A while back, we did a great thermal paste shootout to determine which paste is the best for your system. The winner was Tuniq TX-2, a great paste that handily beat the competitors. Recently, Tuniq introduced a new version of its thermal goop, dubbed TX-3. They say it’s amazing. We aim to see just how good it is.
OCZ Freeze vs. Tuniq TX-3: FIGHT!
Features (from the Tuniq website)
- Extreme performance.
- High stability and reliability.
- Not electrically conductive.
- 6.2W/mK Ultra-High thermal conductivity for superior heat transfer.
- Tends to form a thinner layer between CPU and heatsink than other greases even under low pressure.
- Best solution for the heatpipe direct contact or heatpipe direct touch type CPU cooler (ex: Sunbeam Core Contact Freezer).
- Helps the low-pressure clip design of cooler to achieve better cooling performance.
- RoHS compliant.
- Low bleed under high pressure.
Specifications:
Appearance: Grey
Viscosity: 83500 cP
Thermal conductivity: 6.2 W/mK
Operating temperature: -45°C ~ 200°C
Specific Gravity: 3.011 @ 25°C
Volume: 1ml (3g)
Testing
Our sample came direct from Tuniq via overseas mail. It’s such a new product that we only received the tube of TIM as no retail packaging is available yet. The TX-3 itself is dispensed from a plain silver tube just like most other thermal pastes.
Our tubes produce a DNA sample.
Testing commenced on our AM3 test rig consisting of a Phenom II 955 and Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P motherboard. For comparison, we used a tube of OCZ Freeze. It came in second place in our original comparison and we had a bunch of it on hand. TX-2 performed marginally better than the Freeze in our earlier roundup, so we expect to see the TX-3 lead it by a couple degrees due to its impressive 6.2 W/mK thermal conductivity. According to Tuniq’s data, we should see temps around two degrees lower than the Freeze.
Test Procedure
To test the TIMs we once again used our Noctua NH-U12P heatsink. Its mounting system attaches the heatsink to the socket with the same mounting pressure every time, plus it is very easy to use and that makes testing a simple process.
We used Prime95 to push the processor to full load by running Small FFT tests on all four cores. After ten rounds of Small FFT testing we then measured the CPU temperature with CoreTemp. Idle temperatures were also measured with CoreTemp. The processor remained clocked at 3.2GHz at all times.
Results
(Lower is better)
(Lower is better)
As you can see, TX-3 came close to Freeze’s scores in our testing but was unable to surpass it. We re-ran the tests multiple times and the results were conclusive. Did we do it wrong?
Application
On our first go, we applied the TX-3 by laying a small bead of it to the center of the heat spreader and then used the pressure of our mounted heatsink to spread the paste. This is the same method recommended for applying the Freeze. After each test run, we removed the heatsink to make sure the die was covered adequately in thermal paste. These results show are reflected in the test one bar on our graphs.
When the results kept coming back the same following the bead method, we reverted to the old method of applying a thin layer of paste with the edge of a business card. In doing so, we learned an important attribute of TX-3: It doesn’t spread well. It’s thick. It’s thicker than peanut butter. And when you try to spread it, it peels up. Despite this, we were able to smear enough around on the die to achieve decent coverage. It didn’t change the results, but it was a much more frustrating method of application. This method is reflected in the test two bar on our graphs.
Test three’s results were had by spreading the paste as well as it could be spread on the heatsink base and then pressing it to the processor, then removing the heatsink and adding a bit more paste to ensure total die coverage. It’s not scientific; it’s just how we tried to get adequate coverage from the super thick paste.
Conclusion
It’s not that TX-3 is a bad paste– far from it; it scored within one degree of our OCZ Freeze, itself a well-regarded paste. But, we are disappointed that the TX-3 didn’t beat Freeze. The TX-3’s stats reveal 30% better thermal conductivity as compared to TX-2, but our numbers just don’t reflect the superiority shown on paper.
Even if we call the performance “close,” TX-3 is not an easy paste to work with. Other products are identically priced but have the added benefit of easy application and cleaning. For these reasons, it’s very hard to recommend TX-3. We would take it over stock thermal grease any day, but if you’re in the market for the best premium pastes we think you should look elsewhere.
Pros:
- Much better than OEM thermal interface material
- Non-messy
Cons:
- Does not spread easily
- Average performance compared to other premium pastes
RSS Feeds