who cares, people will keep saying a center pea size is better (and is not, even worse on ryzen).. and there are already videos like this one 10 years ago.
Listen here youtube algorithm. I already learned what I needed. I got the job done. Now I don't want to think about it for the next 5 years. I don't need my recommendations filled with thermal paste videos. I'm not a thermal past aficionado do you understand. I'm not planning any trips to thermal paste conventions. It was a one and done kinda deal you get me? Please stop!
You just posted a comment where you said thermal paste like five times. The last thing you see before you die is going to be a thermal paste TH-cam video.
@@Mikael-jt1hk you lack self awareness if u think your statement in and of itself doesn't say a lot about your own intelligence. curb your ego; get off that high horse. nobody respects an insufferable dickhead that can't act their own age.
The funny thing is the video test optimal placement for a inferior product, if going that in depth might as well make a guide on applying liquid thermal paste, the actual top of line conductivity.
that's not a mistake... that's called clickbait. "oh my god, a really good method i know of doesn't work? i have to check this out to see why the other methods are better!"
"X" and "spread" methods are both tied for the best cooling performance, just to save you guys 5 minutes. (Edit) Thanks for the likes! Great 16th birthday present xD (Edit again) I have been informed that even though this is theoretically true, when you use "spread" you are spreading the paste to your hight, not the hight of the cooler. This allows for air bubbles, and any airbubbles are the same as not having any paste there.
I was a die bonder specialist in a semiconductor manufacturing plant. We always used cross epoxy patterns for square dies as not have voids underneath the die. So your results are spot on.
That is me ...i mean it i used the whole tube ....not the one from my cooler used that to but also a tube i hade laying around...i followed this video called the verge 2000$ gaming pc
First time I've seen a video on thermal paste done like this and: why didn't anybody think of that before? The glass is such an effective method to show how the paste spreads! Well done!
It's not an effective method to show how paste spreads, when you screw down the block on your CPU socket it applies much more pressure than what you can do by hand like that, the paste also heats up with your cpu, which makes it spread further. The result here also show max Temps, which could've been a single second spike. I've applied with all methods, with sufficient paste, your cpu always gets covered completely.
@@TechReflex but he didn't meassure with the glass, so the results should be correct. And if you choose a good method, less paste should be sufficient. Worst would be bad method and to less or to much paste. So for people with no idea how much to take, it's even more helpfull. I did go with a cross most times, once i gave spreading a try.
I've seen a few people do it before but usually people just whine its either not comparable as you aren't as strong or "you could have used more paste on your single spot". Kinda missing the point.
This is probably one of best comparison video, and effort had been taken by applying paste, then turning on computer, running benchmarks, then repeating with different method. Thanks for the video.
It might be tempting to spread the thermal paste onto the CPU yourself. We recommend letting the pressure from the base-plate or waterblock being installed do it for you. Incorrect manual application can cause air bubbles to form in the paste, which can negatively impact the thermal conductivity. - Intel
That might be true for their shit stock cooler but for anything aftermarket, the mounting pressure is just so high that air cannot possibly be trapped with the paste.
Intel doesn't know what they are talking about. I use Elmer's glue and place my motherboard in the microwave for 5 minutes for maximum adhesion. I guarantee my pc has lower temps than anyone here, mainly because it doesn't turn on.
I'm not sure the pressure he's applying to that glass is the same pressure that gets applied when cranking down a heat sink. Using the single dot method seems to work pretty good when cranking a heat sink down because when I remove the heat sink it is applied all the way across the CPU every time.
its fucking terrible, it showed nothing, you do realise the second after that video cuts the temperatures quickly rise again, wya better to actually just apply a heatsing to it and let it run for 5-10 minutes with each method to get a true result
For people saying: "just add more paste to the single dot". If you add more paste on the single dot, the paste will spread in a round shape, which means in order to cover the whole square, some paste needs to surpass the edge. The cross shape is the most logical way to cover the space of a square.
Most lógica is to use a spread card and cover whole thing in very thin layer. All those shapes are just going to expand and not cover the whole chip since it’s a square. If the cross doesn’t come out the ends then you know it didn’t reach the inside corners of the cross. I don’t know why people are so scared to cover the whole cpu, the paste isn’t conductive so any that comes out just wipe off of you want don’t even have to. Better to have whole squared covered than a shaped expanded that doesn’t make a square.
After delidding a CPU and seeing that most of what needed to be covered is to one side of the chip or the other, spreading is absolutely the smartest thing to do; if you're worried you spread it to thin, then apply more, as long as you're not using a conductive paste then it doesn't matter if it comes out the side like you said!
@@slavefeet57 I don't think a thermal paste application can be too thin, unless it's literally transparent. Its only job is to fill microscopic surface imperfections.
@@codymadison9993some thermal paste is conductive. That’s the high performance stuff. So yeah, you need to know what you got before you go ahead. If you don’t know, be safe
@@codymadison9993how old are you? Back in a day we didn't had ihs. That metal cover. With to much paste or not enough you could crack your cpu die. Cpu doesn't cover the whole surface either. All is in the center. Around edges are empty space. Some heat will transfer but most is right in the middle. Dies nowdays are bit bigger and prolly cover more space so makes sense for single dot not be enough anymore. They also heat more than rad is able to take away. So makes sense to cover the whole thing. But ideally we need quicker heat transfer or bigger surface area for same amount of watts. The latter means different dies designs that we have now.
One of the best videos ive ever seen not Talking bullshit for minutes just show what the people want to see and its done . Great Job man !!!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
I usually just fill my whole bathtub with thermal paste and completely submerge my whole pc in it. It had yet to exceed -48° i did notice a 92FPS drop due to not being able to see my RGB through the thermal paste, so i made sure to cover the entire bathroom in RGB lights to eliminate FPS loss. 10/10 most effective method so far. Highly recommended.
Well - the total amount of paste applied is different for the methods shown. This means using a single point method with a little bit more paste will also yield optimum results. As long as you apply enough past to cover the full area (not more) you will always get the best possible results.
Even with more paste, its still unlikely to reach the corners with one dot method.. without accidentally applying too much and going over the edges. Its clear the one dot method is the worst, but some people can't admit when they are wrong and continue using an interior method for years... Almost any other method is better that dot. It's just facts
@@jkjkjkkjkjk Whatever you may think ... in practice, when replacing thermal paste, I have never observed incomplete coverage of the package surface. I guess that also depends on the pressure the heat sink applies.
@@Andreas_Straub in every single test that I've seen like this one, it's the thin even spread over the whole cpu that has the best temperatures. The point of thermal paste is to fill the gap between the heatsink and the CPU, so any square millimeter left uncovered by thermal paste is going to result in increased temperature. Also, there's a video on youtube of someone take Arctic Silver 5 and placing in under the CPU pins and firing up the computer and it works just fine lol. More is more when it comes to thermal paste.
@@Andreas_Straub yes. When the cpu is pressed against its heat sink there is enough pressure to make many methods work. It's very hard to mess up thermal paste. More problems come with the mount and heat sink then the paste itself. Had a GPU core getting hot just a few weeks after doing paste and thermal pads. (This 3060 came brand new with terrible thermal pads.). Anyway, with heat expansion and contraction, what initially gave a wonderful 54C at full load became 73 and then it'd throttle back about 35% of what it's capability was. I opened it up to investigate. Thermal pads were too thick not allowing for as much core pressure at the bottom. I spread the thermal pads, a clay like type easy to change until putting the GPU together showed that thermal paste was flat. You can tell if thermal pads on the memory are too thick if they cut into the thermal pads instead of just giving and impression. It wasn't an issue a few weeks earlier but as things shift with heat it was an issue later. I've redone many without issue. I guess I'm human. Lol I use too much thermal paste as a norm. It spreads past the core. I'm trying to get better, but in this case it was all still wet so used the excess around the edge to redo and manually spread the paste. Thin manual spread looks better after putting it together and taking it apart.
@@tradingnichols2255 Here In Brazil, a channel tested how much or how little thermal paste would affect performance and concluded that using too little thermal paste is worse than using too much. This is because using too little thermal paste can lead to higher temperatures, while using too much thermal paste may not provide any significant improvement, but it also won't cause any harm as the excess paste is expelled by the heatsink. Therefore, it is better to err on the side of using too much thermal paste than too little. So, you arent really wrong of use "too much" of it.
Piece of advice, overapply or spread it on the gpu die. Otherwise you risk very real damage to the gpu. With the cpu you have the ihs and either thermal paste under it or solder as a buffer before you risk damage.
It's all about the quantity not the placement. If you put more in the middle it would have spread too and that's true for all the other methods. So for me there no wrong way of applying thermal past it all about the amount, if you are not sure just spread it manually and you'll be fine.
While the method really doesn't matter if you have enough paste I'd still avoid using the single dot method myself, it's harder to judge how much paste to use and there is a risk of uneven spreading depending on evenness of the cooler's mounting pressure (however small this risk may be). I would personally go with the cross or spreading methods just for the peace of mind of knowing for sure there is full coverage, especially on a larger CPU package like that of ThreadRipper.
@@toxx1220 real cooler is both flatter, more rigid and pressed against the cpu with higher and more even pressure. Point is, application method doesn't matter as long as **enough** thermal paste is applied.
Super informative. No kids appearing as 'intro' for the first 3 minutes, no random lame daddy jokes absolutely irrelevant to the point of the video. Greatly done. Thanks.
Really good test, glad to see my ye olde spreading method holds up. Never bothered to try anything else but I would have based on this video of it turned out different. Thanks for making this easy. Also holy crap bro, you did this in a 30 degree room? That's some dedication.
Maybe he lives in aan Asian country. It's actually a cool temperature in summers. Normal Summer temps go as high as 45° in room. And that's the average.
@@noway8233 Hence the contact pressure, which squeezes it to the point where parts of the metal of the heatsink are contacting parts of the metal of the heat spreader, with the paste only serving to fill in the gaps from the texture of the surfaces.
I always use the spread method. You really want as thin of a layer as possible while still maintaining enough paste to fill all the imperceptible voids between the IHS and the heatsink. Use the paste to eliminate any insulating barrier that could be formed by tiny pockets of air, while not using so much paste that it becomes a barrier itself.
I'm not a fan of the spread method, as you can see when the glass is pushed down, tiny pockets of air can be trapped for lack of an escape path. The X method allows all of the air to be evacuated out of the 4 "V" shaped channels as the paste spreads and the gap closes, I prefer X method augmented with a little extra dab at the intersection point to ensure that the middle is the first place that the cooler contacts and begins spreading paste from. Spread can absolutely work, but the potential for a less than ideal thermal interface is there, also don't forget that any trapped air expands when it gets hot.
@@blackbeardthepirate7467 air is definitely not a good thermal conductor. So many thermal tests have been done on different paste application methods by many different testers and there's rarely a significant enough difference to any method that has enough paste. Unless you're going all out for a few degrees difference in delta T, there really isn't much of a way to go wrong aside from forgetting to remove the plastic from your shiny new cooler's cold plate. I honestly only prefer the spread method for these reasons: 1. About 15 years ago, a finessed spread method made a measurable difference in thermals for me 2. The overflow is nearly imperceptible, meaning less cleanup each time you remove the cooler 3. It has never failed me, and every time I put together a computer since, my thermals are among the best for similar OC/benchmark scores. While #3 could be a result of lucky bin lottery with the CPU, the first two are not. As such, I'm sticking with something I've experienced great results with. *when I say spread method, I certainly don't mean like you're buttering a piece of toast like some people seem to do. That shit don't work worth a damn.
I spread, but not quite to the edge and not flat, slightly raised in the middle. The paste has somewhere to go and no air bubbles. ..also use a spreader the same size as the chip!
Spreading is my favorite. We need to consider that he is using a clear plate and controlling how it spreads by applying pressure in different direction. With a heatsink he could not see how it is spreading until it is removed.
If you mount your heatsink correctly and cross screw everything will apply flat after a power on and benchmark, re tighten if possible and everything will be flatten out
Not to mention, he can't generate the same amount of pressure pushing with his hands that a correctly mounted heatsink will do. The grain of rice method is fine, biggest thing is making sure you have the right amount. If you are new to doing it or it's been a while, apply some, mount heatsink, remove heatsink and see how much or little is covered. Remove and reapply with appropriate amount. Stressing the cpu will also heat the paste and spread it out more.
@@Ammothief41 thats margin of error territory. Specailly since we don't know if his room say went to 31c instead of 30c or vice versa having a perfectly stable 30c unless he had ac controlling it to that doesn't really happen. But even then +-2c across cinnbench runs is pretty common
As a thermal engineering manager in Silicon Valley, this is a great start to a meaningful investigation. For someone else who has the energy: use the visualization method shown in the video only to check coverage, then duplicate it with a real heat sink, run a heavy work load on the CPU, and then measure temperature. Compare different application patterns. Use automation or a stencil to place the thermal paste, so that it is consistent and repeatable. That would be really useful. The glass is fine for visualization, but it is very poor at transferring heat to the air. That arrangement could not support a real workload on the CPU. Also, remember that thermal resistance is directly proportional to thermal interface material thickness. Coverage is critical, but TIM thickness is important too. Since this is a Windows machine, did the experiment turn off all of the background processes in windows? They run constantly and very over time, so power dissipation may have been different for different tests. We are also not certain that the experimenter waited for thermal steady state. Running the test in this way, the results would show a larger temperature difference, and this could be made into a conference worthy paper. Overall great video. Thanks!
Great Visual Demo of the various methods on applying the compound!!! All I can say is too much or too little compound makes a difference when running a component past its rated values. As a side note, Since the time I began working on personal computers, my first (a second hand IBM PC/XT 286) in the early 1990’s and many home builds after, I came to understand Heatsink compound was designed to fill the micro voids/pits in the metal of the Heatsink and CPU heat dissipation plate. That said, you only need enough to fill those voids, so the wipe method of a very thin film of paste applied to the entire heat dissipation plates has worked best for me. The various thermal compounds sold could be a another video.
Incorrect. Linus proved that using too much paste makes no difference, since the excess is all squeezed out during the mounting process regardless. Using too little paste can make a difference.
