This video is by the owner of Thermal Grizzly. They make thermal pastes and putties, but I think they're best known for their KryoSheet graphene pads.
Although I've never been conscious of pump out as a problem, and have never reapplied thermal paste, I did use a KryoSheet on a 9800X3D in my most recent build. So far, so good.
And they talk in the video about how expensive it is now, because of gallium export restrictions in China, and that people shouldn't be using it because it's not cost effective. Only the most hardcore of overclockers should even do it.
This video seems to be about LM on untreated copper (which I thought wasn't really advised).
Now, I personally have had two builds with LM. One with LM as the material for a CPU re-lid, and another for a direct-die application. Neither touched aluminum or untreated copper.
The re-lidded CPU is still going strong, no issues. But with the direct die application, I found the performance to significantly degrade after two years. Apparently there's a pump-out effect.
I ended up switching to PTM. Same temps as LM, but zero degradation so far.
> LM on untreated copper (which I thought wasn't really advised).
I think the supposed issue is nickel (the most common waterblock coating) has a much lower thermal conductivity so you might lose a degree or two under load vs a bare copper block.
Which kind of makes sense: people who know what they're doing use liquid metal to squeeze out that last couple degrees vs PTM/graphene so going bare copper and dealing the the buildup problems maybe makes sense for them too.
He mentions in this video that liquid metal really should just be for the extreme overclockers who don't mind changing it out and resurfacing their waterblocks regularly which is good advice. The fact liquid metal is even semi-mainstream and comes standard on any consumer hardware is kind of stupid.
I never really understood why you would risk using liquid metal versus something like Honeywell's PTM with the effect size in temperature difference indistinguishable from statistical noise. The only drawback I've seen for the PTMs is that the paste is extremely sticky to the point that I've ripped pins off an old 3600 when I tried to remount the cooler without warming it up first.
From what I've seen the whole PC review industry operates on emotional narratives rather than scientific measurements. When is the last time you saw a cooler spec'd by its thermal conductance (Watts per degree C) as opposed to a whole rigamarole of we used so and so RGB motherboard with so and so PC case and this version of Windows with so and so benchmarking software. And every cooler in the limited set we compared it to was worse, but of course we left a whole bunch out. Like sure integration testing can be useful, but it doesn't beat characterizing units in isolation with hard numbers. And they never reduce the number of variables enough to do that.
Part of the problem is that any given cooler doesn’t have a single W/K value. It depends on the temperature gradient across the heatsink which depends on airflow over the heatsink (and both the heat and heat density of the CPU being cooled), and the airflow depends on the case (and fans). And airflow temperature matters too (are you cooling the CPU’s heatsink with air that’s already been warmed by a GPU?)
Note as well that I said heat density - different benchmarks (or applications) will load the CPU differently, and the same amount of power consumption will result in very different heat outputs (heavy single core use will result in part of the die and heat spreader getting really hot, whereas heavy multi core use will result in the whole die and heatspreader getting kinda hot). If the heatsink has a very high surface area and high airflow it might have the ability to dissipate quite a lot of heat, but if the contact surface sucks (or is aluminum) it might not actually be able to transfer heat away very effectively without a massive temperature delta - resulting in high CPU temps for single core use even with a high cooling capacity for multi core use, for example.
Your average person can’t understand all of these variables, and the average reviewer can’t control for all of them. So, “this CPU with these benchmarks in this case with this fan configuration” is the best you can really expect. Because otherwise, what reporting are you actually going to do? “This cooler with 3.2CFM of 26C airflow on a CPU dissipating 80W on one core and 10W on the other 7 cores results in a peak core temperature of 87°C and a package temperature of 81°C” is not useful reporting. Especially because, when the average person doesn’t understand it, they’re gonna buy a case fan that says 3.2CFM on the box and then wonder why their CPU’s throttling.
He's a beast at BGA replacement, if you want to learn how to handle big chips he's the one to watch. But yeah, liquid metal sure seems to kill a lot of them, though typically just for the prosaic reason of getting somewhere it shouldn't and shorting something out.
they're slightly less efficient than a good paste and need a higher pressure interface to seat well, but I like the zero mess aspect, ease of application, and knowing they'll never dry out
I wouldn't call them "reusable" since they do get crushed onto the chip or heatsink pretty hard and tend stick
I have a Thinkpad x1 extreme gen 5 with an i9 and 3080. Liquid metal. Overheats like crazy. I want to get in there but I hear it's such a pain to deal with I've been putting it off. Definitely will be swapping to one of the thermal pads when I do it.
