[Review] Indigo Xtreme vs. AS5, MX-2, IC Diamond, Shin-Etsu X23-7783D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

:up: Vapor, another stellar review!

glad I use MX-2 for CPU block testing. The Indigo just boggles my mind, same with the liquid metal though.

Is the D5470 an industry standard for thermal resistence?

Again, well done on another set of lengthy tests and well written review!

---

Thanks :)

D5470 is the industry standard, I believe. Enerdyne (makers of Indigo Xtreme) and Innovation Cooling (makers of IC Diamond) both used it to test their TIMs and some of their competition (I got my D5470 data from both of their websites). The test measures both contact resistance and bulk resistance which, when combined, equal the overall resistance of a TIM at a specific bondline thickness (BLT). I really don't know the specifics of the test though :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HESmelaugh

Wow. I'm very impressed with this. I can't believe how much time you invested in testing some TIM and this definitely sets the bar...

Really well done. I appreciate this very much. And this Indigo stuff is very impressive, I must say. :up:

---

Thanks! :) I tried to think about and answer all the questions I had about TIM and use the tools available to me to test as best I could....I think it came out well :p: Fortunately I could just leave the testbed running on its own and could get ~2 mounts done a day for ~2 weeks straight :)

I'm sure my CPU hates me....doing nearly 24hrs/day of Small FFT loads at nearly 1.5v with HT on is pretty rough on it :lol:

And I'm also really impressed by the Indigo...the performance of it really didn't set in until I came up with the last chart (which I didn't even think of until finalizing the review last night)....it's really, really close to being 'ideal.' On my testbed, it looks like there's about .3-.4C of headroom for TIM improvement. :eek: Just very foreign to think that some aspect of thermal performance is at it's limits....it's always been my mindset that "we'll always see something better around the corner" and that's just not physically possible any more--any improvements from a passive TIM (can there even be an active TIM??) will be immeasurably small on all but the most insane of heatloads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Armitage

I think my head just exploded. So many graphs!

Great review ;)

---

Thanks :p: I tried to keep the data vomiting to a minimum....I have ~35million data points in Excel spreadsheets here :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machinus

Interesting endorsement of IX...do you know if other reviewers found the same results? I'd be interested to know if HS/mount affect temps at all. Would this be less pronounced for 775, or a different cooler?

---

I haven't seen any other reviews up yet....I think I'm first out of the gate (not sure what other sites are reviewing IX...but they approached us and made it sound like at least one other site was also getting it).

As for whether the HS effects it? TIM performance is dictated by heatload and contact...assuming contact remains constant (which I think is safe to say in this case), the difference between IX and the other TIMs scales linearly with heatload. There's small changes in heatload through the TIM (and into the cooler) depending on what actual temperatures are at (because of secondary losses through the board), but those are pretty minor difference considering the tight window of temperatures we keep our CPUs within. Basically, the cooler shouldn't make a difference aside from variations in contact (some are bowed, some are flat).

As for whether or not the socket effects it....that's actually a scenario where heatload and contact change. LGA775 IHSs are smaller, so the TIM performance is even more important at a given heatload. Granted, newer LGA775 chips are pretty miserly when it comes to power (and therefore heatload)....older chips like Kentsfield and early Conroes could show some really sweet gains with IX :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinm210

Wow that's impressive!

Definately bang for the buck (Benefit/cost) winner compared to everything else.

I was always curious about curing timeframes, that's awesome work...thanks for sharing!!

---

I was really curious about curing times as well...I had seen early that if I did my waterblock flowrate vs. temp tests in a different order, the shape of the curve changed (so I did them all in the same order, shrug), so I figured MX-2 had some sort of curing time and confirmed it with these tests. AS5's curve is pretty insane--and it shows that AS5 losing by huge amounts (as it does in a few other TIM tests I've seen) is possible with really quick tests, despite being a solid option as a TIM for end-users.

Anyway, glad to share....this stuff is fun :D

Interesting stuff, I'd be curious to see how it(IX) reacts to frequent cool downs for those of us who don't run 24/7.

Great review thanks. Gotta get me some new thermal paste.

Nice review, would be cool if you could add the AC MX-3 and Coollaboratory Liquid Pro (MetalPad).

Those two might be interesting to compare, since the MX-3 is suposed to be 1-1.5K better then MX-2 and the Coollaboratory stuff could be seen as "Pioneer" of comercial liquid metal TIMs.