@pleasurewasmine Of course you are correct. Aside from waste, cost, mess (having to clean excess off.) What other downsides are there of laying down too much?
seems to me it depends a lot on the quantity and not the shape. even with the one point, if you put enough it’ll eventually cover the whole surface and get the same temp as spread. great video though
@@IrocZIV except I've used too much and thermally it makes no difference under load. Only too little makes a big difference and that's where temps are detrimental, including to long term usage. Also another thing is that the pressure from the heat sink often pushes out excess paste which means you get the same spread left behind anyway. Making your own thin spread just causes less waste, both before and after cleaning. That's about the only actual difference there is.
Good to know the X method is effective enough, which is what I've always used. It's not just that, the quality of the cooler and how you set up the airflow of your case also matter significantly. I managed to keep my gaming rig in the low 70s at maximum pushing it as hard as I could with benchmarks and mid-upper 20s at idle.
@@herocosmogt8335 the paste? i used arctic mx-4, but i hear the thermal grizzly is even better. i spread with credit card! is best! but don't agitate the paste too much to work air bubbles in it.
The goal is to get the whole IHS covered, so the heat can be transfered from the whole surface. Dont be afraid to apply enough compound, very few is bad, very bad, to much is not bad just messy beacause will get out from the borders but the whole IHS will be covered ensuring the best heat transfer.
@@Story_Teller_Everyone Well, the topic in the video and my post is about applying thermal compound based on silicon, not about liquid metal. So is out of topic. In other hand, I've never considered and never recommend using liquid metal because is Gallium which diffuses molecularly by contact in the crystal lattice of other metals (that is the "corrosive" effect you mentioned) and it is an electrical conductor, so is dangerous and the benefits are not so great to risk your components, is safer to invest in a better cooling solution.
While too much isn't inherently bad it does very much depend on the formula of the thermal compound being used, some compounds do contain materials that make them electrically conductive or capacitive in which case you want to be cautious with your application. Most modern compounds are likely safe but it's something you should make sure of, and when applying it I would personally prefer to spread it myself to ensure maximum coverage.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I was curious and did a statistical analysis of the temperature data and found that there isn't any significant difference between any of the methods used in this video. Just use which ever one you like and make sure it'll cover at least 2/3 of the CPU when it's spread out and you're good.
Only stupid people would assume that as click bait, it was just some “art” he did while also using the emojis...nonetheless he a concise information during the video so you should be thankful
Thank you very much for the great video. Obvious results: the larger the contact area of the thermal compound, the larger the heat dissipation area and, consequently, the lower the CPU temperature.
Thanks for providing one of the basic concept in pc building in an excellent way that is not avaliable anywhere and easy to understand. Another great thing about this video is not always its required to use lips if you know to express it the way its been done in this presentation, hats off to you and thanks for putting all your hard work to provide us the information.
When I first started building computers almost two decades ago, I used to use the "spread" method. It just seemed logical to me. But I went to the "one point" method because EVERYONE was saying it's the best and that was that. Well . . . this is what I get for listening to others. I have now learned that it is my moral imperative to gaslight everyone and only listen to myself!
Interesting but there are alot variables here for it to be an true accurate representation. Most notably quantities of paste and force applied. What it does highlight very well is that its important to ensure full coverage of the device for better thermals.
Not exactly. Although the tempertature difference is no that big, as shown in the video, with a single point (with a bit more paste) would result in some paste overflowing on all 4 edges, since the single point will spread out like a circle. But the chip is square, so you will always have either the corners not covered, or the paste overflowing on the edges with a single point. I personally always used the 9-point method to get the best results.
Yeah he didn't put enough on. Not to mention that the clear plastic was not a hard as, nor exerting the same pressure as a correctly attached cooler would.
I agree, 1 dot looks like it had in total less paste than the other methods. Which means it is at least as effective if not better. And it would not overflow at corners any more than any other method due to surface tension. Overflow depends only on absolutr quantity of the paste.
You should do this with an AMD Ryzen processor, their heat areas are completely different, intel has a single chip in the middle under the heat spreader while ryzen has a lot of chips spread out under it
Always preferred the spread method! I believed that it gave me the ability to control the amount of therm paste ( not to much not to little ) and loved that I knew it was fully covered
Might want to check long term temps. Like several months to a year or two and see if the temps get dramatically worst, and see if the paste dried up vs other methods. See if bubbles creates hot spots.
Although I really like using the glass to show how the paste spreads i noticed that the amount used in one method vs the other was rather uneven... For example the 5 point method the dots were on the small side, if more generous amount were used wouldn't it cover the entire CPU once pressure was applied? I think the same can be said of the 3 line method.
That's mx4 there and mx4 further spreads with thermal cycling and time. The mounting pressure is tremendous for anything other than the intel shit cooler and mx4 is really quick to fill all the gaps and come out at the sides. Saw that little dot? Nearly half of that will be squeezed out from the sides of the IHS in a week
I might be the only one but I apply my thermal paste as concentric boxes, one box maybe 1/2 cm away from the edge, then another one inside of it, then a dot in the centre. When force is applied you get full coverage pretty concistently without needing to spread it over the CPU manually.
X method is slightly better as it pushes air out of the interface. The whole idea of thermal paste is so you do not have air in between the heatsing and the processor cap. Still, the ammount of air trapped by the Spread method is insignificant. But I'll be using the X from now on. Thanks!
yeah i was doing spread then i realized if u pressure heatsink too much with spread method it will end up with pump out effect.i think safest way is x method.
I used to blindly use the pea size dot method just because everyone said "it's the best" but I've switched over to the spread method because (A) it's consistent, (B) it guarantees full coverage, (C) the "air bubble issue that people speculate about isn't actually a problem in practice, and (D) it's the only method available if you're buying bulk paste anyway.
No, that's a mess with no use. All the methods are working here, there's a negligible margin of 3,5° that won't harm the CPU as long as it doesn't pass the 90°. Go for the dot.
@@RR-uc1wb Point is, all of those methods are "good placement". Your CPU is going to be obsolete by the time it MAY die. But surely it won't melt down as long as you're not overclocking the shit out of it and the cooler fails to do its job.
The video I've wanted to see since I built my first pc. And as a spreader, I'm glad to see the results. I know I can get the same results by just using a dot, which it looks like you were a bit light on for that one, but I just like to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I got perfect coverage.
@@WarLord_87 if he would have applied more than it would have been perfect coverage. Spread works best because there is no room for error with the amount . The method of application is not important, the amount of paste is. Always better to put a bit to much than to little.
Honestly, any normal person who has the slightest knowledge of physics and thermodynamics doesn't need tests like these! The most efficient and correct way to spread the paste throughout IHS Leaving a thin even layer!
What if I told you...most reviewers room temps are based on a thermostat and the temp readouts can be far off the actual and that thermal loads during stress tests can vary meaning without power monitoring most testing is inaccurate. Been doing this over 20 years and a decent dot and x (for large dies) is the best, mounting pressure and moving the surfaces make a HUGE difference, even more so than the method so even a bad method can look good if the testing doesn't measure the power draw and clamping pressure and ambient extremely accurately.
If spread gives same temp as cross then spread would be best as yur sure whole cpu covered. with cross you cannot be sure as u cannot apply pressure with observation when using a real heatsink?
