Mx4 vs artic silver 5?

[charbel1011]

I have the mx4 right now i cant afford a artic silver 5 is the mx4 that bad? im using it on non k 4790 cpu for gaming with hyperevo 212

[21rkosta]

artic 5 only costs 7 dollars... but mx4 should be good enouph anyway

[charbel1011]

1 minute ago, 21rkosta said:

artic 5 only costs 7 dollars... but mx4 should be good enouph anyway

Lmao i bought some stuff for my pc  im broke

[21rkosta]

lol

[charbel1011]

Im using a core i7 4790 the non k version i am not planning to overclock, like only for gaming i dont think it's that bad.

[Zyndo]

What gives you the idea that MX-4 is bad? or that its worse than AS5? This is a bit of an older video, but according to it, MX-4 was the best they tested.
 

Jump to 3:10 if you want to see the results.


But no, especially if you're not going for extreme overclocks, what you have will be fine. stock paste would have be fine.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Thermal compound is thermal compound, as long as you have it, it doesn't matter what you get.

[aisle9]

MX-4 and AS5 perform more or less identically to each other. Many here actually prefer MX-4 because it's not electrically capacitive and it has no burn-in time. AS5 can short things out if you get it all over your mobo, and the packaging says it takes 200 hours to reach full effectiveness, although in practice it seems to be much faster. 

 

For the most part, thermal paste is thermal paste, and you're talking about a 2-4C difference between the stuff that comes with a 212 EVO and IC Diamond. 

[WoodenMarker]

The 212 Evo already comes with decent paste and the stock cooler should've been fine already in the first place.