I think even more interesting is how little we hear about Shin-Etsu X23-7783D considering how long it's been around and how well it works!

Whih is better,AS5 or MX-2?
Thanks.

Good review but it would have been nice if it included Coollaboratory Liquid Pro.

Good reading, thank you for your time :)

Thanks for the great review. It's great when not only do I get to see which product is the best performer, but also learn a few things in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrodanco

I think even more interesting is how little we hear about Shin-Etsu X23-7783D considering how long it's been around and how well it works!

---

yep, even the NREL with a million dollar budget to test all available commercial tims plus search for new solutions, presented Shin-Etsu x23-7783D as one of the best commercial tims at time from their testing in 2009. Especially slides 8 and 9.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...narumanchi.pdf

@hornet, Vapor said he was currently testing MX3 so that should be done soon. I did 11 mounts of mx3 and 9 of mx2 as I assumed mx3 would be better so kept trying, but kept proving myself wrong. If I used all mounts mx2 was maybe .2C better than mx3, but that is not fair because I had some bad mounts with mx3 as it is thick and less forgiving, but no really bad mounts with mx2. Taking best few of each, mx3 was maybe .2C to .3C better. Interested to see what Vapor gets...but from his preliminary post dont think he was getting much better results with mx3 either...but have to wait and see, think he may be trying more different mount variables than me.

Edit: yeah, I would like to see what Vapor would get with collabatory liquid metal pro (even though would probably not use it from bonding/conductance issues...and the liquid not metal pad, as pad has been shown in several reviews to be poor performer from high contact resistance, which indigo gets around via reflow).

I've found MX-3 to be good with roughly a 1CM bead in the middle....most paste I've ever used for any TIM, but it seems to be good when you use that much.

As for Liquid Pro...I have it, I've used it (as seen next to the socket, near the capacitors, on my sample IX mount picture ;)...damn plunger got stock and I used too much force, board still works fine though), but considering the bonding issue, I can't use it unless I plan to exclude my Swiftech GTZ from my waterblock tests.....I did a quick sample mount with it before I started the real testing and even after a few hours it embedded itself into the base of my GTZ and took about an hour to remove with metal polish. Any sort of extended, multi-mount testing with it would like alter the GTZ near-permanently and make it unusable for my upcoming waterblock tests. :(

1 cm, wow, most I tried was half that 5-5.5mm. The 3mm bead windows starting temps were bad. When my fingers quit bleeding from the heatkillers "thumbscrews" I will give that a go. Smart testing tim with GTZ, much easier to mount and get exact same pressure each time, and your undoubtedly getting much better data with more consistent mounts, not to mention you have more experience and better equipment along with less blisters on your fingers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

I've found MX-3 to be good with roughly a 1CM bead in the middle....most paste I've ever used for any TIM, but it seems to be good when you use that much.

As for Liquid Pro...I have it, I've used it (as seen next to the socket, near the capacitors, on my sample IX mount picture ;)...damn plunger got stock and I used too much force, board still works fine though), but considering the bonding issue, I can't use it unless I plan to exclude my Swiftech GTZ from my waterblock tests.....I did a quick sample mount with it before I started the real testing and even after a few hours it embedded itself into the base of my GTZ and took about an hour to remove with metal polish. Any sort of extended, multi-mount testing with it would like alter the GTZ near-permanently and make it unusable for my upcoming waterblock tests. :(

---

You could use the pad, its suposed not to bond with the cooler or the IHS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrodanco

I think even more interesting is how little we hear about Shin-Etsu X23-7783D considering how long it's been around and how well it works!

---

SEx23 was popular for a little bit but its supposed to be the base of mx-2 and its about $10 per gram so its not vary attractive for the same or about the same performance

Thanks for the review! I've got a few comments/questions:
- what do you think causes the bigger variance in temps between mounts of the IC Diamond and the Shin-Etsu? Does it have something to do with the viscosity? The AS5 is also quite thick but gets similarly consistent results like the more fluid MX2
- the fact that you use different scales on the graphs is a bit misleading, it makes the AS5 look more consistent for example than the MX2 while they actually both only vary by less than 0.5C (excluding the "bad" mounts)
- otherwise the graphs are absolutely great, really shows that some TIMs actually need curing time while the MX2 performs right form the start
- that's also a reason why I'd love to see you review Ceramique, I'd like to see if it also improves over the first few hours. This actually quite important when reviewing coolers as with some TIMs it looks like you really need to pay attention on how long it has cured and make sure that all the coolers get the same curing time.

