We all know FW went for Liquid Metal for performance reasons and then switched to PTM. I like PTM and am in no rush to switch it out on the items it’s already on but perhaps FW will consider this new material for future products?
It’s even sorta-kinda reusable lol
PTM can be difficult to work with and I like the idea of a TIM that the manufacturer says doesn’t need to be replaced for a decade. That’s pretty much the useful life of consumer electronics
Doesn’t honeywell say the same about ptm?
Personally, I don’t really understand why traditional thermal paste isn’t considered good enough anymore. PTM definitely has its advantages, but a quality paste like Arctic has worked perfectly fine for me over the years.
Honestly, I can’t even remember the last time I replaced thermal paste. I usually leave it alone until I notice temperatures climbing 5–10°C higher than normal, and even then it’s not exactly a frequent maintenance item.
That said, I do like the idea behind this carbon nanotube pad. At this point, I’d rather see manufacturers focus on truly long-term solutions that can last a decade or more without needing replacement. Whether it’s PTM, carbon nanotubes, or something else entirely, a “set it and forget it” thermal interface would be ideal.
In a perfect world, we’d be prioritizing longevity and sustainability over creating another consumable component. If a thermal solution can realistically last 10 years, that’s basically the entire useful lifespan of many consumer electronics anyway.
That is exactly the reason for PTM, you don’t need to change it anymore, unlike paste.
I don’t understand why you’d ever use traditional thermal paste again now that PTM 7950 is broadly available. It performs just as well, but in 10 years it hasn’t degraded and the paste has. The only advantage paste has is being significantly cheaper, but in this case “significantly” is a few cents per application rather than a few dollars, and the thing you’re applying it to probably cost hundreds or thousands.
I can’t imagine sacrificing either time or user experience on an expensive electronic device to save a few dollars.
Especially on laptops (small dies, direct die cooling) even a small improvement in thermal interface can have pretty big difference in either fan noise or performance. Back when only liquid metal was significantly better than only paste I could understand why it was not done because liquid metal is a pain to work with and has it’s drawbacks but now with ptm giving similar performance with none of the drawbacks it is kind of a no brainier.
+1
Actually it performs signifficantly better than any regular paste I am aware of, closer to lm than paste.
As someone running a small computer repair business in Canada, PTM7950 has never really been easy or cheap to source. I can buy Arctic MX-6 in bulk for far less through my suppliers, so it’s hard to justify the cost.
PTM definitely looks promising, but until it’s more affordable and easier to get, I’ll probably stick with what has worked for us for the last 10+ years. For long-term laptop repairs, we usually use Thermal Grizzly Duronaut since it tends to last much longer than standard paste.
Cost is certainly a factor for bulk stuff but for an enthusiast spending another couple $ to get a double digit percentage improvement in temperatures/fan noise and more max power out of a 1000+$ laptop is pretty easy to justify.
I love thermal grizzly but that stuff doesn’t seem significantly cheaper tpm (less of a pain to apply though).
That explains the difference in perspective then, and why most people here are ditching paste while it doesn’t look like it makes sense to you.
Most people here are probably using it on their personal device; they view it as a couple dollars up front to remove a maintenance/wear item on a device that will last a long time and is quite expensive.
You’re running a business and you’re doing both volume we don’t need to think about and might not have the margins to absorb it and remain profitable.
It’s definitely possible at scale since I believe FW themselves have switched to PTM (although IIRC they use a different formulation than 7950 that lends itself better to automated application), but they had to find a source, and they’re in a position where it seems like they can pass most of the BOM increase to their customers; I imagine a large portion of their base is completely happy to pay +2-3 USD per laptop in order to get PTM instead of paste.
If I was working in that sector I’d probably mostly not use ptm cause it is much more effort to apply vs paste (it’s not a lot but compared to the allmost 0 of paste…) and the bulk of customers would not appreciate it anyway.
I would hope it isn’t actually that much more expensive at scale. Compared to the lm on the 16 it’s probably even cheaper and thx to the botched implementation even performs better.
PTM comes in a paste form also. PTM 7958.
Pretty sure that is mainly intended for machine application so I don’t know how well it would work when used as a regular paste. You would have to spread it in a relatively controlled thin layer and can’t just blob and squish out like with regular paste.