Could you make a photo of the precautions installed by FW for LM?
Framework does not install liquid metal for any of the Framework 13s as they are designed for thermal paste only. They haven’t made any official announcement about a switch to liquid metal for the 13.
Do you happen to have a picture of what you saw?
I don’t have any photos from when I first got it. I might open it up to take some. Not really excited to do so, LM gets everywhere with the slightest provocation.
Oh, if you don’t have pictures of how it originally was, then it’s fine.
Since when are they doing that on the 13? Or are you talking about a 16 with a hs chip?
In my testing the difference between lm and ptm was margin of error at least without going to great lengths to bypass stapm throttling and I only figured that out after I moved on to lm so I was not able to see if it makes a bigger difference at higher loads.
If I knew then what I know now I’d probably not have moved on to lm but my mind could not comprehend a pad being allmost as good as lm so i expected even bigger imprevements XD.
The trick is not provoking it XD
But yeah nasty stuff, is conductive, goes everywhere and eats solder (and aluminum which the laptop happens to be made of). So ptm having most of the performance with none of that mess was quite a surprise to me.
I’ve had my core ultra for a couple weeks now (loving it (Ultra 7 155H) and had some leftover thermal pads (this Honeywell stuff we’re talking about in this thread). What would be the best course of action to get some results for the rest of the community of before and after?
Hopefully it stays that way! I think the safety of PTM7950 is worth the minuscule performance difference.
2 Likes
I agree with you on this one. I would much prefer the 13 sticking to either regular thermal paste we can easily replace with PTM, or switching to PTM instead of thermal paste.
I have yet to find a single real reason to use liquid metal over PTM.
2 Likes