No talking, no bullshit, just 100% info. You know how to TH-cam.
Get up cawksucka, it's a beautiful day
What's wrong with talking?
Actually it’s not that good. You’re just easily impressed.
@@swashington942 r/whoosh
@@keyboardwarrior2418 some people talk too much and no info.
Hands down the best and fastest video showing this info.
No 5 min intro and annoying please subscribe!
who cares, people will keep saying a center pea size is better (and is not, even worse on ryzen).. and there are already videos like this one 10 years ago.
Agreed but everything depends on how much paste u apply.
Cassiopeia and yet you cared enough to waste your precious time to make a pointless comment.
Ill use spread
Listen here youtube algorithm. I already learned what I needed. I got the job done. Now I don't want to think about it for the next 5 years. I don't need my recommendations filled with thermal paste videos. I'm not a thermal past aficionado do you understand. I'm not planning any trips to thermal paste conventions. It was a one and done kinda deal you get me? Please stop!
Try going into your history and searching thermal paste or pc builds more generally and then removing them.
+1 for this brah@@benjaminrogers8875
😂😂😂😂👍🏻👊💥💯
They may try toothpaste ads before giving up
You just posted a comment where you said thermal paste like five times. The last thing you see before you die is going to be a thermal paste TH-cam video.
AT LAST. Someone who uploads an actual useful guide with no talking, no bs, and that actually gets to the point. Thanks a lot for this.
Gets to the point? It's a five minute video and the only bit that actually matters is the last 2 seconds.
@@kane29842 Well yes but ...... Okay you're right I just realized that I agree with you.
You really needed a guide for this? That says a lot about the size of your brain 😂
@@Mikael-jt1hk you lack self awareness if u think your statement in and of itself doesn't say a lot about your own intelligence. curb your ego; get off that high horse. nobody respects an insufferable dickhead that can't act their own age.
The funny thing is the video test optimal placement for a inferior product, if going that in depth might as well make a guide on applying liquid thermal paste, the actual top of line conductivity.
It's funny how the one being used in the thumbnail as an incorrect example is actually one of the best performing ones
Ikr
ITs Not a thumbnail but clickbait
it's not the incorrect example
It's the X example
edit: this is a bad joke, ignore this lmfao
that's not a mistake... that's called clickbait. "oh my god, a really good method i know of doesn't work? i have to check this out to see why the other methods are better!"
Its the sign and the color. Red invokes negative emotions, and more so the cross.
i use The Verge method, it's actually quite good, thanks to them now i own a brand new cpu
lmao
lmao
Oof
Stop😂😂
It's essentially good pc building practice.
"X" and "spread" methods are both tied for the best cooling performance, just to save you guys 5 minutes.
(Edit) Thanks for the likes! Great 16th birthday present xD
(Edit again) I have been informed that even though this is theoretically true, when you use "spread" you are spreading the paste to your hight, not the hight of the cooler. This allows for air bubbles, and any airbubbles are the same as not having any paste there.
Danke
@@tachumilk4142 nein
@@ekssdeexd2424 👀
@Erdem spread is the most effective
@Erdem easiest*
I was a die bonder specialist in a semiconductor manufacturing plant. We always used cross epoxy patterns for square dies as not have voids underneath the die. So your results are spot on.
What about dot pattern
The four corners of die will have less coverage (fillet height) than the middle section of the die edge. @@ArunG273
@@ArunG273I could imagine that it is prone to forming bubbles
I just installed my Ryzen 7 5800x using this method, after watching demos of ALL the methods. This one is the best.!
Does it really matters tho 4 degrees celsius difference is nothing...
When the x covers the entire cpu is the most satisfying thing ever
I usually do the 5 dot but aftef this im definitely going with the X
the X has found to be one of the quickest and most effective solutions around.
indeed brother
you need to have non conductive thermal paste tho just to make sure nothing will get destroyed
Sometime it doesn't tho, I rather just use the spread method for 100% coverage.
The cpu:
This was the best day of my life
Lmao
Is that your dog in the thumbnail?
@@rknine7998 yessir
@@kejkej2065 fajny pies
@@benjapizarro981 limão 🍋🍋🍋
You forgot the "I paid for the whole tube so i'm going to use the whole tube" method
Lmao
That is me ...i mean it i used the whole tube ....not the one from my cooler used that to but also a tube i hade laying around...i followed this video called the verge 2000$ gaming pc
Use it for everything at home. Even for cooking.
@@thewhiterabbit133 WeLl ThE pC WoRkS tHo
N O
Read an article almost 20 years ago that showed the X method being the king, and i’ve been using it ever since. Glad to see that’s still the case.
First time I've seen a video on thermal paste done like this and: why didn't anybody think of that before? The glass is such an effective method to show how the paste spreads! Well done!
It's not an effective method to show how paste spreads, when you screw down the block on your CPU socket it applies much more pressure than what you can do by hand like that, the paste also heats up with your cpu, which makes it spread further. The result here also show max Temps, which could've been a single second spike. I've applied with all methods, with sufficient paste, your cpu always gets covered completely.
The thermal paste spread also depends if you tighten the screws randomly or evenly in a criss cross method
@@TechReflex but he didn't meassure with the glass, so the results should be correct. And if you choose a good method, less paste should be sufficient. Worst would be bad method and to less or to much paste. So for people with no idea how much to take, it's even more helpfull. I did go with a cross most times, once i gave spreading a try.
I've seen a few people do it before but usually people just whine its either not comparable as you aren't as strong or "you could have used more paste on your single spot". Kinda missing the point.
@@TechReflex Wait he didn't actually measure the temps with the glass right. That was just for demonstration
from the thumbnail i thought this would be a clickbait video and wasn't expecting such high quality effort content with really useful information
I?
? 7?740000ć0đ🇦🇨
@@jocke8219 ?
Thumbnail is kinda lame tho
@@lucasrosalino3035 appealing for the dumbest people = more views and alghorhitm shit.
Welcome to modern days..
That clear glass thing he was using, he had to reapply the thermal paste anyways to mount the CPU cooler
This is probably one of best comparison video, and effort had been taken by applying paste, then turning on computer, running benchmarks, then repeating with different method. Thanks for the video.
It might be tempting to spread the thermal paste onto the CPU yourself. We recommend letting the pressure from the base-plate or waterblock being installed do it for you. Incorrect manual application can cause air bubbles to form in the paste, which can negatively impact the thermal conductivity.
- Intel
Intel a bag of lying dicks
Ryzen-
I always spread
-Abraham Lincoln
That might be true for their shit stock cooler but for anything aftermarket, the mounting pressure is just so high that air cannot possibly be trapped with the paste.
Intel doesn't know what they are talking about. I use Elmer's glue and place my motherboard in the microwave for 5 minutes for maximum adhesion. I guarantee my pc has lower temps than anyone here, mainly because it doesn't turn on.
@@dronenoobFL LOL
Precise information..simple too
Daddy i find u every video stop spying on me >:(
Justin Y.5
@@driptoop3650 nigga tf
Stfu
@@driptoop3650 did u just call him..
Hol up
There are few times I've witnessed evolution of human thinking. This is one of them. Great thermal paste guide.
