Is Coollaboratory Liquid Pro or Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut better for delidding CPU?

thanh25896

Junior Member
Oct 28, 2018
6
0
6
#1
Hi everyone , I have a some question about performance of Coollaboratory Liquid Pro vs Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut when placed between die and IHS . I saw the conductivity of Liquid Pro is 80 w/mk and Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut is 73 w/mk but it is just a number of manufacturer
said not real .

I tried to search the comparison of CLP and Conductonaut but I saw only the comparison of Liquid Ultra vs Conductonaut not the Lidquid Pro . Did anyone try compare liquid pro and Conductonaut between die and IHS ?
 

ttechf

Senior member
Jun 11, 2012
336
0
81
#2
I don't know for sure but every person I see who delids goes with Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut. Just my 2 cents.
 

Campy

Senior member
Jun 25, 2010
659
35
106
#3
The difference in performance is negligible.
 

IEC

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
13,678
727
136
#5
Conductonaut is easier to apply IMO.

I could have sworn I'd seen CLP was around 32 W/m*K previously. Did they change the formulation recently, or is that number on their website wrong? Either way, neither the manual nor the safety data sheet for it list a thermal conductivity. So I question the 80 W/m*K listed.
 

thanh25896

Junior Member
Oct 28, 2018
6
0
6
#6
Conductonaut is easier to apply IMO.

I could have sworn I'd seen CLP was around 32 W/m*K previously. Did they change the formulation recently, or is that number on their website wrong? Either way, neither the manual nor the safety data sheet for it list a thermal conductivity. So I question the 80 W/m*K listed.
So that is my question for testing new CLP and Conductonaut !
 
Jun 30, 2004
13,789
282
126
#7
With simple de-lidding (no IHS), any difference between the two pastes is probably not worth fretting over. Grizzly is now used by Silicon Lottery in their delidded-re-lids (with IHS), or as of the last time I checked. Before that, they were using the Coollaboratory product. If your processor will be deployed without the IHS, I would lean toward one formulation or the other on a basis other than just conductivity or the inverse thermal resistance.

Also, I see no reason to distrust the spec conductivity reported by either manufacturer. With luck, you might find two or more reviews by which you can extrapolate a ranking by transitivity. That is, if A < B and B < C THEN A < C.

Examining from a different perspective, if SL is using Grizzly, they would be confident that you will capture a much greater difference between either CLU or Grizzly and the original Intel paste. Just for that reason, I'd say it doesn't matter. Especially in a water-cooled setup and no IHS -- AiO or custom -- it would matter even less.
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,352
1,314
126
#8
I would not bother with CLP. It's runny and hard to apply. Its listed thermal conductivity is no better than CLU or Conductonaut. It's a legacy product by this point.
 

thanh25896

Junior Member
Oct 28, 2018
6
0
6
#9
I would not bother with CLP. It's runny and hard to apply. Its listed thermal conductivity is no better than CLU or Conductonaut. It's a legacy product by this point.
Proof please !
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,352
1,314
126
#10

thanh25896

Junior Member
Oct 28, 2018
6
0
6
#11
Ugh.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...t-vs-cool-laboratory-liquid-ultra-pro.791489/

Pro is only 32.6 w/mK, the others are higher. Conductonaut has more than twice the rated thermal conductivity. If you want proof that CLP beads up and rolls around like a huge pita, buy some and try it. You pretty much have to apply it with the head of a syringe. Not joking.
1st: Pro is only 32.6 w/mK? Proof?
2nd: This is not the delid testing
3rd: I didn't see the result of Liquid Pro . This theard is only tested with CLU .
4rd : I didn't see any Clear transparency on this test with no compare some test result , time test after application and do you know liquid metal alloy with copper heatsink so can make liquid metal drying over time . After 1-2 month the performance is degree . This test not equal because the CLU was apllied for a week and result was wrote down a week ago when not a same temp room , same time .....
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,352
1,314
126
#12
1st: Pro is only 32.6 w/mK? Proof?
I only linked what I did, to show you the w/mK figures. But if you don't believe them, then:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...id-ultra-vs-liquid-pro.2297140/#post-34536672

from

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/coollaboratory-liquid-ultra-vs-liquid-pro.2297140/

What's interesting is that some literature states that CLP has a thermal conductivity of 80 w/mK, which is not reflected in feedback from Coolaboratory's own CEO.
 

thanh25896

Junior Member
Oct 28, 2018
6
0
6
#13
I only linked what I did, to show you the w/mK figures. But if you don't believe them, then:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...id-ultra-vs-liquid-pro.2297140/#post-34536672

from

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/coollaboratory-liquid-ultra-vs-liquid-pro.2297140/

What's interesting is that some literature states that CLP has a thermal conductivity of 80 w/mK, which is not reflected in feedback from Coolaboratory's own CEO.
Product can refresh and noctua nt-h1 refreshed too . This confirm maybe on old product and no proof on this confirm . I want to know the truth because all liquid meta made from 2/3 of gallium so it can't reach 73 w/mk or 80 w/mk . It is impossible to get 73 or 80 w/mk so we need test for the truth
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS