter igor´sLAB Community →