I'm not sure the pressure he's applying to that glass is the same pressure that gets applied when cranking down a heat sink. Using the single dot method seems to work pretty good when cranking a heat sink down because when I remove the heat sink it is applied all the way across the CPU every time.
it is what you will get when you think more about certain thing.
What’s that plastic thing he’s using
@@emma6648 it's just a simple piece of flat plastic to press down on the paste so it spreads out
its fucking terrible, it showed nothing, you do realise the second after that video cuts the temperatures quickly rise again, wya better to actually just apply a heatsing to it and let it run for 5-10 minutes with each method to get a true result
3:05, X-cross works like magic.
It spread perfectly into full square covered cpu
@@jasonlong9196 yea no shit
@@jasonlong9196 ur redundant, he og commenter but the time stamp already.
For people saying: "just add more paste to the single dot". If you add more paste on the single dot, the paste will spread in a round shape, which means in order to cover the whole square, some paste needs to surpass the edge. The cross shape is the most logical way to cover the space of a square.
Most lógica is to use a spread card and cover whole thing in very thin layer. All those shapes are just going to expand and not cover the whole chip since it’s a square. If the cross doesn’t come out the ends then you know it didn’t reach the inside corners of the cross.
I don’t know why people are so scared to cover the whole cpu, the paste isn’t conductive so any that comes out just wipe off of you want don’t even have to. Better to have whole squared covered than a shaped expanded that doesn’t make a square.
After delidding a CPU and seeing that most of what needed to be covered is to one side of the chip or the other, spreading is absolutely the smartest thing to do; if you're worried you spread it to thin, then apply more, as long as you're not using a conductive paste then it doesn't matter if it comes out the side like you said!
@@slavefeet57 I don't think a thermal paste application can be too thin, unless it's literally transparent. Its only job is to fill microscopic surface imperfections.
@@codymadison9993some thermal paste is conductive. That’s the high performance stuff. So yeah, you need to know what you got before you go ahead. If you don’t know, be safe
@@codymadison9993how old are you?
Back in a day we didn't had ihs. That metal cover.
With to much paste or not enough you could crack your cpu die.
Cpu doesn't cover the whole surface either. All is in the center. Around edges are empty space. Some heat will transfer but most is right in the middle.
Dies nowdays are bit bigger and prolly cover more space so makes sense for single dot not be enough anymore.
They also heat more than rad is able to take away. So makes sense to cover the whole thing.
But ideally we need quicker heat transfer or bigger surface area for same amount of watts. The latter means different dies designs that we have now.
One of the best videos ive ever seen not Talking bullshit for minutes just show what the people want to see and its done . Great Job man !!!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The end result is that you get inaccurate results to satisfy the masses
I usually just fill my whole bathtub with thermal paste and completely submerge my whole pc in it. It had yet to exceed -48° i did notice a 92FPS drop due to not being able to see my RGB through the thermal paste, so i made sure to cover the entire bathroom in RGB lights to eliminate FPS loss.
10/10 most effective method so far. Highly recommended.
lmaoo
This is copy pasted from another video bro
😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you, haven't laughed like that in a while
Just buy freezer bro then
Best thermal paste guide ever😘 I will go for the cross method ❤️
Wait wat
Noo the verge method is totaly 100% work
why not spread as thin as possible and then do some cross on top with cross center getting more than outer parts?
@@alkaponas to much thermal paste will make it over heat as well.
@@alkaponas I made like that
Spread as thin as possible and then center bit long dot
And I get a good results
Well - the total amount of paste applied is different for the methods shown. This means using a single point method with a little bit more paste will also yield optimum results. As long as you apply enough past to cover the full area (not more) you will always get the best possible results.
Even with more paste, its still unlikely to reach the corners with one dot method.. without accidentally applying too much and going over the edges. Its clear the one dot method is the worst, but some people can't admit when they are wrong and continue using an interior method for years... Almost any other method is better that dot. It's just facts
@@jkjkjkkjkjk Whatever you may think ... in practice, when replacing thermal paste, I have never observed incomplete coverage of the package surface. I guess that also depends on the pressure the heat sink applies.
@@Andreas_Straub in every single test that I've seen like this one, it's the thin even spread over the whole cpu that has the best temperatures. The point of thermal paste is to fill the gap between the heatsink and the CPU, so any square millimeter left uncovered by thermal paste is going to result in increased temperature. Also, there's a video on youtube of someone take Arctic Silver 5 and placing in under the CPU pins and firing up the computer and it works just fine lol. More is more when it comes to thermal paste.
@@Andreas_Straub yes. When the cpu is pressed against its heat sink there is enough pressure to make many methods work. It's very hard to mess up thermal paste.
More problems come with the mount and heat sink then the paste itself.
Had a GPU core getting hot just a few weeks after doing paste and thermal pads. (This 3060 came brand new with terrible thermal pads.).
Anyway, with heat expansion and contraction, what initially gave a wonderful 54C at full load became 73 and then it'd throttle back about 35% of what it's capability was.
I opened it up to investigate. Thermal pads were too thick not allowing for as much core pressure at the bottom. I spread the thermal pads, a clay like type easy to change until putting the GPU together showed that thermal paste was flat.
You can tell if thermal pads on the memory are too thick if they cut into the thermal pads instead of just giving and impression. It wasn't an issue a few weeks earlier but as things shift with heat it was an issue later.
I've redone many without issue. I guess I'm human. Lol
I use too much thermal paste as a norm. It spreads past the core. I'm trying to get better, but in this case it was all still wet so used the excess around the edge to redo and manually spread the paste.
Thin manual spread looks better after putting it together and taking it apart.
@@tradingnichols2255 Here In Brazil, a channel tested how much or how little thermal paste would affect performance and concluded that using too little thermal paste is worse than using too much. This is because using too little thermal paste can lead to higher temperatures, while using too much thermal paste may not provide any significant improvement, but it also won't cause any harm as the excess paste is expelled by the heatsink. Therefore, it is better to err on the side of using too much thermal paste than too little.
So, you arent really wrong of use "too much" of it.
the cross was very satisfying, less messy than spreading and covered perfectly, as shown by the test. I HAVE BEEN AWAKENED!
Lol
Piece of advice, overapply or spread it on the gpu die. Otherwise you risk very real damage to the gpu. With the cpu you have the ihs and either thermal paste under it or solder as a buffer before you risk damage.
cross can be replaced by 4 points only in cross (extreme points also meeting center together)
@@ArtisChronicles what is GPU die?
@@HassaanALal die is the top of the gpu chip where you would put the thermal compound, also cpu die same thing.
Direct to the point, this is just how TH-cam tutorials should be
yeah, but seldom are
Man seriously too good content, too useful. No advertisement, no clickbait, only information. Thanks Sir
The downside is that the information doesn't accurately represent results
Perfect thermal spread guide. No ads, easy learn. Thanks
Moral of the story: X gon give it to ya.
Rest in peace to Earl Simmons.
🙌🔥
Lyrical boxing !
Damn this is golden 💪🏿
This is good
Always been the best choice. Maximum spread and no chance of bubbles.
Finally something in my recommendations that I'm interested in
It's all about the quantity not the placement. If you put more in the middle it would have spread too and that's true for all the other methods. So for me there no wrong way of applying thermal past it all about the amount, if you are not sure just spread it manually and you'll be fine.
