Thermal Grizzly Kryosheet Mini Review
14 Aug 2024The thought of being able to use a graphene thermal pad in place of prone-to-drying-out-over-time traditional thermal paste in a Mini-ITX server I want to be able throw into a closet and not ever have to think about is a pretty compelling one. And since I was going to the trouble of it, might as well do an apples-to-apples comparison to see if there are any performance penalties from making that decision.
Here’s an extremely quick comparison between Kryosheet versus a fresh application of a decent thermal paste, Arctic Cooling’s MX-6. The CPU for this experiment is an AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 5750ge which is being cooled by a Noctua NH-L9x65.
| Metric | MX-6 | Kryosheet |
|---|---|---|
| Idle temp (C) | 33 | 34.8 |
sysbench cpu --threads=16 (ops/sec) |
41,620 | 41,821 |
| Temp, 10m stress test (C) | 50 | 48.9 |
| All-core speed, 10m stress (MHz) | 3,518 | 3,518 |
| Cost (per application) | ~$1.25 | $23 |
Apart from the staggering difference in per-application cost, I think this is a pretty good argument for switching to Kryosheet in low-wattage, long-term builds. And to think doubters speculated that carbon nanotubes would only be a novelty in the lab and wouldn’t ever find a real-world use!
Comments