A happy update from me, and Framework Support came through the 2nd time around. (For some reason, I’m not able to post more than 3 replies to the other existing thread)
Framework Support saw my forum posts from before, and proactively reached out to me, case got escalated, and with them sending me new thermal paste. That got applied, and I’m now a happy camper again. Don’t know why the original thermal paste in the DIY unit wasn’t able to hit this OOTB.
Here’s the result:
Very cool. I’ve never ever heard of a company proactively reaching out to their customers and helping them resolve problems, all while eating the cost. If you asked Dell or Lenovo for some paste they’d laugh in your face.
Framework CS deserves infinite kudos!
Great to hear that. Product longevity and customer happiness go hand in hand.
Reading your post I decided to try and repaste with my MX-4 and it did help with overall performance (cinebench R23.2 scores are up 5%) however max power is slightly lower, core 3 will always thermal throttle the CPU, core 1 is usually close behind while core 0 and 2 can be over 10*C lower when throttling occurs.
Prior to the repaste the thermal deltas were smaller but overall performance was lower also.
Given that cores 0 and 2 are similar temps and 1 and 3 are similar temperature I believe the physical core layout would suggest this is a mounting pressure or flatness issue. I tried repasteing and remounting several times, same results.
Can anyone confirm the die layout?
In my case, the thermal paste from Framework seems to perform better than MX-4. You might want to give that a go.
Do you mean the factory paste or have you been sent some paste from support?
Both right off the assembly line from the factory, as well as the tube they send you. MX-4 is a downgrade in my testing, on my unit, over multiple applications of MX-4, and from the tube sent by Framework.
(Able to go as high as 63.1w in peak load…momentarily with the tube from Framework)
Unexpected given Framework Thermal Paste shows lower thermal conductivity of 6.2 vs 8.5 W/(mK). That and in my test I have improved overall performance with the repaste but reduced peak wattage.
Can I ask what your peaks were like before?
From factory, 55w peak. MX-4, 49w peak. Framework tube, 59w peak.
Framework tube + lapping + slightly bent retention pins (where the three screw goes, to increase pressure): 63w peak.
Personally, I don’t look much into what the specs are on paper (thermal conductivity)…but rather I go with what I can actually get…on the units / products that I have.
OK thanks, that is quite a jump i will contact support see if they can provide some cream for ma hot CPU
The other one I tried was Kryonaut…that peaked at 52.8w for me.
Mind you, I’m not sure if the ‘freshness’ of the paste from their factory plays a part. My tube of MX-4 is approaching 18 months-20 months old (since purchase):
I would assume there’s some shelf-life involved…but not as short as 18 months (stored in a draw, under 21c). MX-4 has a 7 years applied / functional life span IIRC.
Also, I’ve since used the Framework tube on two of my other laptops…and that lowered the CPU temp in both cases as well (with no lapping nor increase pressure).
My MX4 is the “2019 edition” so I guess maybe on the older side. It does sound like the paste they provided is very good though, I wonder what it is.
Following and jumping in as I repasted with some old MX-2 and Arctic Silver 5 tubes last weekend to see if I can optimize thermal performance.
How are y’all measuring peak TDP? And what about results over a prolonged period of time?
@Usernames I’m getting similar discrepancies in core temperatures (e.g. two cores are ~5C hotter than the other two). And currently mine can only sustain 20W package TDP in a single-thread workload (like Cinebench R23 single-core) I think due to thermal throttling. Not sure if normal – I managed to max at ~1450 in single-core Cinebench R23, whereas 1500+ is supposedly normal from reviews etc.
Multi-core workloads seem okay, though (edit: I can sustain 28W package TDP). I think it’s because the heat load is spread across the chip/heatsink and there’s enough thermal headroom, whereas there isn’t for a single core. Still conjecture at this point, and day to day performance is very good – just wondering if there’s room for improvement, and how to get there.
Which CPU?
I’m using HWInfo64 and throttlestop to measure TDP, stressing with prime95 and cinebench R23.2. I would have to check but I think I see about 15W-18W single core and 40-42W all core.
Oh right this thread’s for the i7-1185G7, I have an i7-1165G7. Which CPU do you have?
I was comparing to Notebookcheck’s numbers. Caveat, the review’s from 7/26/2021 so things may have changed.
Thanks for the numbers – they’re very similar to what I was seeing with mine when I tested in Windows 10 with Cinebench R23 and ThrottleStop. I can confirm that I was also only able to sustain 15W-18W single core, though it seemed to improve after I repasted with the spread method instead of the pea/line method to ensure the entire die was covered. Unfortunately, I didn’t care enough to write down hard numbers.
I’ll jump into Windows later tonight to check peak TDP in single/multi-core (some curing time has passed with the Arctic Silver 5) – let me know if you’d like anything for comparison.
My curiosity’s piqued – what did you lap, the heatsink or the die? Bending the retention pins seems definitely risky, but definitely something I’m interested in 
I’m thinking about ordering Framework’s tube or Kryonaut, ehh.
It’s actually stated what it is in Marketplace. Here is a thread I made regarding that if you’re curious.
Shin-Etsu X-23-8117
I have the i5 1135G7. I think the reviews are using the same CPU as yours so should be comparable.
I did some more testing 15W single core in cincebench, seems logical also considering 4 core 60W boost. I also see slightly better deltas between cores of 5-8 rather than 8-10 but otherwise unchanged.
@Second_Coming Good mods, I’m not going to do any hardware modifications till after my warranty expires to avoid potential issues but I think a little bending of the clamps would be an easy win but exposed die so some caution needed 
You said you got lower performance with Kyronaut than the FW provided one, that is a high end paste IMO I’m not sure why high end thermal paste is needed to get to 60W boost, seems a little odd.
During my testing, it seems that some paste / composition is better / worse at a given pressure and / or smoothness of the contact.
Conventional wisdom seems to suggest the smoother, the better. But I’m not so sure anymore. Maybe some roughness is better(? big maybe). roughness means more surface area…for the paste to take the heat, and to pass on the heat to the heat sink.
If the other medium is a fluid (air or liquid)…then we seem to want more surface area. But with a solid, people seem to want flat…really flat / smooth. I’m not entirely sure when the two switches position. The viscosity come into play, I assume, as we’re going from a solid (die) to fluid (paste?) to solid (contact plate).
Well one thing you have reminded me is that some paste perform better under lower mounting pressures and some higher, I think viscosity and small particle size might make the difference there.
The idea is fill the gaps where the two solids don’t meet perfectly with paste right so perfectly mated parts should be the best but I have also seen Kingpin suggest when lapping to take the mirror finish off for the paste to have more to integrate into. Seems strange and could be a LN2 OC specific thing to avoid cracking, I would expect the less paste the better because they conducts less heat than the direct metal contact of the heat sink pressure being high enough.