While the method really doesn't matter if you have enough paste I'd still avoid using the single dot method myself, it's harder to judge how much paste to use and there is a risk of uneven spreading depending on evenness of the cooler's mounting pressure (however small this risk may be). I would personally go with the cross or spreading methods just for the peace of mind of knowing for sure there is full coverage, especially on a larger CPU package like that of ThreadRipper.
Basically just wait for the paste to settle after an hour
With a dot, it will spread as a circle, so to get to the edges, you will have some spilling from the sides...
@@arnauddebroissia8964 except that thermal paste expands with higher temps so after a week it would cover it completely
@@needforspeedgaming7148 so before you have to wait 1 week to get full performance? Naw man i'm good with my own method.
What an excellent experiment and video to put out and so well done. Made 4 years ago and still doing work.
5:04 To see all the results side by side if you are lazy
But then you miss out on the soothing experience. 😊
Straight to the point, a lot of work, clear. You have my like.
Apply pressure over the middle when doing the clear glass demonstration, it'll spread even more. The way you apply pressure flexes the glass.
That's how a cpu cooler would apply pressure tho
@@pantwearer not really
@@pantwearer Your heatsink does not bent does it?
the testing is still pretty accurate tho since they must have tested it with a real cooler :)
@@toxx1220 real cooler is both flatter, more rigid and pressed against the cpu with higher and more even pressure. Point is, application method doesn't matter as long as **enough** thermal paste is applied.
Super informative.
No kids appearing as 'intro' for the first 3 minutes, no random lame daddy jokes absolutely irrelevant to the point of the video.
Greatly done. Thanks.
I love how this vid showed the paste coverage using a transparent sheet. Great vid, and I would probably do the x spread.
KP Delaney same. Low effort for high results
Really good test, glad to see my ye olde spreading method holds up. Never bothered to try anything else but I would have based on this video of it turned out different. Thanks for making this easy. Also holy crap bro, you did this in a 30 degree room? That's some dedication.
Maybe he lives in aan Asian country. It's actually a cool temperature in summers. Normal Summer temps go as high as 45° in room. And that's the average.
30*C is 86* F Celsius to Fahrenheit
Yeah, south east asian is really hot ans humid, such a pain for computers 😂
So basically, exactly as expected, in that the more of the CPU is covered in thermal paste, the lower the temperatures. Good job.
Not that simple, contact pressure matters too.
No, yuo need just a "thin layer" of the thermal paste
@@noway8233 Hence the contact pressure, which squeezes it to the point where parts of the metal of the heatsink are contacting parts of the metal of the heat spreader, with the paste only serving to fill in the gaps from the texture of the surfaces.
@@soundspark yeah, if both ihs and coldblade of a cooler would have perfect even surfface, you wouldnt need any thermal paste.
Perfect thread in a video that *seems* to be clear-cut, showing our eyes The Truth. We all thank you for your diligence.
أفضل فيديو على الإطلاق تحياتي من الجزائر 🇩🇿
i always use the mortal kombat logo method, but it is so time-consuming.
Test your might!!
Nice, with conductive paste you also have the fatality option
Freezer method.
*Fatality*
*FATALITY*
Glad to know that cross works best. Since I'd been using that method for all my builds up to now.
same result as spread
@@Chriscs7 but faster and easier
@@the_emmo *if you're not buying bulk paste that comes in a can, anyway
Perfect. Clear and concise. This is my favourite thermal paste analysis!
This must've been so exhausting dude. Great work 👍
I always use the spread method. You really want as thin of a layer as possible while still maintaining enough paste to fill all the imperceptible voids between the IHS and the heatsink. Use the paste to eliminate any insulating barrier that could be formed by tiny pockets of air, while not using so much paste that it becomes a barrier itself.
I also use the spread and use a completely clean plastic bag and finger to do the spreading.
Thermal grizzly comes with an applicator that has a spreader on it. Ever since i started using TG i have used the spread method.
I'm not a fan of the spread method, as you can see when the glass is pushed down, tiny pockets of air can be trapped for lack of an escape path. The X method allows all of the air to be evacuated out of the 4 "V" shaped channels as the paste spreads and the gap closes, I prefer X method augmented with a little extra dab at the intersection point to ensure that the middle is the first place that the cooler contacts and begins spreading paste from. Spread can absolutely work, but the potential for a less than ideal thermal interface is there, also don't forget that any trapped air expands when it gets hot.
@@blackbeardthepirate7467 air is definitely not a good thermal conductor. So many thermal tests have been done on different paste application methods by many different testers and there's rarely a significant enough difference to any method that has enough paste. Unless you're going all out for a few degrees difference in delta T, there really isn't much of a way to go wrong aside from forgetting to remove the plastic from your shiny new cooler's cold plate.
I honestly only prefer the spread method for these reasons:
1. About 15 years ago, a finessed spread method made a measurable difference in thermals for me
2. The overflow is nearly imperceptible, meaning less cleanup each time you remove the cooler
3. It has never failed me, and every time I put together a computer since, my thermals are among the best for similar OC/benchmark scores.
While #3 could be a result of lucky bin lottery with the CPU, the first two are not. As such, I'm sticking with something I've experienced great results with. *when I say spread method, I certainly don't mean like you're buttering a piece of toast like some people seem to do. That shit don't work worth a damn.
I spread, but not quite to the edge and not flat, slightly raised in the middle. The paste has somewhere to go and no air bubbles.
..also use a spreader the same size as the chip!
Perfect guide! Nothing superfluous, just example and result. Thank you!
Spreading is my favorite. We need to consider that he is using a clear plate and controlling how it spreads by applying pressure in different direction. With a heatsink he could not see how it is spreading until it is removed.
Exactly this.
The other methods might have had a much worse application than shown.
If you mount your heatsink correctly and cross screw everything will apply flat after a power on and benchmark, re tighten if possible and everything will be flatten out
Not to mention, he can't generate the same amount of pressure pushing with his hands that a correctly mounted heatsink will do. The grain of rice method is fine, biggest thing is making sure you have the right amount. If you are new to doing it or it's been a while, apply some, mount heatsink, remove heatsink and see how much or little is covered. Remove and reapply with appropriate amount. Stressing the cpu will also heat the paste and spread it out more.
Dunno, seems like the pressure from the heatsink wasn't able to spread out the paste. 86c grain of rice vs 84c spread.
Not a big deal but it's there.
@@Ammothief41 thats margin of error territory. Specailly since we don't know if his room say went to 31c instead of 30c or vice versa having a perfectly stable 30c unless he had ac controlling it to that doesn't really happen. But even then +-2c across cinnbench runs is pretty common
As a thermal engineering manager in Silicon Valley, this is a great start to a meaningful investigation. For someone else who has the energy: use the visualization method shown in the video only to check coverage, then duplicate it with a real heat sink, run a heavy work load on the CPU, and then measure temperature. Compare different application patterns. Use automation or a stencil to place the thermal paste, so that it is consistent and repeatable. That would be really useful. The glass is fine for visualization, but it is very poor at transferring heat to the air. That arrangement could not support a real workload on the CPU. Also, remember that thermal resistance is directly proportional to thermal interface material thickness. Coverage is critical, but TIM thickness is important too. Since this is a Windows machine, did the experiment turn off all of the background processes in windows? They run constantly and very over time, so power dissipation may have been different for different tests. We are also not certain that the experimenter waited for thermal steady state. Running the test in this way, the results would show a larger temperature difference, and this could be made into a conference worthy paper. Overall great video. Thanks!
