Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
Have you tried kryonaut?! Whats your opinion?
The difference in pastes doesn't even matter......it's a few c at most. More often than not, with good cooling, you'll run into the limits of the cooler, silicon lottery, or just plain 'wow this is high, I don't want to run it at that speed' before you hit the limits where paste choice between MX-4 and Kryonaut matters.
And, anyone serious about overclocking, to the point where it would matter, would use Kryonaut on LN2 (Because LM doesn't work well at sub zero temps.), or Delid (if possible) and use liquid metal, or even direct die with liquid metal, so the performance would be the best it could.
I've seen more than enough tests, and a quick google search will tell you the same.
MX 4 is really not as good for overclocking as the one we are speaking here. You do you. I have used both. Every test i have seen, the people dont even put them in the same category of pastes! Be aware.
Kryonaut on higher clock speeds performs much better than mx4. Thats final!
Because every test I've seen ever (where they properly applied the paste), has shown Kryonaut being 1 degree or 2 better than MX-4.
Proof of statement?! You just said kryonaut was "better by 1 or 2 degrees" Thats the proof right there.
On higher clocks kryonaut was better in my real world experience.