rorage's repaste experience (finally)

[ziddy123]

Not again.... Keph you already did this before and convinced no one that Tunix was better than ICD7 or OCZ Freeze etc. If you like it fine, congratz on your repaste. But I am still unconvinced as I am sure many others are also. Your results are completely unverified, even searching the net for an hour, I couldn't find a shred of creditable evidence to back up your claims. Whereas ICD7, OCZ Extreme, MX-3 etc all have tons of verified user experiences, benchmarks and reviews. The only review of TX-4 I could find was analyzed by a few other forums and all conclusions, the review results were fake.

You had even created an entire thread for your unverified claims.
Repaste with Tuniq TX-4 Result is Better Than ICD...

[rorage]

ROFL, an isolated case does not make that paste better, there are a lot of conditions that may affect your temperatures, from ambient temperature and humidity to how smooth is the heatsink and how many transistors are faulty, and not only,
:P

[Tim4]

I can tell you more, just look at his GPU load during furmark run it's only ~61%!!!! That's nonsence, furmark always taxes GPU for 99%. I think it was done on battery.

[-keph-]

Not again.... Keph you already did this before and convinced no one that Tunix was better than ICD7 or OCZ Freeze etc. If you like it fine, congratz on your repaste. But I am still unconvinced as I am sure many others are also. Your results are completely unverified, even searching the net for an hour, I couldn't find a shred of creditable evidence to back up your claims. Whereas ICD7, OCZ Extreme, MX-3 etc all have tons of verified user experiences, benchmarks and reviews. The only review of TX-4 I could find was analyzed by a few other forums and all conclusions, the review results were fake.

You had even created an entire thread for your unverified claims.
Repaste with Tuniq TX-4 Result is Better Than ICD...

so u thought all i was doing was fake..??or unconvincing?TRY IT URSELF..ive used ICD7 Before (repasted it 3 times to get the lowest temp) and it didnt performed as well as the Tuniq TX-4..ICD7 is much more popular and well known than tuniq tx-4..but when the time comes u will all SEE that It's WAY BETTER...and btw unverified??? COME ON...I TOOK THE SCREEN SHOT ALREADY..!! STILL UNVERIFIED..???maybe im the only one in this forum who use tuniq tx-4...

[ziddy123]

Nope, completely unconvinced. ICD7 and others have thousands upon thousands of results verified, with users having similar results. I can't find a single result after searching, to back up your claim.

Fact that here on these forums, there are dozens upon dozens of ICD7 users having similar temps around 80C. That's believable.

Your temps aren't believable either. Even Tuniq claims TX-4 will reduce temps by around 1-2C over their TX-3. And TX-3 is never in the top 3 or top 5 in benchmark results either. So I have no idea what your results are doing because even what Tuniq claims and other benchmarks show, yours is completely different.

There is no way that TX-4 will reduce my temps by 10C. Thermal paste is just a paste to fill in the gaps between Core and Heatsink. And there is no way you can tell me that TX-4 paste is better than liquid metal, liquidpro which is only about 1-2C better than ICD7.

So yes, I do not believe your results, even with your screenshot, I am completely skeptical.

[-keph-]

Nope, completely unconvinced. ICD7 and others have thousands upon thousands of results verified, with users having similar results.

well then i cant say anything else im just trying to tell u guys that its really better..i tried both of them already..congrats on the ICD7 with gpu maxed below 80c but ill stick with my tuniq tx-4 with maxed gpu at below 70c...

[ziddy123]

This is a link to a review of TX-4 with fake results: http://www.overclockershq.com/coolin...#axzz10pH5xw00
- These results are better than water cooling verified by OverClockers who use water cooling on the same CPU.
- Far as I know you may be the person who did that fake review also.

Seems to be legit review, unimpressive: http://umlan.com/reviews/miscellaneous/m22.html
- His results are 1C better than Noctua NT-H1... NT-H1 is about the same as AS5, maybe 1C better.