Basically as more area it covers the thermal paste, the more will be able to cool.
Very good video for such a underrated channel.
Great Visual Demo of the various methods on applying the compound!!!
All I can say is too much or too little compound makes a difference when running a component past its rated values.
As a side note, Since the time I began working on personal computers, my first (a second hand IBM PC/XT 286) in the early 1990’s and many home builds after, I came to understand Heatsink compound was designed to fill the micro voids/pits in the metal of the Heatsink and CPU heat dissipation plate. That said, you only need enough to fill those voids, so the wipe method of a very thin film of paste applied to the entire heat dissipation plates has worked best for me. The various thermal compounds sold could be a another video.
I'm quite similar in the use of the same method of spreading a thin layer, and I too began building computers in the early 90s but with the 486 SX-25
Incorrect. Linus proved that using too much paste makes no difference, since the excess is all squeezed out during the mounting process regardless. Using too little paste can make a difference.
@@TehButterflyEffectand using just the right amount makes all the difference
@pleasurewasmine Of course you are correct.
Aside from waste, cost, mess (having to clean excess off.)
What other downsides are there of laying down too much?
seems to me it depends a lot on the quantity and not the shape. even with the one point, if you put enough it’ll eventually cover the whole surface and get the same temp as spread. great video though
But, ideally you want as little as possible, while still covering the entire surface, because thermal paste isn't as conductive as metal.
Agreed. If the 1st one applied a little bit more paste then it would've cover all sides. Sadly, this pea size thing is so overrated.
@@IrocZIV except I've used too much and thermally it makes no difference under load. Only too little makes a big difference and that's where temps are detrimental, including to long term usage.
Also another thing is that the pressure from the heat sink often pushes out excess paste which means you get the same spread left behind anyway. Making your own thin spread just causes less waste, both before and after cleaning. That's about the only actual difference there is.
@@ArtisChronicles Practically, I'm sure you are right.
Except the spread will overflow at the sides before it reaches the edges due to the circular distribution.
Good to know the X method is effective enough, which is what I've always used. It's not just that, the quality of the cooler and how you set up the airflow of your case also matter significantly. I managed to keep my gaming rig in the low 70s at maximum pushing it as hard as I could with benchmarks and mid-upper 20s at idle.
Extreme overclockers spread the paste and that has given me the best results.
yep, always makes best result, you just have to be good at spreading the right amount!
Wowitsshit What is the best one
@@herocosmogt8335 the paste? i used arctic mx-4, but i hear the thermal grizzly is even better. i spread with credit card! is best! but don't agitate the paste too much to work air bubbles in it.
Wowitsshit I will use the spread or x method
@@herocosmogt8335 yeah X sounds good too, dot in middle never spreads out over the whole thing.
The goal is to get the whole IHS covered, so the heat can be transfered from the whole surface. Dont be afraid to apply enough compound, very few is bad, very bad, to much is not bad just messy beacause will get out from the borders but the whole IHS will be covered ensuring the best heat transfer.
If you use liquid metal too much is very bad, it can corrode your board.
@@Story_Teller_Everyone Well, the topic in the video and my post is about applying thermal compound based on silicon, not about liquid metal. So is out of topic. In other hand, I've never considered and never recommend using liquid metal because is Gallium which diffuses molecularly by contact in the crystal lattice of other metals (that is the "corrosive" effect you mentioned) and it is an electrical conductor, so is dangerous and the benefits are not so great to risk your components, is safer to invest in a better cooling solution.
Marius X4 I agree, just mentioning. I’m so lazy I don’t even take off stock compound. 3950x stays in 50’s good enough for me.
If you use too much and it seeps out you may have a hard time taking out any cpu cooler as the compound hardens!
While too much isn't inherently bad it does very much depend on the formula of the thermal compound being used, some compounds do contain materials that make them electrically conductive or capacitive in which case you want to be cautious with your application. Most modern compounds are likely safe but it's something you should make sure of, and when applying it I would personally prefer to spread it myself to ensure maximum coverage.
You forgot that is also one method called *the verge*, which you are suppose to draw a house on the cpu with the thermal paste
I laughed tooo much 💀💀💀
I think it was more of a cumshot
@@Esnnete only available in Japan though
Just in case anyone is wondering, I was curious and did a statistical analysis of the temperature data and found that there isn't any significant difference between any of the methods used in this video. Just use which ever one you like and make sure it'll cover at least 2/3 of the CPU when it's spread out and you're good.
Not a chance. There is absolutly a correct way to use thermal paste.
@@timcotton6503like what? As long as you dont put too little youre pretty much set
@@timcotton6503according to this video there's many correct ways to apply it.
@@timcotton6503explain
The thumbnail : "X method ❌❌❌❌"
The content : "X method ⭕⭕⭕⭕"
Einfach nur Müll immer das selbe.
Clickbait
@Frederick Röders yeah only for money
people doing anything
Only stupid people would assume that as click bait, it was just some “art” he did while also using the emojis...nonetheless he a concise information during the video so you should be thankful
Thank you very much for the great video. Obvious results: the larger the contact area of the thermal compound, the larger the heat dissipation area and, consequently, the lower the CPU temperature.
I've been doing the single dot method for the longest time. I got to try out the cross method once I get ahold of some more thermal paste!
Best TH-cam guide ever!
Thanks for providing one of the basic concept in pc building in an excellent way that is not avaliable anywhere and easy to understand. Another great thing about this video is not always its required to use lips if you know to express it the way its been done in this presentation, hats off to you and thanks for putting all your hard work to provide us the information.
When I first started building computers almost two decades ago, I used to use the "spread" method. It just seemed logical to me. But I went to the "one point" method because EVERYONE was saying it's the best and that was that. Well . . . this is what I get for listening to others. I have now learned that it is my moral imperative to gaslight everyone and only listen to myself!
You got me worried bc I just did my first thermal paste and did an X! Lol Happy to see I did the best way! 😁
There's virtually no difference between any of the application methods, you just want to make sure the whole IHS is covered
Well, that puts this argument to rest. One of the best examples I've ever seen if not THE best. Thanks for doing this.
I always use the spread method, and then add a small point at the centre so it can fill any gaps when pressed down.
The same, its the best method
Interesting but there are alot variables here for it to be an true accurate representation. Most notably quantities of paste and force applied. What it does highlight very well is that its important to ensure full coverage of the device for better thermals.
For the "One Point" example : what if you put a bit more of paste ?
That would do the job too
Not exactly. Although the tempertature difference is no that big, as shown in the video, with a single point (with a bit more paste) would result in some paste overflowing on all 4 edges, since the single point will spread out like a circle. But the chip is square, so you will always have either the corners not covered, or the paste overflowing on the edges with a single point.
I personally always used the 9-point method to get the best results.