There's been concerns for a while with the PS5 and the use of liquid metal in that. Especially given it stands vertically, and that liquid metal can "shift" downwards
FWIW, you can set it horizontally. You need to use the -heh- stand they include for the purpose, but it's how I have mine configured and it works fine.
I get that size and shape of the case may make this the least popular way of orienting the hardware, but -unless they've decided to save ten cents by not including the stand- it's just as doable as the vertical orientation.
OP meant the risk of liquid metal acting amorphic and slowly leaking/shifting, moreso because with the console being vertical, the gravity force is pulling on the metal very strongly.
Another liquid metal you have to watch out for is mercury. A former employer of mine traced elevated RAM degradation in a particular datacentre to mercury contamination in the canal the used for cooling water. Mercury has an interesting way of migrating through other metals.
Although I've never been conscious of pump out as a problem, and have never reapplied thermal paste, I did use a KryoSheet on a 9800X3D in my most recent build. So far, so good.
But it was a very informative video regardless.
Even if true, which it's not, who cares?
Does it really simply not stick and is held in place by pressure alone?
Now, I personally have had two builds with LM. One with LM as the material for a CPU re-lid, and another for a direct-die application. Neither touched aluminum or untreated copper.
The re-lidded CPU is still going strong, no issues. But with the direct die application, I found the performance to significantly degrade after two years. Apparently there's a pump-out effect.
I ended up switching to PTM. Same temps as LM, but zero degradation so far.
I think the supposed issue is nickel (the most common waterblock coating) has a much lower thermal conductivity so you might lose a degree or two under load vs a bare copper block.
Which kind of makes sense: people who know what they're doing use liquid metal to squeeze out that last couple degrees vs PTM/graphene so going bare copper and dealing the the buildup problems maybe makes sense for them too.
He mentions in this video that liquid metal really should just be for the extreme overclockers who don't mind changing it out and resurfacing their waterblocks regularly which is good advice. The fact liquid metal is even semi-mainstream and comes standard on any consumer hardware is kind of stupid.
Note as well that I said heat density - different benchmarks (or applications) will load the CPU differently, and the same amount of power consumption will result in very different heat outputs (heavy single core use will result in part of the die and heat spreader getting really hot, whereas heavy multi core use will result in the whole die and heatspreader getting kinda hot). If the heatsink has a very high surface area and high airflow it might have the ability to dissipate quite a lot of heat, but if the contact surface sucks (or is aluminum) it might not actually be able to transfer heat away very effectively without a massive temperature delta - resulting in high CPU temps for single core use even with a high cooling capacity for multi core use, for example.
Your average person can’t understand all of these variables, and the average reviewer can’t control for all of them. So, “this CPU with these benchmarks in this case with this fan configuration” is the best you can really expect. Because otherwise, what reporting are you actually going to do? “This cooler with 3.2CFM of 26C airflow on a CPU dissipating 80W on one core and 10W on the other 7 cores results in a peak core temperature of 87°C and a package temperature of 81°C” is not useful reporting. Especially because, when the average person doesn’t understand it, they’re gonna buy a case fan that says 3.2CFM on the box and then wonder why their CPU’s throttling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNjoREOH80Y
He's a beast at BGA replacement, if you want to learn how to handle big chips he's the one to watch. But yeah, liquid metal sure seems to kill a lot of them, though typically just for the prosaic reason of getting somewhere it shouldn't and shorting something out.
Both seem to regularly face laptops and GPUs respectively that have BGAs shorted out by leaking liquid metal.
They are used on the Supermicro Power9 platform weirdly.
I wouldn't call them "reusable" since they do get crushed onto the chip or heatsink pretty hard and tend stick
I don’t think I’ll put anything liquid on my electronics ever again.
FWIW, you can set it horizontally. You need to use the -heh- stand they include for the purpose, but it's how I have mine configured and it works fine.
I get that size and shape of the case may make this the least popular way of orienting the hardware, but -unless they've decided to save ten cents by not including the stand- it's just as doable as the vertical orientation.