• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Ordered some Liquid Ultra

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

trents

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Anybody tried this stuff between the heat spreader and CPU cooler base. A lot of folks use it when delidding but my 2600k already has fluxless solder TIM under the hood. I know it can be challenging to spread but I'm looking for input as to how much improvement over good non liquid metal TIM products we normally use like AS5 or MX2/MX4? Can't find any real test data.
 
i've used it, works like a charm,
although there have been reports that it "dried-out" after a few months.
I wouldn't know about that, had it on between IHS & HS/Block for about a year, till i changed cooler (and couldn't be bothered with applying again - used PK3 as its only temporary) and i didn't notice any real degradation... so it probably comes down to how it has been applied to start with.

However, afterwards you basically have to lap CPU/HS to get rid of the residue, but lapping is not a bad thing :)

All in all, it works well... although a bit labour intensive :) Is it worth the effort & cost? That's an individual choice :)

I've used it partly out of curiosity, partly because it outperforms any other TIM (except CLP & Indigo) and thus have better cooling.... not because i wanted to achieve insane overclocks, but the cooler the CPU, the lower the fan RPM, the less the noise :)

see also some on the other board
 
Anybody tried this stuff between the heat spreader and CPU cooler base. A lot of folks use it when delidding but my 2600k already has fluxless solder TIM under the hood. I know it can be challenging to spread but I'm looking for input as to how much improvement over good non liquid metal TIM products we normally use like AS5 or MX2/MX4? Can't find any real test data.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thermal-paste-performance-benchmark,3616.html

Here is another: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Thermal-Compound-Roundup-January-2012/1468/5

(googled 'thermal paste review')
 
Last edited:
I have used is, and i am running it between my I5 2500K and ek block, not checked on it since i mounted it, but works.

I have it between IHS and cpu on my 4770K, but before i did a delid, i ran it on my 4770K ihs and ek block. Left a very messy surface on the EK block, so bad, i plan a lapping session on it at some point.

Right now, i have it running between IHS and CPU on 4770K, but i run MX-2 between IHS and EK block!

And yes, its a right b**** to apply, does not like to spread.
 
Hm. Me having second thoughts. Liquid Ultra doesn't seem to do any better than a lot of the better conventional pastes according to the testing in that link.
:clap:

Spot on.. we have said that in several already existing thermal paste threads... :thup:
 
or mustard.... its that smell thou
it makes you want to drop a few wieners in reservoir and some onion or sauerkraut on the gpu
 
or mustard.... its that smell thou
it makes you want to drop a few wieners in reservoir and some onion or sauerkraut on the gpu

Some of them CPUs get hot enough to cooke wieners!
 
I like the toothpaste TIM idea. That way the heat spreader and the hea tsink base won't get cavities. And with the fine abrasives they put in tooth paste it might make good lapping polish.
 
I like the toothpaste TIM idea. That way the heat spreader and the hea tsink base won't get cavities. And with the fine abrasives they put in tooth paste it might make good lapping polish.

That is actually the second to last stage of extreme lapping.. toothpaste + silk cloth
(works for car windshield also to get rid of those "burned in" water droplet residue spots)
 
Okay, the Liquid Ultra arrived this week and I just not applied it and tested.

Results: It lowered my max temps on the hottest core by 6c (69c to 63c after 10 minutes of IBT on high setting). I ran the stress test immediately before changing the TIM and immediately after applying it. Same ambient temp, same fans, same everything. When I removed the cooler to apply the Liquid Ultra, the coverage pattern with the old TIM was 100% (Tuniq TX-4) so the improvement could not be accounted for by poor contact/poor TIM coverage originally.

To my way of thinking, that is way more than a marginal improvement and makes the extra expense of the Liquid Ultra a fantastic bargain. I could probably not beat that improvement by investing a lot more in a high end AIO water cooler (which I may do anyway).

For those of you who said it won't make much difference over a good high quality conventional TIM . . . sorry, but you were wrong.
 
I used to use Cool Lab Liquid Pro. Anyone who thinks or says its too hard to apply aren't doing it right. After the first time it's easy. The 2 sites who tested above were using way, way too much, you should end up with an extremely thin layer of a few microns thick and not have any blobs no matter how tiny. Any 'professional' tester who can get 2ºC worse results compared to Arctic Silver 5 isn't doing a very competent job of testing.

I consistently got better results of up to 4ºC on both a Core i7 920 and 970 compared to MX2 when the CPUs were heavily overclocked. However at stock speeds there was barely any measurable difference between CLLP and MX2.

I stopped using it because I was fed up with lapping to get the stuff off both the CPU and water blocks plus it removed the markings from the CPUs and probably more importantly I decided to stop chasing every degree when I was already getting excellent temperatures with overkill water cooling anyway.
 
I used to use Cool Lab Liquid Pro. Anyone who thinks or says its too hard to apply aren't doing it right. After the first time it's easy. The 2 sites who tested above were using way, way too much, you should end up with an extremely thin layer of a few microns thick and not have any blobs no matter how tiny. Any 'professional' tester who can get 2ºC worse results compared to Arctic Silver 5 isn't doing a very competent job of testing.

I consistently got better results of up to 4ºC on both a Core i7 920 and 970 compared to MX2 when the CPUs were heavily overclocked. However at stock speeds there was barely any measurable difference between CLLP and MX2.

I stopped using it because I was fed up with lapping to get the stuff off both the CPU and water blocks plus it removed the markings from the CPUs and probably more importantly I decided to stop chasing every degree when I was already getting excellent temperatures with overkill water cooling anyway.

You make some good points.

Concerning removal, I've yet to come to that hurdle as this is my first experience with it but supposedly . . . supposedly, it comes off pretty easy with a scruff pad and they even include one with the TIM kit.

The only problem I encountered with the application was getting the blob to let go from the end of the syringe. So I pushed the plunger some more and before I knew it I had pushed out way more than I needed to - over half the syringe. In retrospect I think I could have dislodged it with the applicator brush. The excess seems not to have had much negative impact on temps, however, since I got 6c improvement over an excellent quality conventional TIM. Next time I think I can get by with less. Live and learn, I guess.

I found it very easy to spread with the brush applicator which was one complaint a lot of people had. I didn't find that to be an issue.
 
Back