• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

__________IC Diamond 7... Anyone used it yet?__________

Synthetic diamond is pretty cheap, especially in the form of powder (small crystals). I'd like to see this stuff tested vs. AS Ceramique and Shin-Etsu X23-7783D, but given Anandtech's stance towards TIM performance, I don't expect to see any such test here.
 
Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Synthetic diamond is pretty cheap, especially in the form of powder (small crystals). I'd like to see this stuff tested vs. AS Ceramique and Shin-Etsu X23-7783D, but given Anandtech's stance towards TIM performance, I don't expect to see any such test here.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate???
 
They don't think TIM makes much of a difference at all. Hence the reason if you read the Enzotech Ultra-X review they say they didn't used the AS5 that came with it, but instead their generic crap they use for all coolers.
 
Right, what he said.

Considering some of the interesting results people have gotten when doing TIM benchmarks, it's a shame Anandtech has this position towards such products, but not every hardware review site is going to be the best at reviewing everything. The only testing I've seen of diamond-impregnated TIM:

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1389/

seems to indicate that something like IC Diamond 7 would be the obvious TIM to choose, at least over AS5.

Assuming the material discussed in that overclockers.com articled is in fact IC Diamond 7, it should even whip the mighty Shin-Etsu G751 (aka MX-1).
 
Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
it's a shame Anandtech has this position towards such products, but not every hardware review site is going to be the best at reviewing everything.
Click to expand...
I've asked you before what the "Anandtech position" is.
What is the position on TIMs? :roll:

 
Originally posted by: Blain

I've asked you before what the "Anandtech position" is.
What is the position on TIMs? :roll:
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: bfdd
They don't think TIM makes much of a difference at all. Hence the reason if you read the Enzotech Ultra-X review they say they didn't used the AS5 that came with it, but instead their generic crap they use for all coolers.
Click to expand...

bfdd beat me to it.
 
Yes, we've all seen the vegimite-and-toothpaste test that the Anandtech guys love citing every time someone brings up the subject of TIMs, which is one of their reasons they use for not reviewing TIMs in the first place.

Of course, numerous other TIM tests have shown that a variety of modern products can make a significant difference, including that overclockers.com article linked above.
 
This is a timely Topic Post.

In other topic posts, I explained that I had ordered micronized synthetic diamond powder from Penn Scientific, in order to attempt "beefing up" the diamond content in JetArt CK4800.

I believe with my only method of acceptable application for the stuff, I've trimmed another 2C degrees from my average and peak load temperatures on the ThermalRight Ultra-120-Extreme, but I need to run more tests. The JetArt stuff has a Silicon based grease, and this IC Diamond makes a pitch that insinuates silicon is not all such a good medium.

The particle size seems to have a lot to do with the "spreadability" of the paste, and further, the less "spreadable" a paste is with a certain content of diamond, the less the amount of diamond material that can be added.

The particle-size of my Penn Scientific diamond powder ranges from 0 to 2 microns. JetArt will not tell me what the particulate size is for their paste. So if "IC Diamond" has a particulate size with upper limit of 40 "Mu," then it is a finer powder than I'm using, and is both more "spreadable" and capable of the loadings they cite in their spec.

I also am puzzled by the price, but they're not really selling all that much of the stuff in the tube they send.

As for the Anandtech reviews regarding the Enzotech cooler. In the Anandtech reviews comparing the ThermalRight Ultra 120 coolers (original and extreme) to more coolers than you can count on both hands, it DOESN'T MATTER what thermal paste they use in such comparisons, as long as THEY USE THE SAME THERMAL PASTE on ALL HEATSINKS TESTED. They could test the coolers without thermal paste, and still come up with a scientifically accurate comparison of relative performance.

My latest results with a thin coat of Jetart CK4800 with a "light sprinkling" of the Penn Scientific diamond dust were obtained at a room temperature of between 79F and 80F -- that's right -- SoCal is in a heat wave. Running ORTHOS Blend on my overclocked (to 3.3Ghz) E6600 with the Thermalright ultra 120 Extreme, the peak load temperature never exceeds 50C degrees through a 1 hour ORTHOS run. The average load temperature is considerably less than that. I have the data, and I can present it in bar-chart frequency distribution of 450 sampled CORETEMP temperatures sampled at 8-second intervals over the hour-long period.

At 70F running the same test, the peak load temperature doesn't budge over 43C, and the average is about 41C.
 
Might be interestingto compare some of your own home-brew stuff to the IC Diamond 7 paste, no?

btw, nobody is disputing the logic of Anandtech's decision to use standard bulk silver compound for most of the HSFs in their review (on a few they used the TIM included with the heatsink, such as the CNPS-9700 which comes with STG-1). All I was saying is that Anandtech will probably never do a review of thermal pastes alone, such as IC Diamond 7 vs Shin-Etsu X23 vs Coollaboratries Liquid Pro vs AS Ceramique, which would be interesting to say the least.

