Review of Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet vs Traditional Thermal Paste

TL/DR: KryoSheet good

Introduction:

The objective of this was to evaluate the effectiveness of Thermal Grizzly Kryosheet in comparison to conventional thermal paste. Kryosheet offers the advantage of prolonged longevity without the risk of drying out, reducing the maintenance burden, especially when used in conjunction with hard-line water tubing systems where disassembly can be cumbersome. In contrast, traditional thermal paste typically requires reapplication every 6 to 24 months, depending on the specific type used and the conditions used in. For this experiment, rather than applying fresh thermal paste to a system assembled six months ago, I opted to run the system with its existing thermal paste and compare it to the performance of Kryosheet. This approach aims to underscore the longevity benefit of Kryosheet. Additionally, this study draws inspiration from a recent video by Jayz2Cents that also compared fresh thermal paste with Kryosheet.

Methods:

The test system featured an undervolted Ryzen 7 5800x3D processor, with a reduction of -25 mV on the two best cores and -30 mV on the remaining six cores. Cooling was provided by an EK AIO unit within a Lian Li A4H2O case. Upon the initial assembly of this system, Gelid GC-Extreme thermal paste was applied in an "X" pattern 6 months ago. Ambient room temperature was maintained within the range of 21.7°C to 22.2°C (71°F to 72°F). Once the system was booted, all startup programs were closed, and the system was allowed to idle for 20 minutes. Temperature measurements, including average and maximum Tdie, CPU Die (average), CPU CCD1, Core Temperatures, and L3 temperatures, were recorded using HWinfo version 7.42. Subsequently, the system underwent three consecutive Cinebench r23 Multicore tests (each lasting approximately 10 minutes), during which the aforementioned temperature metrics plus the Cinebench scores, and the Average Effective Frequency of the CPU were documented. A 10-20 minute idle period between runs was implemented to ensure consistent scores (within 20 points), and the highest score was recorded. The information from HWinfo was recorded 1 minute into the run so as to stabilize the loop and ended half way through the last run.

Following this initial testing phase, the waterblock was removed, and the CPU integrated heat spreader (IHS) was cleaned with isopropyl alcohol. A Kryosheet cut to the size of the entire IHS (38 mm by 38 mm) was applied and secured in place. The same battery of tests was then rerun with the only variable being the thermal interface material. All other conditions, including the position and location of the case and room temperature, remained constant.

Results:

+ A B C D E F
1 Idle
2 Thermal Paste Max Avg KryoSheet Max Avg
3 TCtl/TDie 45.9 40.3 TCtl/TDie 42.4 37.4
4 Die Avg 44.9 37.9 Die Avg 39.3 34.7
5 CCD1 48.3 41 CCD1 48 38.8
6 Core Avg 44.3 34.3 Core Avg 37.2 32.7
7 L3 37.9 35.8 L3 34.9 34.1

In the above table, the max temps are lower, however that is just one data point in time. The average temperatures over a 10-20 minute idle period are a lot lower with the KryoSheet than they are with the thermal paste by approximately 3 degrees Celsius.

But we're not looking to keep our PCs idling. The following is during a Cinebench run:

+ A B C D E F
1 Cinebnech Run
2 Thermal Paste Max Avg KryoSheet Max Avg
3 TCtl/TDie 83.1 82.7 TCtl/TDie 82.9 82.4
4 Die Avg 82.8 82.1 Die Avg 82.7 81.9
5 CCD1 89.3 82.3 CCD1 83.8 81.9
6 Core Avg 82.8 79.4 Core Avg 82.5 79.2
7 L3 50.5 49.5 L3 Avg 49.9 49.1

On Thermal Paste Cinebench Score was 14,761 average frequency was 4301 mHz.

With the KryoSheet, Cinebench Score was 14,787 average frequency was 4308 mHz.

Conclusion:

The study reveals that substantial benefits of using KryoSheet are seen during idling. However, the practicality of this improvement is questionable since PCs are typically powered on with the intention to use them. On the other hand, when subjected to a stress test, the results indicate only marginal temperature and performance enhancements with KryoSheet, which may not be significant, especially for gaming purposes. Is the cost justified over a tried and true tube of thermal paste.

It's worth noting that the thermal paste used in this comparison was six months old, and a freshly applied thermal paste might yield better results. However, the study was intentionally conducted in this manner, as users don't frequently reapply thermal paste. Over time, the advantage of thermal paste could diminish.

From this study, it can be concluded that KryoSheet is not inferior to traditional thermal paste. Given that performance is nearly equal, KryoSheet may be advantageous for systems that are challenging to disassemble and maintain, such as ITX builds and water-cooled setups. The main drawback is the cost, although it can potentially save money in the long run by reducing the need for multiple tubes of thermal paste.

There is limited data available on long term performance due to how new KryoSheet is. Additionally, different CPUs may exhibit varying results. While KryoSheet worked well with the 5800x3D, it may not perform as effectively with denser CPUs like the 5900x or 5950. It's also essential to consider how GPUs perform and whether there's a difference between water-cooled and air-cooled builds.

The plan moving forward is to continue benchmarking this system monthly or bi-monthly to assess whether the performance remains consistent. Another test will be conducted on a different build featuring a custom loop cooling system with a 3080 GPU and a 5900x CPU in a Lian Li q58 case with a 360mm radiator. This will provide further insights into the applicability of KryoSheet.

For now, I can recommend KryoSheet and I will continue to use it on this build.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or suggestions for refining this study.