Yeah he didn't put enough on. Not to mention that the clear plastic was not a hard as, nor exerting the same pressure as a correctly attached cooler would.
@@greenlight2k heat spread the paste
I agree, 1 dot looks like it had in total less paste than the other methods. Which means it is at least as effective if not better. And it would not overflow at corners any more than any other method due to surface tension. Overflow depends only on absolutr quantity of the paste.
i tried the check one thermal paste on the thumbnail, now my temperature reaching new heights! thanks!!
didn't know 100 degrees celsius was possible
You should do this with an AMD Ryzen processor, their heat areas are completely different, intel has a single chip in the middle under the heat spreader while ryzen has a lot of chips spread out under it
good point
@Josh Ainsworth I bought 12600k recently it doesn't disappoint me :p
Iv been waiting to buy a new cooler before I put my build together. Glad to know that I can just use a peice of plexiglass on top! Thanks
Excellent comparison video, I now show this to all the guys that ask me why I always spread the paste! ;) Thank you.
Now they will ask why dont you just make a cross since its faster and easier lol
This video is telling eveything about thermal paste applying.. Short and efficient video. Thank you so much!
Me looking for:
How to make a perfect circle.
Me finding this.
Believe it!
I mean that first one looks pretty circular
Always preferred the spread method! I believed that it gave me the ability to control the amount of therm paste ( not to much not to little ) and loved that I knew it was fully covered
If you do that you might get air bubbles and thats not the best
@@1stdragon123 I do spread on all my PCs, both custom loop and normal coolers. Never had an issue. Really depends on the user I guess
Might want to check long term temps. Like several months to a year or two and see if the temps get dramatically worst, and see if the paste dried up vs other methods. See if bubbles creates hot spots.
Honest question, "one point" method shouldn't put more of it? Like a 2 days and I'm finally pooping.
Definitely, I put like a bit more than a cooked grain of rice. In this video they barely put a pea sized blob
@@Pablo-V people normally talk about the "pea sized blob" as enough and that's what he did.
Yeah. Onepoint but more
Thank god I don't have to skim thru another 10-20 min video. Right to the point
Although I really like using the glass to show how the paste spreads i noticed that the amount used in one method vs the other was rather uneven... For example the 5 point method the dots were on the small side, if more generous amount were used wouldn't it cover the entire CPU once pressure was applied? I think the same can be said of the 3 line method.
But to answer you question, yes
That's mx4 there and mx4 further spreads with thermal cycling and time. The mounting pressure is tremendous for anything other than the intel shit cooler and mx4 is really quick to fill all the gaps and come out at the sides. Saw that little dot? Nearly half of that will be squeezed out from the sides of the IHS in a week
Same with the 1 point method
I might be the only one but I apply my thermal paste as concentric boxes, one box maybe 1/2 cm away from the edge, then another one inside of it, then a dot in the centre. When force is applied you get full coverage pretty concistently without needing to spread it over the CPU manually.
The spreading of the X method was satisfying AF
Nice pro video in end you showed all at one time thx🎉❤
X method is slightly better as it pushes air out of the interface.
The whole idea of thermal paste is so you do not have air in between the heatsing and the processor cap. Still, the ammount of air trapped by the Spread method is insignificant. But I'll be using the X from now on. Thanks!
yeah i was doing spread then i realized if u pressure heatsink too much with spread method it will end up with pump out effect.i think safest way is x method.
That's why the single point method is good too
I used to blindly use the pea size dot method just because everyone said "it's the best" but I've switched over to the spread method because (A) it's consistent, (B) it guarantees full coverage, (C) the "air bubble issue that people speculate about isn't actually a problem in practice, and (D) it's the only method available if you're buying bulk paste anyway.
same here. I just did it last week. man I didn't know about this.
basically, the point is all paste should be covering the whole area of the CPU
No, that's a mess with no use. All the methods are working here, there's a negligible margin of 3,5° that won't harm the CPU as long as it doesn't pass the 90°. Go for the dot.
Federico Vázquez Well. If you want your CPU to live longer, getting a good thermal paste placement is worth the effort.
@@RR-uc1wb Point is, all of those methods are "good placement". Your CPU is going to be obsolete by the time it MAY die. But surely it won't melt down as long as you're not overclocking the shit out of it and the cooler fails to do its job.
@@federicovazquez7989 no cross and spread are the best, stop saying that 5° are negligeable because thats not.
@Justin Hickey if you think getting 80° instead of 75 is ok, then i can't argue more with you
Thank you!!! So much bs and blah blah blah from other TH-camrs, very informative and straight to the point. Now I know what to do.
Short answer: the x or cross method are the best for coverage and spread is best for minimal paste usage
Wait what, the spread is what the x wants to be
The video I've wanted to see since I built my first pc. And as a spreader, I'm glad to see the results. I know I can get the same results by just using a dot, which it looks like you were a bit light on for that one, but I just like to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I got perfect coverage.
The dot had the one of the worst results it was 4th to last. The best results was the "X" and spread methods.
being a "spreader" sounds really wrong lol
@@WarLord_87 if he would have applied more than it would have been perfect coverage. Spread works best because there is no room for error with the amount . The method of application is not important, the amount of paste is. Always better to put a bit to much than to little.
Just depends on the amount of paste applied for the most part, the amount use in the X test was more than the amount in the single dot method.
Exactly... The single dot are efficient as any other method, but in this video he applied too little
Best and definitive video about thermal paste. Congratulations, and thank you!
I always did a x but its a bit smaller x then shown. Its fun to see how everyone has their own way of doing it.
POV: Verge Looking up how to properly apply thermal paste
Dont remind me to that fuckerrie HOLY
Come on guys he somehow built a 2k gaming pc with $1100 in parts. Cut him some slack. Lol ok maybe not.
I appreciate just getting to the point and showing us the info. Also I love that you demonstrate with the glass what’s happening.
Honestly, any normal person who has the slightest knowledge of physics and thermodynamics doesn't need tests like these! The most efficient and correct way to spread the paste throughout IHS Leaving a thin even layer!
The best
tutorial I've watched thank you so much
What if I told you...most reviewers room temps are based on a thermostat and the temp readouts can be far off the actual and that thermal loads during stress tests can vary meaning without power monitoring most testing is inaccurate.
Been doing this over 20 years and a decent dot and x (for large dies) is the best, mounting pressure and moving the surfaces make a HUGE difference, even more so than the method so even a bad method can look good if the testing doesn't measure the power draw and clamping pressure and ambient extremely accurately.
Who knew the more surface area you covered the better the results! it’s almost like basic physics!
Лучшее что я увидел за сегодня, спасибо большое)
I painted a portrait of Miles Davis on my CPU and it's never been cooler.
omg i never thought i will see jazz reference comment in this type of video LOL
Underrated comment! 😎
Not cooler than peeing your pants.
If spread gives same temp as cross then spread would be best as yur sure whole cpu covered. with cross you cannot be sure as u cannot apply pressure with observation when using a real heatsink?
Same.
I did spreading with both Ps3's gpu and cpu, an i5 3330 and Gtx 650ti Boost, it works again and again!
Best thermal bid i can ever find. Great choice of song and demonstration . Thanks for this
This isn't what Stefan told me from the Verge... That man knows how to build a PC properly!