Obviously a TIM review would need to be separate from their HSF reviews. On their HSF reviews, they should just keep using their current TIM policy which seems to be fine with me.
 
""I also am puzzled by the price, but they're not really selling all that much of the stuff in the tube they send.""

Looks to be the same volume as ASG5. My guess- Silver weight 3.5 grams vs Diamond weight 1.5 grams = to the same Volume/coverage area?
 
I've got a lot of application out of the small tube of AS5. Given the atomic weights of the elements (carbon versus silver), it would stand to reason that similar tubes of the AS5 and IC Diamond contain approximately the same volume of material.

Citarella at Overclockers.com wrote in January '07 that a tube of ten-applications-worth of something like IC Diamond would cost "less than $50."

By comparison, the diamond-powder I purchased from Penn-Scientific was $28 for 7 carats, while the IC Diamond paste and its 7-carats-worth is about $5.

But I discovered something when I just recently went through the boxes and shipping wrap for the Penn-Scientific dust. It is labeled "Natural Diamond Powder."

I had thought I was specific with them to obtain "Synthetic Diamond Powder." So it is quite possible, as another poster here had said, that the production cost for < 0.4-micron synthetic diamond powder is lower, or that it is considerably cheaper than "Natural Diamond Powder." Then, the price would seem very reasonable for IC Diamond.

Live and learn. But I DID tell Penn-Scientific that I wanted "synthetic diamond powder."

Anyway, I ordered a couple tubes of IC diamond -- enough money to otherwise spend on a carry-out lunch of tacos and fries next week. If I discover anything of importance, I'll post it here.

If the particle-loading of the IC Diamond is what they say it is -- above 90% -- there's no need at all to attempt adding my Penn-Scientific stuff to it, and in fact, it should be even better than JetArt CK4800 with the extra diamond-powder boost.

Hey! Anyone want to buy some high-quality diamond abrasive powder? 😀
 
I bought some SMB diamond- #9 micron(<10 µ) from the ""National research Company""200 grams or a 1000 carets a few years ago for precision lapping, I think it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars. I am sure that if I was buying volume it could have been had for much less
 
Well, I sure wasn't buying in volume for the $100 I paid for 5-grams. But like I said, while I asked for "synthetic," they sold me "natural."

My losses and leaks from my wallet this last month or so could be worse if I took my BlackJack skills to the Morongo Indian Reservation or the Soboba Casino down the highway . . . .

But it's just interesting -- if I'd waited two weeks or so, I could've saved $100 and a lot of trouble. Even so, if JetArt was selling a 10% diamond mix, how would one know that this IC Diamond product would appear -- even several months later?

Win some -- lose some. Be sure and count your cards 😀 -- and your money!
 
Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
I
Anyway, I ordered a couple tubes of IC diamond -- enough money to otherwise spend on a carry-out lunch of tacos and fries next week. If I discover anything of importance, I'll post it here.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, thanks. Considering how cheap IC Diamond 7 is, if it works, it could be a boon for those of us who have already adopted products like X23 or Liquid Pro (ugh).
 
liquid pro....

ahahahahaha.... thats some scary stuff man....


anyone try this product yet? i want to order some, but im waiting for someone to respond. Im very happy with my X23, but if theres something better, im all up for it.
 
Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
This is a timely Topic Post.

In other topic posts, I explained that I had ordered micronized synthetic diamond powder from Penn Scientific, in order to attempt "beefing up" the diamond content in JetArt CK4800.

I believe with my only method of acceptable application for the stuff, I've trimmed another 2C degrees from my average and peak load temperatures on the ThermalRight Ultra-120-Extreme, but I need to run more tests. The JetArt stuff has a Silicon based grease, and this IC Diamond makes a pitch that insinuates silicon is not all such a good medium.

The particle size seems to have a lot to do with the "spreadability" of the paste, and further, the less "spreadable" a paste is with a certain content of diamond, the less the amount of diamond material that can be added.

The particle-size of my Penn Scientific diamond powder ranges from 0 to 2 microns. JetArt will not tell me what the particulate size is for their paste. So if "IC Diamond" has a particulate size with upper limit of 40 "Mu," then it is a finer powder than I'm using, and is both more "spreadable" and capable of the loadings they cite in their spec.

I also am puzzled by the price, but they're not really selling all that much of the stuff in the tube they send.

As for the Anandtech reviews regarding the Enzotech cooler. In the Anandtech reviews comparing the ThermalRight Ultra 120 coolers (original and extreme) to more coolers than you can count on both hands, it DOESN'T MATTER what thermal paste they use in such comparisons, as long as THEY USE THE SAME THERMAL PASTE on ALL HEATSINKS TESTED. They could test the coolers without thermal paste, and still come up with a scientifically accurate comparison of relative performance.
Click to expand...
Without thermal paste, the study then assumes that the bases of all the heatsinks are surfaced to the same geometry and finish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top