Concerning the application of Liquid Pro, try using a very fine brush (smallest size you can find), it's very easy then. Way easier than spreading AS3 with a razorblade over an Athlon XP die back in the day :)
I haven't used Liquid pro for a period longer than like 4-5 months, but I have not witnessed any bonding. Maybe one should remove it and re-apply it every few months to prevent the bonding (I used it with an Alphacool Nexxxos XP on a lapped C2D).

Hey Vapor

Excellent review, really helpful and useful too
Now I know what to use for my water cooling setup

Waiting for the MX-3 to be added!

really interesting results...I guess me buying a couple tubes of 7783d way back when NCIX actually had it in stock WAS a good idea...pain in the butt to get a good mount with it (I found running it under hot water in the tube for a min or two gets the paste to more...paste like conditions) either way, interested in seeing how mx-3 and ceramique do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nickel020

Thanks for the review! I've got a few comments/questions:
- what do you think causes the bigger variance in temps between mounts of the IC Diamond and the Shin-Etsu? Does it have something to do with the viscosity? The AS5 is also quite thick but gets similarly consistent results like the more fluid MX2
- the fact that you use different scales on the graphs is a bit misleading, it makes the AS5 look more consistent for example than the MX2 while they actually both only vary by less than 0.5C (excluding the "bad" mounts)
- otherwise the graphs are absolutely great, really shows that some TIMs actually need curing time while the MX2 performs right form the start
- that's also a reason why I'd love to see you review Ceramique, I'd like to see if it also improves over the first few hours. This actually quite important when reviewing coolers as with some TIMs it looks like you really need to pay attention on how long it has cured and make sure that all the coolers get the same curing time.

Concerning the application of Liquid Pro, try using a very fine brush (smallest size you can find), it's very easy then. Way easier than spreading AS3 with a razorblade over an Athlon XP die back in the day :)
I haven't used Liquid pro for a period longer than like 4-5 months, but I have not witnessed any bonding. Maybe one should remove it and re-apply it every few months to prevent the bonding (I used it with an Alphacool Nexxxos XP on a lapped C2D).

---

I think the variance in temps are due to the finickiness of the pastes...thicker pastes are less tolerant of natural differences in mounting technique (I'm not a robot :(). AS5 might have been more consistent due to the line technique that Arctic Silver recommends (and that I used). It's normal to expect variations between mounts--that's part of the reason why I do multiple mounts. :)

As for the different Y-axes, I used whatever values fit the full data curves best, but being no less than 2.0C total between min and max. The goal of those charts is to compare mounts within a TIM (not really across TIMs) and show the full break-in curve (all curves were cropped from 21-720min on the main chart due to AS5's ridiculously bad temps in the initial minutes). I don't think any of them were notably inconsistent.

Wow really awesome review, I need to try that TIM. Since im running 4.5ghz 1.5v and 4.3ghz Uncore 1.5vtt my heatload is insane enough

Thanks for clarifying that! The fact that AS5 shows less variance due to the line method makes sense - it's easier to make a line about the same diameter every time than to get the "blob" in the middle just right every time.

Great review, thanks. Very good accuracy. This new TIM is really effective it seems. But 20$ for two installations? :\
Looks like sticking with MX2 or MX3 is the way to go atm.

Great review!

Makes me think twice about using the rest of the AS5 I had laying around to finish my build.

this looks like Mercury in a vacuumed sealded between thin plastic sheets (lol silly as that sounds)

btw
TX3 viscosity is 83,000 vs 28,000 compared to TX2

I had question but can't remember it now :/.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

this looks like Mercury in a vacuumed sealded between thin plastic sheets (lol silly as that sounds)

---

It's actually a plastic card with an adhesive window and what can sort of be described as a solder-like metal partial ring around the window. The metal is exposed on the top side (and both sides within the 'window' after reflow) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nickel020

...
- that's also a reason why I'd love to see you review Ceramique, I'd like to see if it also improves over the first few hours. This actually quite important when reviewing coolers as with some TIMs it looks like you really need to pay attention on how long it has cured and make sure that all the coolers get the same curing time.

---

Excellent point. Huge difference between curing stages, can't help but wonder how many reviews have completely neglected that.