Quote Originally Posted by DontMakeMeEatU View Post
Do you have any Thermalright Chillfactor 3 to test? It came with my TR Venomous X and I don't feel like spending $10 for some new paste
Thermalright CF2 and CF3 (and maybe the original CF) are scheduled for testing right after AS5/Ceramique/Ceramique 2, which are currently in testing.

Quote Originally Posted by churchy View Post
Vapor: if manufacturer's suggested method of application is clearly inferior, why use it instead of your time proven bead in center method? Imho this roundup is more about TIM paste relative performance, not how bad one might perform applied by manufacturer instructions?
(imho one might do few test mounts of manufacturer suggested methods just to check if some particular paste really isn't better off with them, but as soon as it shows on average worth results - revert and perform all the tests with correct application)
I follow the instructions--manufacturers should know their product better than I do and should be able to recommend the best way to use it. I'm not going to make a blanket statement and say "don't manually spread paste." While I can't think of a scenario where spreading it would be superior, but there may be one.

Indigo Xtreme has instructions that need to be followed, for Arctic Silver pastes I use the instructed line method (which may be better than the bead method), and the nail polish bottle pastes (e.g., Zalman STG1) I'll paint on as instructed. If there are no instructions provided (including a mini-spatula is not the same as providing written instructions), I just do my normal bead application. Basically, the MO is to follow instructions but if there are no instructions, use the bead method and if the instructions can't be followed, just make it work (Z9 was an example of not being able to follow instructions).

As for testing both instructed method and bead method, each TIM already takes 7.5 days and I have roughly 30 TIMs left to test. That means the testbed needs to survive into 2012, which is a lot to ask (this testbed has already outlived all my previous testbeds in terms of at-load hours). Considering the durability concerns and the amount of time each TIM already takes, I'm not looking to slow things down by double testing some pastes.

At some point I may 'borrow' the CPU block testbed and test TIM application techniques, but that depends on the CPU block testbed freeing up.