And I'm just saying you already spent 4 pages in a thread you created and convinced no one. And I have yet to find another result to verify your claims. None, zero.
- I'm beginning to think you are trying to promote Tuniq TX-4.

TX-4 is just a solution of aluminum and silica compound, nothing special.

This is from Tuniq, TX-4 being 1C better than TX-3 and ICD7 is better than TX-3 in every single result. But you are trying to tell me TX-4 magically reduced temps by 10C over ICD7? Sorry I won't even attempt to use TX-4 to verify this, as I do not believe it at all. There is a reason why no one knows Tuniq. Barely anyone even used TX-3 when that was getting reviews....

[-keph-]

Nope, completely unconvinced. ICD7 and others have thousands upon thousands of results verified, with users having similar results. I can't find a single result after searching, to back up your claim.

Fact that here on these forums, there are dozens upon dozens of ICD7 users having similar temps around 80C. That's believable.

Your temps aren't believable either. Even Tuniq claims TX-4 will reduce temps by around 1-2C over their TX-3. And TX-3 is never in the top 3 or top 5 in benchmark results either. So I have no idea what your results are doing because even what Tuniq claims and other benchmarks show, yours is completely different.

There is no way that TX-4 will reduce my temps by 10C. Thermal paste is just a paste to fill in the gaps between Core and Heatsink. And there is no way you can tell me that TX-4 paste is better than liquid metal, liquidpro which is only about 1-2C better than ICD7.

So yes, I do not believe your results, even with your screenshot, I am completely skeptical.

then do u think im lying or i did a photo shop..??maybe im one of the few lucky onwer of the g73jh with the best gpu structure/built (or the best from the production site)...all i did was repasted and put in on my CYRO LX cooling pad and then benchmark..thats all..

[-keph-]

This is a link to a review of TX-4 with fake results: Tuniq TX-4 Thermal Compound Review - www.OverclockersHQ.com
- These results are better than water cooling verified by OverClockers who use water cooling on the same CPU.
- Far as I know you may be the person who did that fake review also.

And I'm just saying you already spent 4 pages in a thread you created and convinced no one. And I have yet to find another result to verify your claims. None, zero.
- I'm beginning to think you are trying to promote Tuniq TX-4.

This is from Tuniq, TX-4 being 1C better than TX-3 and ICD7 is better than TX-3 in every single result. But you are trying to tell me TX-4 magically reduced temps by 10C over ICD7? Sorry I won't even attempt to use TX-4 to verify this, as I do not believe it at all. There is a reason why no one knows Tuniq. Barely anyone even used TX-3 when that was getting reviews....

Then good luck with ur ICD7 and yes im trying to promote (not im a seller or the marketing agent from tuniq) the Tuniq tx-4 cuz im trying to help users to make their gpu and cpu temps lower than normal..thats all..like ive told u just now..maybe im the lucky owner of the G73JH with the best gpu structure..like chastity's...

and btw i was not the reviewer of that website...im in beijing studying chinese for 1 year what for i have a DESKTOP over here and a G73JH..?come on dont be jealous of my temps..if u are just say it dont deny it..

AND PLS STOP FINDING THE REVIEW OF TX-4 THEN IF U DONT TRUST IT OR BELIEVE IT..TRY IT (ISNT IT THAT HARD) STOP DISSING MY RESULTS..

and sorry to the thread starter about all of this..cheers..

[ziddy123]

then do u think im lying or i did a photo shop..??maybe im one of the few lucky onwer of the g73jh with the best gpu structure/built (or the best from the production site)...all i did was repasted and put in on my CYRO LX cooling pad and then benchmark..thats all..

I'm not going to assume what you did. But yes I do not think your results are real. There is nothing, absolutely nothing out there that would even suggest TX-4 would drop 10C over ICD7 when it seems more likely ICD7 is better than TX-4, the exact opposite.

Sorry, don't know what your intentions are, but I'm not buying it, and I do not think anyone should make their purchase decision on their TIM based on what you've posted.